# Gay marriage



## exphys88 (Apr 1, 2013)




----------



## jay_steel (Apr 2, 2013)

I personally do not agree with gay marriage, but i have two reason why i support it. We live in a free country and i support freedom and as a follower of christ it is not my duty to judge others for their belief. Only God can make that decision not me.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 2, 2013)

It has little to do with what you think of gay marriage on a personal level. It has more to do with not wanting one more way for the government to tell you what you can and cannot do.

Also, I like to think of gay marriage as a victimless crime.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 2, 2013)

Im compeletly against it, marriage is natural between a man and a woman! If gays want to live their lives different to do it in private. I dont want to have to see that in public its not natural. But thats just me. I worked with a guy that was gay, he kept it to himself and was pretty cool and laid back, he knew I was against and never tried to force me to accept what he did in private as ok to do in public, likewise I never forced him to believe my way either. He kept his life private and I kept my opinions private. And we lived in peace.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 2, 2013)

regardless of ones beliefs on marriage if you changed your facebook profile to the stupid red and pink box you are a fag and should be shot. you shouldn't be shot for being a fag, but for posting the most annoying symbol in the history of the world on social media. Holy shit that red box with the pink equal sign makes me want to vote against gay marriage just because of how offensive that symbol is to my ocular sense.

In other news it's a state issue. The states have always had the right to regulate marriage. We don't allow family members to marry, and we don't allow polygamy. If you argue for gay marriage how do you argue against polygamy? If cousins want to get married why shouldn't they be able to? 

all 3 of those cartoons at the top are stupid by the way.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 2, 2013)

regardless of ones beliefs on marriage if you changed your facebook profile to the stupid red and pink box you are a fag and should be shot. you shouldn't be shot for being a fag, but for posting the most annoying symbol in the history of the world on social media. Holy shit that red box with the pink equal sign makes me want to vote against gay marriage just because of how offensive that symbol is to my ocular sense.

In other news it's a state issue. The states have always had the right to regulate marriage. We don't allow family members to marry, and we don't allow polygamy. If you argue for gay marriage how do you argue against polygamy? If cousins want to get married why shouldn't they be able to? 

all 3 of those cartoons at the top are stupid by the way.

I thought Homos had style and taste? How the hell did they let stupid ass sign out of committee?


----------



## MDR (Apr 2, 2013)

Seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is about civil rights.  It will pass, it's only a matter of time.  Personally, I hope the time is now.   I do agree with Bio-chem and his vehemence against all the insipid symbols people use to display their particular views.  I'm not into social media for the most part, and I wouldn't start a facebook page if you paid me to do it.  All these fucking ribbons and such drive me crazy.  As if wearing a ribbon  or symbol makes any difference.  Such an easy way for people to delude themselves that they are doing something about whatever issues they support.  Just vote your conscience.  If you want to do something, volunteer your time or donate your money to back your cause.


----------



## jay_steel (Apr 2, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> regardless of ones beliefs on marriage if you changed your facebook profile to the stupid red and pink box you are a fag and should be shot. you shouldn't be shot for being a fag, but for posting the most annoying symbol in the history of the world on social media. Holy shit that red box with the pink equal sign makes me want to vote against gay marriage just because of how offensive that symbol is to my ocular sense.
> 
> In other news it's a state issue. The states have always had the right to regulate marriage. We don't allow family members to marry, and we don't allow polygamy. If you argue for gay marriage how do you argue against polygamy? If cousins want to get married why shouldn't they be able to?
> 
> all 3 of those cartoons at the top are stupid by the way.



that is actually a pretty good point. Love is love right thats what they say..


----------



## blergs. (Apr 2, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Im compeletly against it, marriage is natural between a man and a woman! If gays want to live their lives different to do it in private. I dont want to have to see that in public its not natural. But thats just me. I worked with a guy that was gay, he kept it to himself and was pretty cool and laid back, he knew I was against and never tried to force me to accept what he did in private as ok to do in public, likewise I never forced him to believe my way either. He kept his life private and I kept my opinions private. And we lived in peace.



actually its is naturally found in just about all animals.... and can be genetic, its not just the mind.

no im not gay, but could care less who is...
don't like, don't look.

world is angry enough.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 2, 2013)

What if those kids want to have both mom and dad like their friends have when they grow up?  Kids are the victims.  I hate fuggin libtards.  It is not only religious value, it is also human right.  They should be only allowed to adopt gay teens.


----------



## bmw (Apr 2, 2013)

I hope it passes.  


Then I can't wait for the first gay divorce.  Who will get half of whose shit?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 2, 2013)

bmw said:


> I hope it passes.
> 
> 
> Then I can't wait for the first gay divorce.  Who will get half of whose shit?



First gay divorce? The first time gay marriage was legalized in the San Francisco, the first gay divorce happened a couple hours later (technically an annulment).


----------



## bmw (Apr 2, 2013)

DOMS said:


> First gay divorce? The first time gay marriage was legalized in the San Francisco, the first gay divorce happened a couple hours later (technically an annulment).



So nobody got half of anybody's shit then?  

See that's what I'm waiting for.  More of a long term thing probably.

Seriously though.  Let the gays marry and legalize (and tax) weed. 

Any other issues I need to solve/resolve while you got me here?

*edit* I'm also pretty sure we can tax gay marriage.  I mean it costs to get license, right? Think of the money we're leaving on the table.  Really hike up the cost of all marriage licenses while we're at it.  Let people really think about that shit before doing it.  Maybe we'd have more serious applicants and divorce rates would decline?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 2, 2013)

bmw said:


> So nobody got half of anybody's shit then?



This is the part of gay marriage that interests me. When two muff-divers get divorced, who get's the children and an unfair share of the property?


----------



## hoyle21 (Apr 2, 2013)

DOMS said:


> This is the part of gay marriage that interests me. When two muff-divers get divorced, who get's the children and an unfair share of the property?



My guess is the one who hires the best lawyer


----------



## dogsoldier (Apr 2, 2013)

I am not pro-gay marriage for the same reasons others have posted. However, I also believe that it is NOT the goobermint's place to be involved in what goes on between two consenting adults. I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was pure bullshit. In the past, people got married simply by living together. Then as the world progressed, some form of oath before witnesses happened and a feast followed. Then the churches got in the game and registered marriages.  The state saw a perfect opportunity to put their nose where it does not belong and require a license or certificate to legalize the marriage. The earliest know American marriage certificate is in the Smithsonian dated 1632 or in that area. After WWI when the solders wee coming back from Europe with venereal diseases, the government claimed it was a safety issue to check out both partner before they could marry.  However, this did not mention the fact that there was a fee (tax) associated with the civil marriage license.  The role of government in marriage issues is revenue driven, just like everything else.  Marriage is something regulated by the states, not the federal government and it should left at that.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 2, 2013)

fit26 said:


> What if those kids want to have both mom and dad like their friends have when they grow up?  Kids are the victims.  I hate fuggin libtards.  It is not only religious value, it is also human right.  They should be only allowed to adopt gay teens.



So far all the research suggests kids raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals.  

Religious value?  What makes you think you get to impose your religious views on others?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 2, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> I personally do not agree with gay marriage, but i have two reason why i support it. We live in a free country and i support freedom and as a follower of christ it is not my duty to judge others for their belief. Only God can make that decision not me.



Exactly, and as an American you don't get to impose your religion on others.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 2, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> regardless of ones beliefs on marriage if you changed your facebook profile to the stupid red and pink box you are a fag and should be shot. you shouldn't be shot for being a fag, but for posting the most annoying symbol in the history of the world on social media. Holy shit that red box with the pink equal sign makes me want to vote against gay marriage just because of how offensive that symbol is to my ocular sense.
> 
> In other news it's a state issue. The states have always had the right to regulate marriage. We don't allow family members to marry, and we don't allow polygamy. If you argue for gay marriage how do you argue against polygamy? If cousins want to get married why shouldn't they be able to?
> 
> ...



I'm for gay marriage, and I'm not opposed to polygamy or marrying ones cousin.  Who gives a shit?

And, whether its a state or fed issue, there is no legitimate reason to discriminate against them.  The case in review right now is based solely on the fact that gays can't procreate, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry.  It's a losing argument for those opposed, and they just look really stupid trying to come up w reasons it should be illegal.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 2, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Exactly, and as an American you don't get to impose your religion on others.



You do realize that gays sometimes bring things upon themselves, right?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Apr 2, 2013)

there's gunna be cum on everything


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 3, 2013)

DOMS said:


> You do realize that gays sometimes bring things upon themselves, right?



Bring what things upon themselves?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 3, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Bring what things upon themselves?



Crap like Prop 8.


----------



## jagbender (Apr 4, 2013)

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

This book handed out to Middle schoolers in Massachuchets school 
[h=3]"The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century"[/h]







"The Little Black Book - Queer in	the 21st Century."  Handed out at Brookline High School during GLSEN event April 30, 2005.
*Is this the future?*  This booklet was distributed to *hundreds of kids (middle school age and up)* at Brookline High School, Brookline, MA, on April 30, 2005. It was written by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee, with help  with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston  Public Health Commission.
The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts,  *organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN).*   This is the group that runs "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools  across the country. You must ask yourself: What kind of person would write this? What kind of person  would give it to kids? Where is this movement headed?
*Click here for full report of event*,  including photos, news reports, Governor's statement, and more.
*Here's the reaction from a medical expert on sexual transmitted diseases:* *click here*.
_We've posted parts of this book below,_ or you can *View and Download full version *


----------



## jagbender (Apr 4, 2013)

Scroll down to see how the book handed out to middle schoolers tell them how to have gay sex Etc.  

 Click on the link had scroll down to how sarfe is Dat?    woould you want this mandated to be given to your middle school aged children? 
Little Black Book


----------



## jagbender (Apr 4, 2013)

He who controls the education of our children. controls the future of our children!


----------



## Burnf (Apr 4, 2013)

"What if those kids want to have both mom and dad like their friends have when they grow up? Kids are the victims. I hate fuggin libtards. It is not only religious value, it is also human right. They should be only allowed to adopt gay teens."

In terms of kids raised by gay parents, many are adopted. Go into foster care and ask any kid if they would reject having a home based on the sexuality of their caregivers. 
Also, think your shi# through. This is fugging reality. Life isn't fair. Kids get abandoned, have deadbeat parents, get abused, starved and worse. If you think the biggest concern a kid could have is the perception of some classmates, you're an actual fugging retard. A child raised by parents that actually want them is a blessed child, regardless prudish social stigma.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 4, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Crap like Prop 8.



Explain how they bring on a law that prevents them from marrying.  Prop 8 is the result of people trying to impose their opinion of marriage on others.  I'm not following you here.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 4, 2013)

jagbender said:


> He who controls the education of our children. controls the future of our children!



If you're a bigot, and want your kids to be bigots, educate them yourself, simple solution.  Sorry, but your homophobia isn't a good enough reason for gays to be discriminated against.


----------



## dieseljimmy (Apr 4, 2013)

This whole gay marriage thing has been way to over complicated. Homosexuals are people that share a full range of emotions with hetrosexuals. Pay taxes, serve in our military, police and fire control forces like hetro sexuals. The federal government has become joke because they spend time legislating issues like this.   This is a no brainer... No federal law should ban gay marriage. Move it to the states and let them take the pulse of their state. You don't like your states position stance one way or the other...move. Let people live the life they want.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 4, 2013)

dieseljimmy said:


> This whole gay marriage thing has been way to over complicated. Homosexuals are people that share a full range of emotions with hetrosexuals. Pay taxes, serve in our military, police and fire control forces like hetro sexuals. The federal government has become joke because they spend time legislating issues like this.   This is a no brainer... No federal law should ban gay marriage. Move it to the states and let them take the pulse of their state. You don't like your states position stance one way or the other...move. Let people live the life they want.



I agree, but states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate either.  People shouldn't have to move to another state to avoid discrimination.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 4, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Explain how they bring on a law that prevents them from marrying.  Prop 8 is the result of people trying to impose their opinion of marriage on others.  I'm not following you here.



Prop 8 got the backing it needed because there were some gays that were trying to force churches that didn't agree with the gay marriage to marry them. The churches wouldn't do it, so the gays started suing the churches. This caused many churches to get behind the Prop with a lot of people and money. If it wasn't for that, I doubt Prop 8 would've passed -- blacks or no blacks.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 4, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Prop 8 got the backing it needed because there were some gays that were trying to force churches that didn't agree with the gay marriage to marry them. The churches wouldn't do it, so the gays started suing the churches. This caused many churches to get behind the Prop with a lot of people and money. If it wasn't for that, I doubt Prop 8 would've passed -- blacks or no blacks.



Ahh, gotcha.  Well, I think they're wrong for trying to force churches to marry them.  One thing I agree w Christians about is that the bible forbids it.  Churches should have the freedom to make that decision, even if their religion is a lie.


----------



## dieseljimmy (Apr 4, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I agree, but states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate either.  People shouldn't have to move to another state to avoid discrimination.



Your totally correct. But I think this is such a hot button topic that some give and take is going to be required. Whether I like it or not.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 4, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Ahh, gotcha.  Well, I think they're wrong for trying to force churches to marry them.  One thing I agree w Christians about is that the bible forbids it.  Churches should have the freedom to make that decision, even if their religion is a lie.



Correct. Just because one is gay -- whether it's a genetic or mental defect -- you shouldn't force people to go against their beliefs.


----------



## Z499 (Apr 4, 2013)

Honestly I don't care, let them do what they wish with their private life. And hell with lesbians they make some of the best porn.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 4, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Exactly, and as an American you don't get to impose your religion on others.



I'm sorry, exactly how is anyone having religion imposed upon them? this is the worst argument because of how misunderstood it is. Where does it say you can't vote, or pass laws based upon your beliefs, even if those beliefs originate in your Faith? There is no law that states Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other individual can't vote their conscience based upon their religious/non-religious belief. To insinuate that is showing a complete misunderstanding of the Unites States basic laws. 

In the United States we won't have a state religion. Meaning no Church of the United States like there is the Church of England. We have a bunch of retarded Middle School teachers who somehow can't get that point across to their students. Or maybe the students aren't paying attention when that basic point is made.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 4, 2013)

Basically separation of church and state in the US means that we won't pass a law saying you have to be a baptized member of the Church of the United States in order to obtain citizenship. Matter of fact the first amendment specifically protects my right to vote my religious beliefs. 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof* ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


----------



## blergs. (Apr 4, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> So far all the research suggests kids raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals.
> 
> Religious value?  What makes you think you get to impose your religious views on others?


well put.....


----------



## blergs. (Apr 4, 2013)

Z499 said:


> Honestly I don't care, let them do what they wish with their private life. And hell with *lesbians they make some of the best porn*.



agreed! :-d


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 4, 2013)

Grandmother and grandson to have child together - Telegraph 

Someone tell me why this isn't next?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 4, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Grandmother and grandson to have child together - Telegraph
> 
> Someone tell me why this isn't next?



Who cares if it is?


----------



## dieseljimmy (Apr 4, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Who cares if it is?



I really don't.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 4, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry, exactly how is anyone having religion imposed upon them? this is the worst argument because of how misunderstood it is. Where does it say you can't vote, or pass laws based upon your beliefs, even if those beliefs originate in your Faith? There is no law that states Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other individual can't vote their conscience based upon their religious/non-religious belief. To insinuate that is showing a complete misunderstanding of the Unites States basic laws.
> 
> In the United States we won't have a state religion. Meaning no Church of the United States like there is the Church of England. We have a bunch of retarded Middle School teachers who somehow can't get that point across to their students. Or maybe the students aren't paying attention when that basic point is made.



Because the only reason that people oppose gay marriage is their religion or tradition.  Those are not reason enough to pass legislation to prevent someone from marrying.  

Should we be allowed to pass legislation preventing interracial marriage?  

Give me one legitimate reason why they should not be allowed to marry.


----------



## troubador (Apr 4, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry, exactly how is anyone having religion imposed upon them? this is the worst argument because of how misunderstood it is. Where does it say you can't vote, or pass laws based upon your beliefs, even if those beliefs originate in your Faith?



The federal government can't pass laws based on religious beliefs. The 14th amendment has been used by the supreme court to apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments. 
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Because the only reason that people oppose gay marriage is their religion or tradition.  Those are not reason enough to pass legislation to prevent someone from marrying.
> 
> Should we be allowed to pass legislation preventing interracial marriage?
> 
> Give me one legitimate reason why they should not be allowed to marry.



Gay marriage and interracial marriage are totally different, and can't be compared. Being black, and being gay are different, and can't be compared. Just because you call it an illegitimate reason doesn't make it so. 

tell me, should polygamy, and incest be allowed? we have laws against those, should they be repealed as well as unconstitutional, or is it constitutional to regulate marriage, and sex a little bit, but not towards homosexuals? The age of consent is different in different states. In one state something that is completely legal, may be labeled as rape just across the border. All because of dates on a calendar. 

Marriage and sex is a state issue, and is regulated as such. Just as gay marriage should be regulated. People have the right to chose the societies laws and moral code they want to live in.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

troubador said:


> The federal government can't pass laws based on religious beliefs. The 14th amendment has been used by the supreme court to apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments.
> Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That doesn't apply here even remotely. There is no establishment of any denomination at all in this issue.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Who cares if it is?



Holy hell. I didn't realize America had fallen so far. wow.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Holy hell. I didn't realize America had fallen so far. wow.



Seriously.  Who gives a shit?  If grandma and grandson get married how does it affect you?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Gay marriage and interracial marriage are totally different, and can't be compared. Being black, and being gay are different, and can't be compared. Just because you call it an illegitimate reason doesn't make it so.
> 
> tell me, should polygamy, and incest be allowed? we have laws against those, should they be repealed as well as unconstitutional, or is it constitutional to regulate marriage, and sex a little bit, but not towards homosexuals? The age of consent is different in different states. In one state something that is completely legal, may be labeled as rape just across the border. All because of dates on a calendar.
> 
> Marriage and sex is a state issue, and is regulated as such. Just as gay marriage should be regulated. People have the right to chose the societies laws and moral code they want to live in.



It's not different.  If someone's religion says interracial marriage is a sin, they should be able to vote it into law according to you.  You can't impose your religious views into law especially when it violates others rights.  Is there a reason we should prevent it?

Can we pass laws preventing Catholics from marrying Muslims if someone's religion says its sinful?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Gay marriage and interracial marriage are totally different, and can't be compared. Being black, and being gay are different, and can't be compared. Just because you call it an illegitimate reason doesn't make it so.
> 
> tell me, should polygamy, and incest be allowed? we have laws against those, should they be repealed as well as unconstitutional, or is it constitutional to regulate marriage, and sex a little bit, but not towards homosexuals? The age of consent is different in different states. In one state something that is completely legal, may be labeled as rape just across the border. All because of dates on a calendar.
> 
> Marriage and sex is a state issue, and is regulated as such. Just as gay marriage should be regulated. People have the right to chose the societies laws and moral code they want to live in.



And, I dont give a shit about polygamy or incest.  It doesn't affect me one bit.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Gay marriage and interracial marriage are totally different, and can't be compared. Being black, and being gay are different, and can't be compared. Just because you call it an illegitimate reason doesn't make it so.
> 
> tell me, should polygamy, and incest be allowed? we have laws against those, should they be repealed as well as unconstitutional, or is it constitutional to regulate marriage, and sex a little bit, but not towards homosexuals? The age of consent is different in different states. In one state something that is completely legal, may be labeled as rape just across the border. All because of dates on a calendar.
> 
> Marriage and sex is a state issue, and is regulated as such. Just as gay marriage should be regulated. People have the right to chose the societies laws and moral code they want to live in.



How bout divorce?  Can we make divorce illegal since the bible says its immoral?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Holy hell. I didn't realize America had fallen so far. wow.



Or do you need it to be illegal so you can contain your urge to put the wood to your aunt Betty?


----------



## LAM (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry, exactly how is anyone having religion imposed upon them? this is the worst argument because of how misunderstood it is. Where does it say you can't vote, or pass laws based upon your beliefs, even if those beliefs originate in your Faith?



because those that do not have any such beliefs are then having the will of others imposed on them.  it's the inherent problem when using non-facts to make real world decisions that most certainly effect the quality of life of others.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> It's not different.  If someone's religion says interracial marriage is a sin, they should be able to vote it into law according to you.  You can't impose your religious views into law especially when it violates others rights.  Is there a reason we should prevent it?
> 
> Can we pass laws preventing Catholics from marrying Muslims if someone's religion says its sinful?



So you're okay with laws passed that align with your beliefs, but not laws passed by that align with others' beliefs? Hypocrite.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So you're okay with laws passed that align with your beliefs, but not laws passed by that align with others' beliefs? Hypocrite.



Which law have I supported that infringe on others rights?  

Should we be able to pass laws preventing Catholics from marrying Jews?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Which law have I supported that infringe on others rights?
> 
> Should we be able to pass laws preventing Catholics from marrying Jews?



Nice red herring. Doesn't alter the fact that your stance on this issue is hypocritical.


----------



## CG (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> should we be able to pass laws preventing catholics from marrying jews?


yes


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> How bout divorce?  Can we make divorce illegal since the bible says its immoral?



If the American people wanted that law yes. there is nothing in the constitution that provides the right to divorce. At least nothing that I am aware of. If the people chose to live in a society where there is no divorce then yes, they have a right to do so. Regardless of what the bible says on the matter.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Which law have I supported that infringe on others rights?
> 
> Should we be able to pass laws preventing Catholics from marrying Jews?



Being Catholic or Jew is different than being Gay. why do you confuse the two? It's up to the Priest, or Rabi to decide if they want to marry that couple. the law has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

LAM said:


> because those that do not have any such beliefs are then having the will of others imposed on them.  it's the inherent problem when using non-facts to make real world decisions that most certainly effect the quality of life of others.



All laws have the community beliefs imposed upon others. You are advocating anarchy, and no laws. I believe I should be allowed to trade stocks with insider information. Don't judge me! you are imposing your beliefs on me and effecting my quality of life!


----------



## troubador (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> All laws have the community beliefs imposed upon others. You are advocating anarchy, and no laws. I believe I should be allowed to trade stocks with insider information. Don't judge me! you are imposing your beliefs on me and effecting my quality of life!



This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion but reason and evidence. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

troubador said:


> This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. *Laws, especially prohibitions,* *should not be based upon emotions or religion (completely your opinion and nothing in our laws, or constitution supports this)* but reason and evidence *Reason and evidence? really? Reason is subjective and evidence is always changing. Science learns new things daily that proves what we thought yesterday to be inviolate*. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion *Hard to call it a mob's religion when Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Athiests have all voted against Gay Marriage.*, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.


Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't. Everyone gets to chose for themselves what they want to base their beliefs on. Religious beliefs are categorically protected in the first amendment.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

troubador said:


> This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion but reason and evidence. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.



So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged? Yeah, in Africa there are plenty of non-religious guys running around raping infants. Are those okay? How about the great many non-religious people on the globe that feel that women are a second class? Is that okay? How about the non-religious belief in Thailand (that's also a law) that says you can't talk shit about the king? 

You should at least be honest that they issue is simply that people are basing some of their decisions on a theist belief system. You know, instead of trying to mask is intellectualism or something similar.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Being Catholic or Jew is different than being Gay. why do you confuse the two? It's up to the Priest, or Rabi to decide if they want to marry that couple. the law has nothing to do with it.



Of course it's different, but the point is that in the US you don't get to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.  Are you suggesting that we should be able to discriminate based on any of these?  Or just sexual preference?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged? Yeah, in Africa there are plenty of non-religious guys running around raping infants. Are those okay? How about the great many non-religious people on the globe that feel that women are a second class? Is that okay? How about the non-religious belief in Thailand (that's also a law) that says you can't talk shit about the king?
> 
> You should at least be honest that they issue is simply that people are basing some of their decisions on a theist belief system. You know, instead of trying to mask is intellectualism or something similar.



If your only reason to deny a group of people something that others get is a religious reason, it's unconstitutional.  

A perfect example would be a religious majority deciding that blacks and whites can't marry because its against their religious values.  They should be able to refuse to marry them in their church but they don't get to write legislation preventing them from them getting all the benefits that other people get.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't. Everyone gets to chose for themselves what they want to base their beliefs on. Religious beliefs are categorically protected in the first amendment.



Nobody is saying their beliefs are invalid, were saying you don't get to force someone else to live by your beliefs.  You don't have to marry a guy if you don't want to, and your church doesn't have to sanction the marriage. 

But, the gov can't refuse marriage to a group of people based on religion.  Nobody has yet given a reason other than religion as to why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> If your only reason to deny a group of people something that others get is a religious reason, it's unconstitutional.



Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...



exphys88 said:


> A perfect example would be a religious majority deciding that blacks and whites can't marry because its against their religious values.  They should be able to refuse to marry them in their church but they don't get to write legislation preventing them from them getting all the benefits that other people get.



You think that people that don't want races intermingling is strictly a religious thing? Really? And yes, any such law would be unconstitutional, but wouldn't necessarily spring only from religion. But again, this is little more than a red herring trying to avoid bio-chem's point.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you?  If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you?  If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.



As to the point the Supreme Court Justices were making in their line of questioning. It's not about it's effect upon me as an individual but upon society as a whole. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage. The effects are not completely known now are they? There are plenty of examples of why it's not acceptable, but you will try and give a counter example of a beloved uncle who has been sleeping with the same man in a loving relationship for 150 years, or some bull shit, so it's really not worth it.


----------



## LAM (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged?



IMO they would carry the least amount of weight when designing any political or economic policy as they are not based on rational thought.

and my lack of beliefs is not the same as another who has adopted religious beliefs as they do not require anyone to change anything in their life making conformity rather effortless.  it doesn't get any less intrusive then that.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you?  If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.


How about kids right to have mom and dad?  What if those kids are not gays?  We should not force these kids to live with gays.  It is so funny.  They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

LAM said:


> IMO they would carry the least amount of weight when designing any political or economic policy as they are not based on rational thought.
> 
> and my lack of beliefs is not the same as another who has adopted religious beliefs as they do not require anyone to change anything in their life making conformity rather effortless.  it doesn't get any less intrusive then that.



So *you *think it should carry less weight? What about what *they *-- the religious people -- think? Oh, so because *you *think their beliefs count for less, they don't?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

fit26 said:


> How about kids right to have mom and dad?  What if those kids are not gays?  We should not force these kids to live with gays.  It is so funny.  They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.



Gay parents don't have any ill affect on how their children turn out.  If you are so worried about a child's right to have a mom and dad then you should work on fixing what's causing so much divorce.  There is your family killer.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> As to the point the Supreme Court Justices were making in their line of questioning. It's not about it's effect upon me as an individual but upon society as a whole. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage. The effects are not completely known now are they? There are plenty of examples of why it's not acceptable, but you will try and give a counter example of a beloved uncle who has been sleeping with the same man in a loving relationship for 150 years, or some bull shit, so it's really not worth it.



What is the effect of gay marriage on society?  Or are you going to prattle on about how it affects the rotation of the earth?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

fit26 said:


> How about kids right to have mom and dad?  What if those kids are not gays?  We should not force these kids to live with gays.  It is so funny.  They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.



So kids should not be allowed to be raised by their mother only?  Should we remove kids from a single parent home?  How bout kids raised by their grandparents?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people that don't want races intermingling is strictly a religious thing? Really? And yes, any such law would be unconstitutional, but wouldn't necessarily spring only from religion. But again, this is little more than a red herring trying to avoid bio-chem's point.



No, I don't think it's just a religious thing.  I'm saying that just because you don't agree w something doesn't mean that you get to impose those opinions on others, especially if you're discriminating against a group based on your religion.  You don't get to force your religion into others, especially if you can't produce one shred of evidence that they are doing something harmful.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...



Should we be allowed to discriminate based on religion, race or sex?


----------



## LAM (Apr 5, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So *you *think it should carry less weight? What about what *they *-- the religious people -- think? Oh, so because *you *think their beliefs count for less, they don't?



your joking right?  because when solving a problem I will utilize empirical and objective data every single time over the subjective.


----------



## troubador (Apr 5, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't.



And I didn't. Reason is totally objective. What's your educational background? 



DOMS said:


> So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged?



No, lot's of other beliefs should be ignored because they're stupid, religious or not.


----------



## troubador (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> What is the effect of gay marriage on society?  Or are you going to prattle on about how it affects the rotation of the earth?



He doesn't know. That's why this thread is verging on devolving into subjectivism, everyone's opinion is equally valid or some other stupid hippie shit.


----------



## Aries1 (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> _*So far all the research suggests kids raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals. *_
> 
> Religious value?  What makes you think you get to impose your religious views on others?


As a teen kids are uncomfortable enough. Can you imagine the ridicule? Research can be biased, not to mention, how do you judge "just as well"? Seems like cruel and unusual punishment for any child.


----------



## Aries1 (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Because the only reason that people oppose gay marriage is their religion or tradition.  Those are not reason enough to pass legislation to prevent someone from marrying.
> 
> Should we be allowed to pass legislation preventing interracial marriage?
> 
> Give me one legitimate reason why they should not be allowed to marry.


Speaking on purely biological terms, I was taught in college that inter-breeding could yield some very strong children(much like the mixed breed canine). Marriage between races could yield a strong, less disease prone race of homo-sapiens. 

Homosexual relationships will never yield offspring. This is because ejaculating into another man's anus(an orifice designed to excrete waste)will not fertilize an egg. Thus, homo-sex is literally biological suicide/homicide. Again, speaking purely biological, homosexuals bring nothing to the table when furthering the human race is the topic. Even at the cellular level reproduction is the #1 topic at hand, be it healthy cells, transformed cells, or even viruses. 

Forgive me if I sound robotic.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> No, I don't think it's just a religious thing.  I'm saying that just because you don't agree w something doesn't mean that you get to impose those opinions on others, especially if you're discriminating against a group based on your religion.  You don't get to force your religion into others, especially if you can't produce one shred of evidence that they are doing something harmful.



You're free to vote for and against the laws you choose to. It's that simple. The Constitution is there to help prevent said laws from being against those laws that counter to basic rights. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, no system is perfect. The majority sorts things out eventually. Or do you believe that blacks are still property and that women are second-class citizens?

What you're talking about is the very thing you profess to be against: forcing *your* beliefs on others.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Should we be allowed to discriminate based on religion, race or sex?



Of course not.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

LAM said:


> your joking right?  because when solving a problem I will utilize empirical and objective data every single time over the subjective.



Objective? Is that were you're being when you pull the race card for Obama? Or when you won't condemn him when he does the same things that GWB did? 

Objective, my ass.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 5, 2013)

troubador said:


> No, lot's of other beliefs should be ignored because they're stupid, religious or not.



And who gets to decide what is "stupid"? You?

Good god...


----------



## Aries1 (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> _*Gay parents don't have any ill affect on how their children turn out*_.  If you are so worried about a child's right to have a mom and dad then you should work on fixing what's causing so much divorce.  There is your family killer.


How exactly do you come to this realization?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 5, 2013)

Aries1 said:


> How exactly do you come to this realization?



Name one way gay parents hurt their children.  I can't think of a single way.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 6, 2013)

Ill say this as simple as possible, and what I believe. There are 2 types of genders male and female. we make babies when the two OPPOSITES mate, like what GOD or others say NATURE intended. It doesnt matter race, color, religion, beliefs, etc etc etc. Only that it requires a male and female to reproduce( sperm and egg if you prefer). Male and Female is natural people. Two males or two females dont reproduce naturally because thats not how its intended. We can try through scientific ways but its still not the natural original way. No matter what race, color, religion, etc etc etc you are, no one can deny that theres only male or female, and those two together are natural since the beginning of time. That is a fact and no one can change it outwise.  People try to change things and add this and that, but if we get down to the basics it comes down to a male and female is natural! No other way my friends. People try to add that the govmt should mandate blah blah, or that religions shouldnt judge blah blah, or that what if this and that scenario blah blah, but it still comes down to a simple male+female is the only true natural way. Just my opinion friends.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Ill say this as simple as possible, and what I believe. There are 2 types of genders male and female. we make babies when the two OPPOSITES mate, like what GOD or others say NATURE intended. It doesnt matter race, color, religion, beliefs, etc etc etc. Only that it requires a male and female to reproduce( sperm and egg if you prefer). Male and Female is natural people. Two males or two females dont reproduce naturally because thats not how its intended. We can try through scientific ways but its still not the natural original way. No matter what race, color, religion, etc etc etc you are, no one can deny that theres only male or female, and those two together are natural since the beginning of time. That is a fact and no one can change it outwise.  People try to change things and add this and that, but if we get down to the basics it comes down to a male and female is natural! No other way my friends. People try to add that the govmt should mandate blah blah, or that religions shouldnt judge blah blah, or that what if this and that scenario blah blah, but it still comes down to a simple male+female is the only true natural way. Just my opinion friends.



It isn't about reproduction.


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> And who gets to decide what is "stupid"? You?
> 
> Good god...



LOL, the people who vote on the laws.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 6, 2013)

troubador said:


> LOL, the people who vote on the laws.



Which is counter to what you, exphys88, and LAM have been saying. _You_ guys have been saying that religious people should not be able to vote for laws based on _their_ beliefs.

The fact that none of you see your raging hypocrisy is amusing...and a bit disturbing.


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Which is counter to what you, exphys88, and LAM have been saying. _You_ guys have been saying that religious people should not be able to vote for laws based on _their_ beliefs.
> 
> The fact that none of you see your raging hypocrisy is amusing...and a bit disturbing.



You're confused. The decisions should not be motivated by religion but logic and evidence. It's that simple. Quit being obtuse.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 6, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> It isn't about reproduction.





Doesnt matter, it still leads back to the simple natural way of male+female! whatever you want to say its still male+female in whatever context.


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Doesnt matter, it still leads back to the simple natural way of male+female! whatever you want to say its still male+female in whatever context.



Contexts other than reproduction are often not male+female. Examples: military unit, Jesus and the apostles, siblings, monks, nuns, etc.


----------



## secdrl (Apr 6, 2013)

What kills me about the whole "gay thing" is they go on and on about equal rights, gay rights, blah, blah, blah...if anyone is discriminated against, it's heterosexual couples. I challenge ANY gay marriage supporter on here to tell me what would happen if heterosexuals got together and had a straight pride parade. Instead, I have to flip on the news and see two queers dressed in assless chaps and wearing a ball gag prancing through times square and I'm just supposed to "deal with it."

Someone explain this to me, too....if I don't support/agree with gay marriage, I'm hateful and I'm a bigot, but if gays speak out against heterosexual relationships, they're just expressing their views. When's the last time you saw straight people spray painting the side of chic-fil-a buildings because they're butt hurt?

The gay community it the epitome of hypocrisy.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 6, 2013)

troubador said:


> You're confused. The decisions should not be motivated by religion but logic and evidence. It's that simple. Quit being obtuse.



Decisions should made based on what a person thinks. Not based on what _you_ think _they_ should think. 

Should I give the majority of what I have to someone that's poor? There's a lot of logic for yes or no. So which is it? Every decision a person makes is based on their _beliefs_, religious or otherwise. You want non-religous logic? I can (and have) make a compelling argument that all Mexicans and blacks should be rounded up and sent back to their countries of origin. It's not religious and based on facts, so that's okay right?

But feel free to continue with your blind, raging, hypocrisy.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Decisions should made based on what a person thinks. Not based on what _you_ think _they_ should think.
> 
> Should I give the majority of what I have to someone that's poor? There's a lot of logic for yes or no. So which is it? Every decision a person makes is based on their _beliefs_, religious or otherwise. You want non-religous logic? I can (and have) make a compelling argument that all Mexicans and blacks should be rounded up and sent back to their countries of origin. It's not religious and based on facts, so that's okay right?
> 
> But feel free to continue with your blind, raging, hypocrisy.



no, no, no, no. DOMS it's only the reason and logic he agrees with that matters. All other "reason" and "logic" he doesn't accept obviously shouldn't be allowed when people vote. 

My only question is how is he going to screen people for what they are basing their voting decisions on? hmmmm. It seriously blows me away there are people out there like that.


----------



## Milwdude (Apr 6, 2013)

You can marry a goat for all I care!  

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Doesnt matter, it still leads back to the simple natural way of male+female! whatever you want to say its still male+female in whatever context.



You're making it about reproduction which isn't the matter.  How does gay marriage affect you?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2013)

secdrl said:


> What kills me about the whole "gay thing" is they go on and on about equal rights, gay rights, blah, blah, blah...if anyone is discriminated against, it's heterosexual couples. I challenge ANY gay marriage supporter on here to tell me what would happen if heterosexuals got together and had a straight pride parade. Instead, I have to flip on the news and see two queers dressed in assless chaps and wearing a ball gag prancing through times square and I'm just supposed to "deal with it."
> 
> Someone explain this to me, too....if I don't support/agree with gay marriage, I'm hateful and I'm a bigot, but if gays speak out against heterosexual relationships, they're just expressing their views. When's the last time you saw straight people spray painting the side of chic-fil-a buildings because they're butt hurt?
> 
> The gay community it the epitome of hypocrisy.



You are absolutely right.  But at the same time would any of that stuff be happening if there wasn't an issue with marriage equality?


----------



## Milwdude (Apr 6, 2013)

If two men or two women want to get married, go for it. It can't be any more messed up then a straight couple getting married. Its simply a legal document that does not affect me unless I'm the one getting married!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> All laws have the community beliefs imposed upon others. You are advocating anarchy, and no laws. I believe I should be allowed to trade stocks with insider information. Don't judge me! you are imposing your beliefs on me and effecting my quality of life!



that would be a serious overgeneralization.  with the exception of criminal law just about all other modern day laws have to do with some economic function between inter/intra-state commerce and international trade.  granted there are tons of way crazy laws out there still on the books from the early days.

same sex marriage suffer negative economic effects ranging from higher auto/health insurance, common law and community law, after death, etc.  economists have stated many positive economic effects and none negative.  I don't see how having more economically viable and happy households to be a bad thing.


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Decisions should made based on what a person thinks. Not based on what _you_ think _they_ should think.
> 
> Should I give the majority of what I have to someone that's poor? There's a lot of logic for yes or no. So which is it? Every decision a person makes is based on their _beliefs_, religious or otherwise.



Yes, I said that before you.


troubador said:


> Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion but reason and evidence.



People do make decisions based on what they believe; their beliefs should be formed by logic and evidence since that is the only way we can gain knowledge. Logic is not for one belief or another, they are tools. My calculus III professor used to tell us before a test "I don't care what answer you write down, I don't even look at it, all I care about is that you understand the theory." I'm using this definition of logic: " a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration *:* the science of the formal principles of reasoning"


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> My only question is how is he going to screen people for what they are basing their voting decisions on?



I didn't say I would or should. What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 6, 2013)

troubador said:


> People do make decisions based on what they believe; their beliefs should be formed by logic and evidence since that is the only way we can gain knowledge. Logic is not for one belief or another, they are tools. My calculus III professor used to tell us before a test "I don't care what answer you write down, I don't even look at it, all I care about is that you understand the theory." I'm using this definition of logic: " a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration *:* the science of the formal principles of reasoning"



So you're saying that people should only be allowed to act on their thoughts based on whether _you_ find them to be logical or not? You really don't see the problem with this?

Come on, say it. Say that other shouldn't be allowed to act on what they want to, unless it passes some criteria that you have for it being "logical."


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So you're saying that people should only be allowed to act on their thoughts based on whether _you_ find them to be logical or not? You really don't see the problem with this?
> 
> Come on, say it. Say that other shouldn't be allowed to act on what they want to, unless it passes some criteria that you have for it being "logical."



I didn't mention or imply that people should not be allowed to do anything. You two are very confused and seem to have read something I didn't write.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 6, 2013)

troubador said:


> I didn't mention or imply that people should not be allowed to do anything. You two are very confused and seem to have read something I didn't write.



You wrote:



troubador said:


> Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but  the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal.  Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or  religion but reason and evidence. If someone is prohibited from doing  something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. *The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.*



And



troubador said:


> *The federal government can't pass laws based on  religious beliefs.* The 14th amendment has been used by the supreme  court to apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments.
> Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It seems that you're saying that if a law were passed with religious backing, or voted on largely by religious people, the law is irrelevant? If so, what you're saying is that if that is the case, the law shouldn't be followed. So quit being mealy-mouthed, spit out it.


----------



## troubador (Apr 6, 2013)

> _ If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely __having religion imposed upon them. *The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.*_


The sentence in bold refers to the previous sentence. An imposition of religion is still so if that imposition is a law. If a discrimination, stoning, flogging is done so out of religious motivation then the same act being commissioned by law, passed from the same religious motivation, does not cease to be religious imposition. 




DOMS said:


> It seems that you're saying that if a law were passed with religious backing, or voted on largely by religious people, the law is irrelevant? If so, what you're saying is that if that is the case, the law shouldn't be followed. So quit being mealy-mouthed, spit out it.



No, I'm saying if the basis of a law is contingent on a religious principle it is in violation of the 1st amendment (Engel v. Vitale)


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 6, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Of course not.



Explain why we should be able to say that gays can't marry, but can't say blacks can't marry whites, or Catholics can't marry Jews?

If my religion believed that its sinful for Jews to marry Muslims, should we be able to make that law?  If not, explain the difference between that and gay marriage.


----------



## LAM (Apr 7, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So you're saying that people should only be allowed to act on their thoughts based on whether _you_ find them to be logical or not? You really don't see the problem with this?
> 
> Come on, say it. Say that other shouldn't be allowed to act on what they want to, unless it passes some criteria that you have for it being "logical."



if you look at the 5 types of "law" used in the US it does not fit in that framework.

* criminal law - crimes against persons and property
* civil law - settle disputes between individuals, groups and government
* administrative - laws and regulations involving the executive branch and it's agents
* international - US and other foreign nations
* constitutional - issues involving the infringement of civil rights


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 7, 2013)

troubador said:


> Contexts other than reproduction are often not male+female. Examples: military unit, Jesus and the apostles, siblings, monks, nuns, etc.





Huh??? You lost me there bro.....i dont quite follow what you mean. No disrespect, just dont understand what you mean.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 7, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> You're making it about reproduction which isn't the matter.  How does gay marriage affect you?





Im making it about marriage which still leads back to male+female. Its natural for male+female to marry, thats the right natural order.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 7, 2013)

secdrl said:


> What kills me about the whole "gay thing" is they go on and on about equal rights, gay rights, blah, blah, blah...if anyone is discriminated against, it's heterosexual couples. I challenge ANY gay marriage supporter on here to tell me what would happen if heterosexuals got together and had a straight pride parade. Instead, I have to flip on the news and see two queers dressed in assless chaps and wearing a ball gag prancing through times square and I'm just supposed to "deal with it."
> 
> Someone explain this to me, too....if I don't support/agree with gay marriage, I'm hateful and I'm a bigot, but if gays speak out against heterosexual relationships, they're just expressing their views. When's the last time you saw straight people spray painting the side of chic-fil-a buildings because they're butt hurt?
> 
> The gay community it the epitome of hypocrisy.





Word! Right on the nail bro! I dont go around parading about being straight and forcing everyone to accept me or else im going to call you close minded and conservative nazi!! Thats my problem with gay marriage, you want to be gay thats fine, but keep it private thats all I ask.


----------



## LAM (Apr 7, 2013)

secdrl said:


> What kills me about the whole "gay thing" is they go on and on about equal rights, gay rights, blah, blah, blah...if anyone is discriminated against, it's heterosexual couples. I challenge ANY gay marriage supporter on here to tell me what would happen if heterosexuals got together and had a straight pride parade. Instead, I have to flip on the news and see two queers dressed in assless chaps and wearing a ball gag prancing through times square and I'm just supposed to "deal with it."
> 
> Someone explain this to me, too....if I don't support/agree with gay marriage, I'm hateful and I'm a bigot, but if gays speak out against heterosexual relationships, they're just expressing their views. When's the last time you saw straight people spray painting the side of chic-fil-a buildings because they're butt hurt?
> 
> The gay community it the epitome of hypocrisy.



hate to break the news to you but if that sounds like a good idea "you" might have the gay.

and for the overwhelming majority of the homosexual population being gay is not a choice, it's how you were made due to epigenetics when in the womb.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 7, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Word! Right on the nail bro! I dont go around parading about being straight and forcing everyone to accept me or else im going to call you close minded and conservative nazi!! Thats my problem with gay marriage, you want to be gay thats fine, but keep it private thats all I ask.



Most do keep it private.  Sometimes the only way to affect change is to bring something like gay marriage out in the open.


----------



## secdrl (Apr 7, 2013)

LAM said:


> hate to break the news to you but if that sounds like a good idea "you" might have the gay.
> 
> and for the overwhelming majority of the homosexual population being gay is not a choice, it's how you were made due to epigenetics when in the womb.



Nah, I think gay is a choice. Until 20 years ago, you never even heard the term "gay" being tossed around. Never. As society started promoting an acceptance of it, it's like it became the next cool thing. (like the skinny jeans you're wearing right now) Being gay is a choice, it's a fad.


----------



## troubador (Apr 7, 2013)

Getbig2 said:


> Huh??? You lost me there bro.....i dont quite follow what you mean. No disrespect, just dont understand what you mean.



You said it's male+female in whatever context. I guess you meant marriage is male+female in whatever context, which would be circular reasoning.


----------



## Milwdude (Apr 7, 2013)

I seriously don't understand why people would be threatened by it. If it works for you then go for it. Its a legal document that does have benefits and consequences. Why can't everyone be treated equally?  Don't care about your sexual preference, race, religion, etc. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DOMS (Apr 7, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Explain why we should be able to say that gays can't marry, but can't say blacks can't marry whites, or Catholics can't marry Jews?
> 
> If my religion believed that its sinful for Jews to marry Muslims, should we be able to make that law?  If not, explain the difference between that and gay marriage.



*I* don't think that guys should be denied the right. However, _*other people*_ are free to vote as they like, even if it's counter to what _*I*_ want. 

Ultimately, it'll go to the Supreme court, they'll make the decision that some part of the Constitution allows for it, and then gays will be able to get married. Which is how it should work, and not the thought-police way that you think it should.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 7, 2013)

LAM said:


> if you look at the 5 types of "law" used in the US it does not fit in that framework.
> 
> * criminal law - crimes against persons and property
> * civil law - settle disputes between individuals, groups and government
> ...



None of which has jack to do with a person being allowed to vote based on what they choose to believe.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 7, 2013)

DOMS said:


> *I* don't think that guys should be denied the right. However, _*other people*_ are free to vote as they like, even if it's counter to what _*I*_ want.
> 
> Ultimately, it'll go to the Supreme court, they'll make the decision that some part of the Constitution allows for it, and then gays will be able to get married. Which is how it should work, and not the thought-police way that you think it should.



Fair enough.  I don't care if people vote that interracial is illegal either, but it's discrimination and should ultimately be struck down as that.  It's not illegal to vote according to your religion, you just have to accept that because of the separation of church and state, those laws that you vote for will be deemed unconstitutional as the CA Court did.


----------



## Getbig2 (Apr 7, 2013)

troubador said:


> You said it's male+female in whatever context. I guess you meant marriage is male+female in whatever context, which would be circular reasoning.





Oh ok, now I gotcha!


----------



## secdrl (Apr 8, 2013)

Milwdude said:


> I seriously don't understand why people would *be threatened by it*. If it works for you then go for it. Its a legal document that does have benefits and consequences. Why can't everyone be treated equally? Don't care about your sexual preference, race, religion, etc.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Come back to this threat when you can converse like an adult. This has nothing to do with being "threatened by it."


----------



## Milwdude (Apr 8, 2013)

No offense. Good point!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DOMS (Apr 8, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Fair enough.  I don't care if people vote that interracial is illegal either, but it's discrimination and should ultimately be struck down as that.  It's not illegal to vote according to your religion, you just have to accept that because of the *separation of church and state*, those laws that you vote for will be deemed unconstitutional as the CA Court did.



I've seen this phrase trotted out by plenty of atheists...all of which had no idea what it means.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 8, 2013)

DOMS said:


> I've seen this phrase trotted out by plenty of atheists...all of which had no idea what it means.



Interestingly, atheists seem to know exactly what it means, hence the continual winning of court cases involving it.  Are you sure you know what it means?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 8, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Interestingly, atheists seem to know exactly what it means, hence the continual winning of court cases involving it.  Are you sure you know what it means?



Oh, so when you pervert something it's okay, but when other people do it...

The sepraation of church and state, as set down by the Founding Fathers, didn't mean that absolute squashing of all things religious.


----------



## Milwdude (Apr 8, 2013)

The topic just hits home for me. My brother has been in a committed relationship for over 15 years to include a beautiful baby girl which he is the father. I would jump on a plane tomorrow for his wedding in CA if it was allowed. They have a family in every way but they are not allowed to marry. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 10, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Interestingly, atheists seem to know exactly what it means, hence the continual winning of court cases involving it.  Are you sure you know what it means?



It means religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution, and that the state will not enact a Church of the United States. That's what it means. It doesn't mean people can't vote according to their religious ideals. As a matter of fact the founders all voted according to their ideals much of which was determined by their individual religious, and Christian beliefs.


----------



## jagbender (Apr 10, 2013)

'Gay' couple face trial for raping at least 5 of their 9 adopted sons... | RedFlagNews.com

Plea Agreement For No Jail Blows Up; Glastonbury Couple Accused Of Abusing Boys Headed To Trial - CTnow


----------



## secdrl (Apr 10, 2013)

This is also the type of perversion that accompanies gay marriage. I've said it for years; if you allow gay marriage, it'll open the door for more perversion.

Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog – Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights’ Activists


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 10, 2013)

secdrl said:


> This is also the type of perversion that accompanies gay marriage. I've said it for years; if you allow gay marriage, it'll open the door for more perversion.
> 
> Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog ? Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights? Activists



I fear the individuals in this thread are hopelessly lost.

When I asked the question of continuing this to polygamy and incest after gay marriage the only responses I got were in support of them. If one can rationalize incest in their mind, then gay marriage is nothing.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 10, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I fear the individuals in this thread are hopelessly lost.
> 
> When I asked the question of continuing this to polygamy and incest after gay marriage the only responses I got were in support of them. If one can rationalize incest in their mind, then gay marriage is nothing.



It has nothing to do with supporting them, it has everything to do with freedom and liberty.  Besides, how do those things affect you personally?  How does it affect your life?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 10, 2013)

secdrl said:


> This is also the type of perversion that accompanies gay marriage. I've said it for years; if you allow gay marriage, it'll open the door for more perversion.
> 
> Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog ? Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights? Activists



TRIES to rally support from gay activists.  Let me know how that works out for her.


----------



## troubador (Apr 10, 2013)

secdrl said:


> This is also the type of perversion that accompanies gay marriage. I've said it for years; if you allow gay marriage, it'll open the door for more perversion.
> 
> Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog ? Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights? Activists



There's no evidence that allowing gay marriage will cause an increase in this type of behavior. The fact that she wants support from gay rights activists is irrelevant. If she wanted the support of the church would that make Christianity the door to more perversion? Of course not.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 10, 2013)

troubador said:


> *There's no evidence that allowing gay marriage will cause an increase in this type of behavior*. The fact that she wants support from gay rights activists is irrelevant. If she wanted the support of the church would that make Christianity the door to more perversion? Of course not.


There very few of them.  It is very risky for any political party to support them.  There have  to be many of them, then it will be worth taking risk for political parties.


----------



## troubador (Apr 10, 2013)

fit26 said:


> There very few of them.  It is very risky for any political party to support them.  There have  to be many of them, then it will be worth taking risk for political parties.



Exactly, it's a non-issue.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 10, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> It means religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution, and that the state will not enact a Church of the United States. That's what it means. It doesn't mean people can't vote according to their religious ideals. As a matter of fact the founders all voted according to their ideals much of which was determined by their individual religious, and Christian beliefs.



Luckily for our country the courts disagree w you.  You cannot write your religion into legislation, period.  Why are teachers not allowed to pray in school?  Why is creationism not allowed to be taught in school.  Why are sodomy laws struck down?

You should just get over it, you're on the losing side, and your loss is coming soon.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 10, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Why are sodomy laws struck down?



Because someone wanted to ruin your dating?


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 10, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Luckily for our country the courts disagree w you.  You cannot write your religion into legislation, period.  Why are teachers not allowed to pray in school?  Why is creationism not allowed to be taught in school.  Why are sodomy laws struck down?
> 
> You should just get over it, you're on the losing side, and your loss is coming soon.



Of course the courts agree with me. No one is writing their religion into legislation, and I'd like you to show how voting against Gay marriage breaks the first amendment? There isn't a single person on the hill talking about how Gay marriage is a first amendment issue. Creationism is not a science, why would it be taught in school? Tell me something there sparky. Why is it that Sodomy laws didn't break the first amendment when the first amendment was written?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 11, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Of course the courts agree with me. No one is writing their religion into legislation, and I'd like you to show how voting against Gay marriage breaks the first amendment? There isn't a single person on the hill talking about how Gay marriage is a first amendment issue. Creationism is not a science, why would it be taught in school? Tell me something there sparky. Why is it that Sodomy laws didn't break the first amendment when the first amendment was written?



He said they disagree with you.  -1 for reading comprehension.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 11, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> He said they disagree with you.  -1 for reading comprehension.



and i was disagreeing with him and saying they do agree with me -10 for severe stupidity. 

I'll extend the question to you. Where does Gay Marriage come up in the 1st Amendment? People can disagree with Gay Marriage, or Sodomy outside of religion. Voting against either has nothing to do with the state sponsoring a religion. And in fact the 1st Amendment protects my right to believe, and vote however the fuck I want religiously speaking.  

So, how exactly do the Courts disagree with me?


----------



## troubador (Apr 11, 2013)

The supreme court rules on whether a bill is unconstitutional. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with voting rights. No one shit, legally speaking of course, why people vote one way or another.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 11, 2013)

troubador said:


> Exactly, it's a non-issue.


It will be issue when their and their supporters number grows just like gays and their supporters.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 11, 2013)

fit26 said:


> It will be issue when their and their supporters number grows just like gays and their supporters.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 11, 2013)




----------



## Zaphod (Apr 11, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> and i was disagreeing with him and saying they do agree with me -10 for severe stupidity.
> 
> I'll extend the question to you. Where does Gay Marriage come up in the 1st Amendment? People can disagree with Gay Marriage, or Sodomy outside of religion. Voting against either has nothing to do with the state sponsoring a religion. And in fact the 1st Amendment protects my right to believe, and vote however the fuck I want religiously speaking.
> 
> So, how exactly do the Courts disagree with me?



People are objecting to gay marriage based on religion.  -20 for your moronic arguments.


----------



## troubador (Apr 11, 2013)

fit26 said:


> It will be issue when their and their supporters number grows just like gays and their supporters.



Of course, just like every other cause ever.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 11, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> People are objecting to gay marriage based on religion.  -20 for your moronic arguments.



objecting to gay marriage, based upon religion, or for any other reason does not go against the first amendment. In fact it's protected by the first amendment. Your understanding of constitutional law is so fundamentally flawed that i'm recommending you go back to a middle school social studies class. 8th graders understand this topic better than you do. now go away.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 12, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> objecting to gay marriage, based upon religion, or for any other reason does not go against the first amendment. In fact it's protected by the first amendment. Your understanding of constitutional law is so fundamentally flawed that i'm recommending you go back to a middle school social studies class. 8th graders understand this topic better than you do. now go away.



Nobody ever said it went against the first amendment.  Using religion to create laws goes against it.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 12, 2013)

Besides, it's a rights issue.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 12, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Nobody ever said it went against the first amendment.  Using religion to create laws goes against it.



You did. holy shit. You said objecting to gay marriage based upon religion goes against the first amendment.

No one is using religion to create laws. People are allowed to use morality when choosing their laws regardless of where that morality is derived. The government is not enacting a state religion, by passing laws against gay marriage. It doesn't break the first amendment. I can't be more clear on this. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest, and many other people disagree with gay marriage, and want to see laws against it here in the United States. Just because I, or my neighbor, or a guy in California may use religion as the basis for our belief it does not mean that by passing that law the government is breaking the first amendment. 

Why was it constitutional in 1791 to not allow gay marriage? The men who wrote the bill of rights, the men who wrote and signed the constitution would have never said that passing DOMA would be against the constitution. So why is it now? 

Let me be clear. You need to understand what separation of church and state actually means, because you will look like a bigger idiot if you say these things publicly.  It means the State can not enact a state religion, meaning no Church of the United States. Like there is a Church of England. It means that a Church can say whatever they want and operate independently without interference of the government unless the *practice* of their religion harms society. It's why Westboro can preach hate all day long, and picket funerals, but the Mormons can't practice polygamy.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 12, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> You did. holy shit. You said objecting to gay marriage based upon religion goes against the first amendment.
> 
> No one is using religion to create laws. People are allowed to use morality when choosing their laws regardless of where that morality is derived. The government is not enacting a state religion, by passing laws against gay marriage. It doesn't break the first amendment. I can't be more clear on this. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest, and many other people disagree with gay marriage, and want to see laws against it here in the United States. Just because I, or my neighbor, or a guy in California may use religion as the basis for our belief it does not mean that by passing that law the government is breaking the first amendment.
> 
> ...



Where did I say that?  

How does polygamy hurt society?

DOMA is against the constitution now because society has changed in the last 200+ years.  

And you never did answer my question.  How does gay marriage affect you?


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> People are allowed to use morality when choosing their laws regardless of where that morality is derived.



But you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs on others. A more scientific approach would be far superior.

*"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good*
*of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live*
*under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.*
*The robber baron?s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may*
*at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good*
*will torment us without end for they do so with the approval*
*of their own conscience."~ C.S. Lewis*​


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

"We remonstrate against the said Bill,1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator." ~ James Madison


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Why was it constitutional in 1791 to not allow gay marriage?



Marriage was and is regulated by the states. Saying it was "constitutional" is ambiguous.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

troubador said:


> But you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs on others. A more scientific approach would be far superior.



Much more importantly, a person should be able to vote for or against laws based on what they believe.


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Much more importantly, a person should be able to vote for or against laws based on what they believe.



No one argued the opposite.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 12, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Gay marriage and interracial marriage are totally different, and can't be compared. Being black, and being gay are different, and can't be compared. Just because you call it an illegitimate reason doesn't make it so.
> 
> tell me, should polygamy, and incest be allowed? we have laws against those, should they be repealed as well as unconstitutional, or is it constitutional to regulate marriage, and sex a little bit, but not towards homosexuals? The age of consent is different in different states. In one state something that is completely legal, may be labeled as rape just across the border. All because of dates on a calendar.
> 
> Marriage and sex is a state issue, and is regulated as such. Just as gay marriage should be regulated. People have the right to chose the societies laws and moral code they want to live in.



Marriage and Sex can't be compared.  Only religious people view marriage as a right of passage for sex.  Heres a wake up call for you men are still fucking other men in the ass and women are scissoring other women and men are fucking women out of wedlock....GASP you proclaim.  Well its a fact your righteous stand against the ones with matching naughty bits not being able to enter into a binding agreement has no effect on them getting it on.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Much more importantly, a person should be able to vote for or against laws based on what they believe.



Of course they can, but you can't deny a group of people the option to marry, especially when the only reason for denying those rights is your religion.

Can any of the anti gay marriage folks present 1 reason gays shouldn't marry other than their religion?

Bio chem: if a majority of Americans felt it was against their religious beliefs to allow inter racial marriage, should they be able to enact laws preventing it?


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 12, 2013)

maniclion said:


> Marriage and Sex can't be compared.  Only religious people view marriage as a right of passage for sex.  Heres a wake up call for you men are still fucking other men in the ass and women are scissoring other women and men are fucking women out of wedlock....GASP you proclaim.  Well its a fact your righteous stand against the ones with matching naughty bits not being able to enter into a binding agreement has no effect on them getting it on.



You are right and I misspoke. Please mentally remove sex from my post as you read it. Marriage is a state issue........


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Of course they can, but you can't deny a group of people the option to marry, especially when the only reason for denying those rights is your religion.



So it's *especially *a problem if religion is the motivating factor?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

My religion says interracial marriage is immoral and I should be able to vote according to my religious views.  The first amendment protects my right to vote however the fuck I want.

All interracial marriages should be illegal.  Each state should be able to decide if blacks should be allowed to marry whites.  It's a state issue.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So it's *especially *a problem if religion is the motivating factor?



No, it's a problem if that's the only reason.  

First, you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. Secondly, you can't deny someone something because your religion opposes it.  See my post above, it's a perfect example of how fucked up that way if thinking is.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> No, it's a problem if that's the only reason.
> 
> First, you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. Secondly, you can't deny someone something because your religion opposes it.  See my post above, it's a perfect example of how fucked up that way if thinking is.



It's funny that you seem so anti-big brother, but you hatred for religion has you advocating for the Thought Police. That's awesome...a shitty brand of hypocrisy.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> It's funny that you seem so anti-big brother, but you hatred for religion has you advocating for the Thought Police. That's awesome...a shitty brand of hypocrisy.



Lol, is it a problem that I don't want people's religion infringing on others?

People can think/vote for whatever they want, but they shouldn't be able to pass laws forcing others to conform to their religious beliefs.  The courts agree which is why doma will end up like DADT.


----------



## heavyiron (Apr 12, 2013)

Just marry your boyfriend and come out of the closet. After 8 homo threads its obvious you want to.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, is it a problem that I don't want people's religion infringing on others?
> 
> People can think/vote for whatever they want, but they shouldn't be able to pass laws forcing others to conform to their religious beliefs.  The courts agree which is why doma will end up like DADT.



The problem isn't that your so much against the desires of others, but that you're against the _thoughts_ of others and you're advocating that their desires should be ignored for that reason. That shit is very big brother, which you'd argue against if they topic were nearly anything else.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> Just marry your boyfriend and come out of the closet. After 8 homo threads its obvious you want to.



I can't marry him because of prop 8.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> The problem isn't that your so much against the desires of others, but that you're against the _thoughts_ of others and you're advocating that their desires should be ignored for that reason. That shit is very big brother, which you'd argue against if they topic were nearly anything else.



People can think what they want, they just don't get to put them into law.  Why is that so difficult to comprehend?


----------



## vicious 13 (Apr 12, 2013)

If gay marriage voids the sanctity of marriage... Shouldn't divorce be illegal? I'm drunk I'm might have fucked that one up


----------



## vicious 13 (Apr 12, 2013)

I see it like this... I don't like people telling me I shouldn't inject my ass... I'm sure gays feel the same way


----------



## vicious 13 (Apr 12, 2013)

Still drunk


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

vicious 13 said:


> If gay marriage voids the sanctity of marriage... Shouldn't divorce be illegal? I'm drunk I'm might have fucked that one up



Interestingly, Jesus said divorce was a sin, but never condemned homosexuality.

Shouldn't anti gay marriage christians retards be trying to make divorce illegal?  Yet another example of cherry picking scripture to fit their bigotry.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> People can think what they want, they just don't get to put them into law.  Why is that so difficult to comprehend?



Only so much that it doesn't violate basic rights outlined in other documents. Religious people are also against murder. I assume you're okay with that?


----------



## heavyiron (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Interestingly, Jesus said divorce was a sin, but never condemned homosexuality.
> 
> Shouldn't anti gay marriage christians retards be trying to make divorce illegal?  Yet another example of cherry picking scripture to fit their bigotry.


Omissions does not prove what he believed. This is an illogical conclusion. I don't recall Jesus saying rape or sex with an animal is sin but he very likely believed it was. Under Jewish law which he supported it was a sin to commit a homosexual act. Therefore Christ would follow and believe the Jewish law that condemns homosexual acts.

You also make general statements about Christians being bigots. I can't help but point out that you sound like a bigot for labeling this group in a general and negative fashion. I know you are passionate about this topic but frankly you seem filled with hate and contempt for a group you have labeled. I know many Christians that are some of the most kind and intelligent people I have ever met. Before you retort maybe judge yourself with the same measure you judge others brother.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Only so much that it doesn't violate basic rights outlined in other documents. Religious people are also against murder. I assume you're okay with that?



There's many valid reasons to be against murder.  I have yet to see 1 valid reason to oppose gay marriage.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> Omissions does not prove what he believed. This is an illogical conclusion. I don't recall Jesus saying rape or sex with an animal is sin but he very likely believed it was. Under Jewish law which he supported it was a sin to commit a homosexual act. Therefore Christ would follow and believe the Jewish law that condemns homosexual acts.
> 
> You also make general statements about Christians being bigots. I can't help but point out that you sound like a bigot for labeling this group in a general and negative fashion. I know you are passionate about this topic but frankly you seem filled with hate and contempt for a group you have labeled. I know many Christians that are some of the most kind and intelligent people I have ever met. Before you retort maybe judge yourself with the same measure you judge others brother.



He did say that divorce was a sin though.  Why is there no legislation making it illegal when there are many Christians willing to pass legislation that makes life so difficult for gays because of who they choose to love?  

To be exact, the Jewish law says homosexuality is punishable by death.

I'm sorry, but if you try to force your religion onto others and treat homos as second class citizens, and deny them equal rights, you're a bigot.  If the shoe fits...

It's one thing to have these opinions, but once you try to force them into legislation, you're wrong.


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

One of the most important principles this country was founded upon was liberty. Everything should be legal unless there's a good reason to ban it. Gay marriage should be legal because no one can put forth a good reason to ban it.


----------



## troubador (Apr 12, 2013)

> People can think what they want, they just don't get to put them into law. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?



Oh so now people are only allowed to comprehend want you want them to? You wish we had comprehension gestapo! You raging Nazi hypocrite! Hitler would be impressed with the fascism you're spreading.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> There's many valid reasons to be against murder.  I have yet to see 1 valid reason to oppose gay marriage.



Nice red-herring...

My point is that you're doing the same stuff your blaming religious people for. Your logic is hypocritical, flawed, and generally blows.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 12, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> No, it's a problem if that's the only reason.
> 
> First, you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. Secondly, you can't deny someone something because your religion opposes it.  See my post above, it's a perfect example of how fucked up that way if thinking is.



I say you can discriminate based on sexual preference if it causes physical or mental harm to someone directly involved, but not based on presumed spiritual harm.  I have nothing against polygamy if everyone involved is willing.  Incest is wrong because if a child were birthed it has a high chance of retardation, even if it were homosexual incest there is a psychological cause for it they are mistaking familial love for passion and/or sexual attraction.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Nice red-herring...
> 
> My point is that you're doing the same stuff your blaming religious people for. Your logic is hypocritical, flawed, and generally blows.



I'm trying to pass legislation that discriminates against a group of people?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 12, 2013)

maniclion said:


> I say you can discriminate based on sexual preference if it causes physical or mental harm to someone directly involved, but not based on presumed spiritual harm.  I have nothing against polygamy if everyone involved is willing.  Incest is wrong because if a child were birthed it has a high chance of retardation, even if it were homosexual incest there is a psychological cause for it they are mistaking familial love for passion and/or sexual attraction.



The problem is there is no harm.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> You are right and I misspoke. Please mentally remove sex from my post as you read it. Marriage is a state issue........



How does gay marriage affect you?


----------



## heavyiron (Apr 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> He did say that divorce was a sin though.  Why is there no legislation making it illegal when there are many Christians willing to pass legislation that makes life so difficult for gays because of who they choose to love?
> 
> To be exact, the Jewish law says homosexuality is punishable by death.
> 
> ...


It was punishable by death because it was a capital crime under the Jewish law, ie a sin. 

I love all people regardless if they are gay or not. Please don't label me because I believe in God.

Contempt for Christians as a whole because of their religion is bigotry. Please examine yourself before labeling and accusing others.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 13, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> It was punishable by death because it was a capital crime under the Jewish law, ie a sin.
> 
> I love all people regardless if they are gay or not. Please don't label me because I believe in God.
> 
> Contempt for Christians as a whole because of their religion is bigotry. Please examine yourself before labeling and accusing others.



I wasn't referring to you as a bigot.  I'm referring to those that wish to force others to live according to their religious beliefs, when they don't share the same beliefs.  It's perfectly ok for a church to have the opinion that homosexuality is immoral and not perform the marriages. They just cant force the government to make it illegal.

You say you love all people, I'm not sure your stance on gay marriage, but when a Christian says they love gay people but then want to make their lives miserable by preventing them from marrying is a joke.  

Like I've said many times, it's not ok to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.  Christians or muslims don't get to get away w it because their book says its ok.  

It's no different for someone to try to force legislation preventing interracial marriage because their religion says its immoral.  It's bigotry just the same as being anti gay marriage.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I'm trying to pass legislation that discriminates against a group of people?



No, you've given up on reading. 

You're anti-big brother, but when it comes to something you don't like -- religion -- you advocate thought police. Additionally, you bitch and moan about religious people forcing their world-view on you, but you're pretty fucking quick to do the same if it's about something you don't like.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 13, 2013)

Today these libtards changed the definition of marriage. next they will change the definition of parents, brothers, sisters and so on.  there is ending to it.  It is matter of time one day you can have sex with your moms, dads, brothers, or sisters as long as it is not a rape it will be acceptable.  These fucking libtards.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 13, 2013)

fit26 said:


> Today these libtards changed the definition of marriage. next they will change the definition of parents, brothers, sisters and so on.  there is ending to it.  It is matter of time one day you can have sex with your moms, dads, brothers, or sisters as long as it is not a rape it will be acceptable.  These fucking libtards.



You do realize that marriage was traditionally a father marrying his daughter off in exchange for money or property, right?  Should we go back to traditional marriage?  It was also traditional to not allow blacks and whites to marry and us libtards changed that too.  It's called progress and you lose, lol.


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 13, 2013)

DOMS said:


> No, you've given up on reading.
> 
> You're anti-big brother, but when it comes to something you don't like -- religion -- you advocate thought police. Additionally, you bitch and moan about religious people forcing their world-view on you, but you're pretty fucking quick to do the same if it's about something you don't like.



It seems you don't read well.  You can think what you want, you just don't get to put your thoughts into legislation unless there's a good reason and it doesn't infringe on others rights.  It's pretty simple


----------



## ErikGearhead (Apr 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> So far all the research suggests kids raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals.
> 
> Religious value?  What makes you think you get to impose your religious views on others?



Exactly.  No one has the right to impose their own religious beliefs on others. I've seen far too many examples of heterosexual couples raising children poorly to even consider your argument fit26.
Having gay parents does not make you gay.  being gay is not a choice; it's something that your brain is wired for regardless of your environment.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> It seems you don't read well.  You can think what you want, you just don't get to put your thoughts into legislation unless there's a good reason and it doesn't infringe on others rights.  It's pretty simple



"Unless there's a good reason?" Based on _whose_ reasoning? You really aren't getting it. People should be -- and are -- able to vote based entirely on what they believe, regardless of what you or others think. Insomuch that it doesn't violate items like The Constitution and Bill of Rights. You, however, think that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs...unless of course it matches up with yours...

My point here isn't that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married -- I've already said several times that they should be allowed to -- but that religious people should be allowed to vote how _they_ want to. Which sent you into thought-police territory.


----------



## fit26 (Apr 13, 2013)

fit26 said:


> Today these libtards changed the definition of marriage. *next they will change the definition of parents, *brothers, sisters and so on.  there is ending to it.  It is matter of time one day you can have sex with your moms, dads, brothers, or sisters as long as it is not a rape it will be acceptable.  These fucking libtards.


They already did that.  Kids are forced to accept their male mother or female dad.  Its all fucked up.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 13, 2013)

fit26 said:


> They already did that.  Kids are forced to accept their male mother or female dad.  Its all fucked up.



One parent is better, then?


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 13, 2013)

DOMS said:


> "Unless there's a good reason?" Based on _whose_ reasoning? You really aren't getting it. People should be -- and are -- able to vote based entirely on what they believe, regardless of what you or others think. Insomuch that it doesn't violate items like The Constitution and Bill of Rights. You, however, think that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs...unless of course it matches up with yours...
> 
> My point here isn't that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married -- I've already said several times that they should be allowed to -- but that religious people should be allowed to vote how _they_ want to. Which sent you into thought-police territory.



And I already said that people should be able to vote solely based on their religion.  Laws just can't be enacted that violate the rights of others.  And, if you say that such and such should be illegal because the bible says so, you're not making enough of an argument for such a law.


----------



## Aries1 (Apr 13, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> One parent is better, then?


As a child, I would have preferred a single parent any day.


----------



## Watson (Apr 13, 2013)

all the shit that happens on a daily basis and and the fact anyone would give a damn if 2 homos/lesbos want to tie the knot is amazing

let them do whatever they want, a wedding means more spending in small businesses and local shops, wedding hall, reception etc etc, a couple means less roaming and spreading of disease (for gays and straights alike), and more work for the lawyers to divorce them when chico the filipino pool boy catches someones eye.....

all things will and must change.....


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Apr 14, 2013)

im sure gAYS  CANT FUCK UP being married anymore than straight people


----------



## maniclion (Apr 14, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> The problem is there is no harm.



I don't think you read my thread in the right frame of mind, unless you ARE ok with incest and forced polygamy(muslim type ie)?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 14, 2013)

Aries1 said:


> As a child, I would have preferred a single parent any day.



Daddy or mommy issues?


----------



## Watson (Apr 14, 2013)

KILLEROFSAINTS said:


> im sure gAYS  CANT FUCK UP being married anymore than straight people



very true, and its their problem to deal with if they do


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 14, 2013)

maniclion said:


> I don't think you read my thread in the right frame of mind, unless you ARE ok with incest and forced polygamy(muslim type ie)?



I think that you make a good point about the dangers of having incestual children.  And, of course forced anything should be illegal.  I have no prob w consensual polygamy though.

If we were to find that kids raised by a black dad and white mom faired worse in school or were likely to get into more trouble, we still couldn't prevent them from marrying because its discrimination.

Either way, gay marriage harms nobody.


----------



## Aries1 (Apr 14, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Daddy or mommy issues?


Luckily neither. You really think an alpha male child with gays for parents won't be an absolute disaster? Let them marry but keep them away from children.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 14, 2013)

Aries1 said:


> Luckily neither. You really think an alpha male child with gays for parents won't be an absolute disaster? Let them marry but keep them away from children.



There is absolutely zero evidence that gays do worse as parents than straights.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 14, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> There is absolutely zero evidence that gays do worse as parents than straights.



As the supreme court most eloquently stated. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage. 

The fact is children due better in homes where there is a mother and a father. men and women are different, and both roles ideally should be fulfilled in a home for children. crime goes down when the traditional basic family unit is strong. that's just a fact.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 14, 2013)

maniclion said:


> I don't think you read my thread in the right frame of mind, unless you ARE ok with incest and forced polygamy(muslim type ie)?



There have been individuals in this thread who have stated they are ok with both polygamy and incest. no use even continuing the argument if that is what we are dealing with here in the US


----------



## fit26 (Apr 14, 2013)

Used to be
Mom+dad=Parents

Now
Two men (don't know which one is mom)=Parents

Future
I don't know what is coming next(dad+grandma?)=Parents


----------



## exphys88 (Apr 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> There have been individuals in this thread who have stated they are ok with both polygamy and incest. no use even continuing the argument if that is what we are dealing with here in the US



I'm happy that people like you are no longer arguing against gay marriage.  Why waste your time, it's going to happen.

There are still countries that homosexuality is a crime in, maybe you should move to Africa so you can live a righteous life.


----------



## LAM (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Much more importantly, a person should be able to vote for or against laws based on what they believe.



sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 15, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> As the supreme court most eloquently stated. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage.
> 
> The fact is children due better in homes where there is a mother and a father. men and women are different, and both roles ideally should be fulfilled in a home for children. crime goes down when the traditional basic family unit is strong. that's just a fact.



Show me evidence where gay parents do worse than straight parents.

You have yet to answer how gay marriage affects you.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 15, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Show me evidence where gay parents do worse than straight parents.
> 
> You have yet to answer how gay marriage affects you.



Should I draw pictures for you? Because gay marriage has been around for such a short time it would obviously be hard to show with empirical data the effects of gay parents on children. Hence the reason the supreme court made the point during questioning that cell phones have been around longer. Many justices feel uncomfortable making a ruling on such an issue when it is at best not well understood.

Gay marriage effects society. That is the point i've been making for 7 pages in this thread. Obviously you are too dense to pick up on simple facts as i've stated them. My previous post said very clearly that society is better when the traditional, ideal family unit is kept strong. I can not be more clear than how crystal clear I'm being. I believe we should do all we can to strengthen the traditional family unit with a loving father and mother both in the home focused on raising their children. Men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses complimentary to each other, and both needed when raising the next generation.   

I'll not be returning to this thread again. It's completely worthless to share ideas when individuals here somehow think that it's ok to argue incest and polygamy should be allowed on the heels of gay marriage because it doesn't hurt me personally. Yes, I understand that laws must be balanced when taking into account the freedoms of the individual vs. the needs of society. I just come down on the other side of the line with you on this issue, that isn't going to change.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.



No fool. Regardless on what they want to base that belief on. whether you agree with what they base their belief system on or not makes no difference. That is what DOMS has been saying this whole time.  By making the argument that anyone can chose for another what they are allowed to base their beliefs on when voting our entire constitution would become void. You can not legislate how a person thinks. which it seems you, and many others her are trying to do.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.





bio-chem said:


> No fool. Regardless on what they want to base that belief on. whether you agree with what they base their belief system on or not makes no difference. That is what DOMS has been saying this whole time.  By making the argument that anyone can chose for another what they are allowed to base their beliefs on when voting our entire constitution would become void. You can not legislate how a person thinks. which it seems you, and many others her are trying to do.



What bio-chem said.

Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 15, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Should I draw pictures for you? Because gay marriage has been around for such a short time it would obviously be hard to show with empirical data the effects of gay parents on children. Hence the reason the supreme court made the point during questioning that cell phones have been around longer. Many justices feel uncomfortable making a ruling on such an issue when it is at best not well understood.
> 
> Gay marriage effects society. That is the point i've been making for 7 pages in this thread. Obviously you are too dense to pick up on simple facts as i've stated them. My previous post said very clearly that society is better when the traditional, ideal family unit is kept strong. I can not be more clear than how crystal clear I'm being. I believe we should do all we can to strengthen the traditional family unit with a loving father and mother both in the home focused on raising their children. Men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses complimentary to each other, and both needed when raising the next generation.
> 
> I'll not be returning to this thread again. It's completely worthless to share ideas when individuals here somehow think that it's ok to argue incest and polygamy should be allowed on the heels of gay marriage because it doesn't hurt me personally. Yes, I understand that laws must be balanced when taking into account the freedoms of the individual vs. the needs of society. I just come down on the other side of the line with you on this issue, that isn't going to change.



You'll come back.  You can't help yourself.  How long gay marriage has been around has nothing to do with it.  You have yet to bring one fact to the table about how gay marriage hurts society.  If you are so worried about the strengths of traditional marriage you'd best start working on how and why the divorce rate is so high.  

I'm glad you finally admitted that gay marriage has no effect on your life.  That being the case what is your argument against it?  You have none.  Traditional marriage is in shambles, especially across the bible belt.  Oh, the irony in that fact.  The folks arguing against gay marriage and the positives of traditional marriage can't even stay together.  So much for that argument.


----------



## troubador (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> What bio-chem said.
> 
> Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?



You want us to give our seal of approval on an argument we haven't seen? Your premise is unverified, you don't have a sound argument.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

troubador said:


> You want us to give our seal of approval on an argument we haven't seen? Your premise is unverified, you don't have a sound argument.



What? You're allergic to the search feature?


----------



## troubador (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> What? You're allergic to the search feature?



No, apathetic. You're question was an attempt to get us to say "no", then you would call us hypocrites and attempt to make the argument that a factual argument isn't the best method to vote/form an opinion, or something like that (ironically)... it doesn't matter really. However, your question (disguised as an argument) is just a fallacy of begging the question. It's a make believe scenario where you claim to have proven something, without proof that you did, that is most likely adverse to people's sensibilities and claim that logic isn't enough. It's incredibly stupid. So the answer to the question 'since DOMS made an argument does that make it true?' is no.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 15, 2013)

Gay marriage isn't a new concept.  I went to a gay marriage back in 2002.  It wasn't official, but it was a ceremony with an ordained minister.  Gay and lesbian couples have been raising children for quite a long time.  I also know a gay couple that aren't officially married yet they adopted a foster child who was living in a tent on the beach with a drug addict mother and father.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

troubador said:


> No, pathetic. You're question was an attempt to get us to say "no", then you would call us hypocrites and attempt to make the argument that a factual argument isn't the best method to vote/form an opinion, or something like that (ironically)... it doesn't matter really. However, your question (disguised as an argument) is just a fallacy of begging the question. It's a make believe scenario where you claim to have proven something, without proof that you did, that is most likely adverse to people's sensibilities and claim that logic isn't enough. It's incredibly stupid. So the answer to the question 'since DOMS made an argument does that make it true?' is no.



Since so you're so confused, I'll spell it out for you. There are a lot of things that we should do that make logical sense, but that libtards such as yourself, wouldn't agree to. For example, the idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police.


----------



## LAM (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> What bio-chem said.
> 
> Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?



LMAO! so says IMs resident sociopath.

you can through yourself right in there also DOMS on that boat back to where your people immigrated from.  because when compared to the capitalists and superwealthy that run the country there is no difference between those in the underclass and people like yourself as wealth is extremely subjective.


----------



## troubador (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Since so you're so confused, I'll spell it out for you. There are a lot of things that we should do that make logical sense, but that libtards such as yourself, wouldn't agree to. For example, the idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police.



So the "idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs" makes logical sense but libtards like me won't agree to banning them from voting and somehow that has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police. Your insane ass is just rambling now. 

bio-chem, what did you like about the post? Was it the anti-big brother types endorsing thought-police?  My favorite was where he said I'm confused right before making a nonsensical argument.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> LMAO! so says IMs resident sociopath.



So speaks IM's closet racist and conspiracy nut.



LAM said:


> you can through yourself right in there also DOMS on that boat back to where your people immigrated from.



It's the quality of the immigrants people that matter. The facts show that some make this place worse with their very presence. I've posted the facts time and time again. You just don't like them, so you just can't wrap your head around it.



LAM said:


> because when compared to the capitalists and superwealthy that run the country there is no difference between those in the underclass and people like yourself as wealth is extremely subjective.



Fiscal classes are _subjective_? Yes, because food, clothes, houses, and money in the bank are subjective. Holy shit...


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

troubador said:


> So the "idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs" makes logical sense but libtards like me won't agree to banning them from voting and somehow that has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police. Your insane ass is just rambling now.
> 
> bio-chem, what did you like about the post? Was it the anti-big brother types endorsing thought-police?  My favorite was where he said I'm confused right before making a nonsensical argument.



Wow, that's a lot of nonsense you managed to fit into one post. You're trying so hard to make your point, that you've gone full retard. You're just like the hardcore libtard, something doesn't fit into your world view, so it mentally ceases to exist for you. Your mother would be proud.


----------



## troubador (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Wow, that's a lot of nonsense you managed to fit into one post. You're trying so hard to make your point, that you've gone full retard. You're just like the hardcore libtard, something doesn't fit into your world view, so it mentally ceases to exist for you. Your mother would be proud.



I laid out an argument in post 220 and you just kept trolling. You can't form an argument that isn't an ad hominem.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2013)

troubador said:


> I laid out an argument in post 220 and you just kept trolling. You can't form an argument that isn't an ad hominem.



This will come as a shock to you, but other people can construct an argument with the appropriate disparaging remarks. Which is what I've done to you, but you don't like that your argument is flawed so you only see the disparaging remarks. Which is pretty freakin' hilarious.


----------



## troubador (Apr 15, 2013)

DOMS said:


> This will come as a shock to you, but other people can construct an argument with the appropriate disparaging remarks. Which is what I've done to you, but you don't like that your argument is flawed so you only see the disparaging remarks. Which is pretty freakin' hilarious.



Then name one anti-big brother type who endorses thought police, with references. 

My argument is - claiming your argument is sound does not make it so and therefore doesn't support any other argument.


----------



## FUZO (Apr 16, 2013)

why is this thread still going


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 16, 2013)

FUZO said:


> why is this thread still going



Because you just replied twelve hours after the last post.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 16, 2013)

FUZO said:


> why is this thread still going



Because people who think the Gov. shouldn't tell them what to do concerning guns when they aren't harming anyone, but only have a potential theoretical chance to turn around and say the gov. should stick their nose in someones business even though their sexual preference doesn't harm anyone else except for on a potentially spiritual level(ie won't get into heaven).


----------

