Ban on gay marriage 'unconcsitutional'
-
Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity.
Abnormal is an aberation to the above.
Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor
lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.
Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity.
Abnormal is an aberation to the above.
Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor
lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.
I think we can agree that homosexuality is not normal - the norm is that you're straight, clearly. But does that mean that anything that isn't 'normal' should be illegal? If most people choose to act in one way, should the other way be illegal? Like, most people in America are Christian of some description - catholic, protestant, mormon, whatever. That's a belief, a way of life, like you said being gay is. Should the minority religions be outlawed? Nobody's forcing you to go to a mosque and kneel before allah, much in the same way that I'd hope nobody is forcing to suck a dick (if they are then perhaps your view is more understandable!)
-
Cal and Chris.
That's my point and the reason I put quotation marks around the word natural. Often people, like somebody here, have used the argument that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural since it happens in nature. Another reason given by some is that people are born that way or that it might be genetic. I'm not making a value judgement I'm just saying that none of those conditions make it right or wrong.. People are born with many different traits that we wouldn't consider proper.
I would say that a case could be easily made that giving perks or benefits two married people of any sex should be unconstitutional since unmarried people are denied those same things.
But I will leave that lawsuit to the people who give more of a shit about it than I do.
WSS
-
Point well taken, Mr. Steve.
btw, I heard an interesting interview on the radio the other day...
Hannity.
She was gay, and was aghast that gay orgs continued to press for
"marriage", that she felt it was fair to have civil unions, which did get
them rights they wanted. She said the gay "marriage" battle was not
constructive, and quite counter-productive, and was causing significant
backlash in her own life.
I've never been against civil unions. Don't agree with em, but I understand
the fairness.
But the controversy over gay "marriage" - redefining real marriage, and slapping
people in the face with lawsuits over baking wedding cakes? Forcing pastors/etc.
to recognize and perform services that they know are not real?
And pushing the perversion behavior in the face of society?
Sounds like perverted gay rebels without a genuine cause to most folks.
That gal was correct, and she and Hannity had a great talk. Civil unions were
society's correction to unfairness to a very small minority.
The only thing left, what the conservation didn't get, is politics. vicious, self-destructive,
in-your-face-if-you-are-a-conservative political aggression.
-
Government should not be involved in any marriage, straight or gay. Let it be a religious ceremony if two people want to do that. If two consenting adults, of any sex, want to be legally bound then let them sign on the line. It would kill this whole debate.
-
It depends on what you call marriage I guess. If you mean it in the legal sense, then sure, a guy's "husband" should automatically have the same rights as another guy's wife, in terms of medical decisions, taxes, etc. But if you want to force a church to bless you, that's ridiculous. I'm not going to take a cheeseburger around to a hindu/muslim/jewish guy and ask him to bless it because I have the right to eat it.
-
It actually sounds like most people here are on the same page when it comes to gay rights, bizarrely enough.
-
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. logic
*********************************
I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,
because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological
self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.
A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?
that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,
nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...
covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label
just for belonging to that religion.
-
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. logic
*********************************
I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,
because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological
self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.
A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?
that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,
nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...
covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label
just for belonging to that religion.
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. logic
*********************************
I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,
because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological
self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.
A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?
that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,
nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...
covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label
just for belonging to that religion.
You are the same guy that blames all liberals....for everything haha.
-
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. logic
*********************************
I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,
because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological
self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.
A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?
that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,
nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...
covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label
just for belonging to that religion.
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. logic
*********************************
I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,
because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological
self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.
A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?
that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,
nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...
covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label
just for belonging to that religion.
Oh god, I almost fell out of my chair. Hahahahah
Cal is great at blaming one group for something, and then crying victim when it is flipped on him.
-
You are the same guy that blames all liberals....for everything haha. Logic
*********************************************************
no "haha"... @@
Liberals tend to do the same things. So I refer to a group.
I don't condemn every single liberal for being a rapist, because as a liberal,
they are all the same criminal.
See? Would you agree that most liberals do not like Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity?
But if I said a particular liberal didn't like Glenn Beck because he was a member of that group,
that would be invalid.
So, what we are talking about, condemning an individual of a group, based on trends of certain
reps of that group.... my point is valid.
-
Therefore,
you two have committed a faux pas .."haha".
He who laughs last, laughs best, eh?
-
I never want to see you generalize again. You should stick to your guns and refer to each liberal person on a case by case basis.
And yeah, I condemn the entire Catholic priesthood for the actions of a minority. They were institutionally protected sexual assaults. That means there were many people involved in the acts and protecting the offenders. The same thing could be said for Penn State when it came to light that Joe Pa and other higher ups were protecting Sandusky. They were just as guilty.
-
Government should not be involved in any marriage, straight or gay. Let it be a religious ceremony if two people want to do that. If two consenting adults, of any sex, want to be legally bound then let them sign on the line. It would kill this whole debate.
That's too logical.Government should not be involved in any marriage, straight or gay. Let it be a religious ceremony if two people want to do that. If two consenting adults, of any sex, want to be legally bound then let them sign on the line. It would kill this whole debate.
it would seem reasonable if the government set up a civil union program that would carry across all 50 states. If you also want to call yourself husband and wife find yourself a church (or anything) that's up for it blow the money on the band the hall and the reception and have at it.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login