Gay marriage

[Zaphod]

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]

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

Good god...

LOL, the people who vote on the laws.

 

[DOMS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You can marry a goat for all I care!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Zaphod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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