Gay Marriage page 108

3390 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Whooooooaaaaa….Nelly.
So, ya’re trying to tell me that Christ’s teachings call homosexuality a sin?

BUT, actually, I give a shit and two really juicy farts if it does.
One: Juame is talking OLD Testament values being applied to homosexuality.
TWO: Separation of church & state. Religious “values” are really NOT the key point here in discussing the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of American citizens who have alternative sexual orientations.

I’m not trying to tell you, I am telling you straight out. Most Christians don’t go by the old testament. That was before Christ and they go by the new testament…after Christ.

LOL….tenco was right about YOU & “reading comprehension skills”.

So now you are writing in code to go along with that other mess you spew? No wonder we can’t decipher it. And you blame us?

You know, I wish you really did know something about the constitution. then I wouldn’t have to keep going to my book on it. Your comprehension of the document is sorely lacking. Human rights are given to everyone, although it doesn’t quite state it that way, but human rights do not state a minority can tell the majority what to believe. If the majority doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage, and especially if they are Christians, Your temper tantrums are not going to change their minds. In fact you might polarize the gays from the main of society even more. But you don’t understand this, do you?

Now you are telling us you are going to contest the bible? Wow old man, you are going to have to go back 2000 years to confront the authors. LOL, you contest anything that doesn’t agree with your ideals. I don’t have to contest any of these books or documents as I am not trying to make some wild change in the fabric of society. Only you can make that distinction.

 
Flag Post

Issendorf, a federation is an entity that has federalism.

Wikipedia on “federation”:


A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, ‘covenant’), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter.1
The governmental or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism. It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. Germany with sixteen Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer was a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France by contrast has always been unitary.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
.
Originally posted by jhco50:

I never insulted you grandfather and you know it. So, no threat and I wasted the lyrics to a song? Damn!

When you failed to comprehend the allegory:
I would imagine your grandfather would rather not have a conversation with you if you are so disrespectful of him.
You were here confirming that my allegory was not an allegory, but truth; thus saying that he is indeed racist as you are accepting what I am saying.

Juame…it appears that jake-o doesn’t understand the difference between a threat and an insult anymore than he understands what an analogy, an allegory, etc. are. It appears there is a whooooole lot that he fails to “understand”….eh?
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

jhco, as previously stated, you have no credibility because a) all your information comes from hear-say sources or “something you read”; b) you spout exactly what Fox News spouts; I don’t think I need to expand this point further.

Let’s look at facts again. Sorry, I know you don’t like this, jhco; however, I like the truth. Dictionary definitions.

bigot (n): a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

Are you intolerant of ideas other than your own, especially on religion, politics or race? Yes, particularly politics and race. You are intolerant of ideas such as egalitarianism, progressivism, or marriage equality.

ignorant (adj): lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened.

Are you lacking in knowledge in, e.g., the definition of the word “socialism”, a word you constantly use in a misinformed manner? Yes.

shallow (adj): lacking depth; superficial: a mind that is not narrow but shallow.

Are you shallow in, e.g., marriage equality and its advantageous repercussions to society? Yes.

By your own words, here, jhco.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Issendorf, a federation is an entity that has federalism.

Wikipedia on “federation”:


A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, ‘covenant’), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter.1
The governmental or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism. It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. Germany with sixteen Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer was a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France by contrast has always been unitary.

I had mistyped and corrected it, but nonetheless. My point was that not all federations are the same, but then eliminated because I’m a bit too sleepy to expand on it beyond that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

So now you are writing in code to go along with that other mess you spew? No wonder we can’t decipher it. And you blame us?

I haven’t a clue of what ya’re on about w/ this shit.
I’m guessing ya’re just grabbing out of your idiiotic bag-0-bullshit to toss at any & everything that logically confronts your ridiculous position on this issue.

You know, I wish you really did know something about the constitution. then I wouldn’t have to keep going to my book on it.

If YOU actually UNDERSTOOD the whole intent of the Const.,,,,YOU wouldn’t be making a fool of yourself.

Your comprehension of the document is sorely lacking.

LOL….I think several of us on this forum have said the very same about YOU.

Human rights are given to everyone, although it doesn’t quite state it that way,

LOL….how ignorant.
Human “rights” ARE MANIFEST to everyone.
Maybe ya ought to become familiar w/ the Dec. of Indep. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

… but human rights do not state a minority can tell the majority what to believe.

Where in the hell do YOU come up with this shit? Who is cultivating this mental-megashit for ya? What the hell are YOU “smoking”?….Crack (of) no-brain?

If the majority doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage, and especially if they are Christians, Your temper tantrums are not going to change their minds.

Good golly, Molly….da boy dun stipped his gears.
Majority don’t mean shit in a Republic…how many times must we tell YOU this?
Being “Christian” has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ legal RIGHTS issues….why do YOU not understand this?
I have little interest wasting time nor effort in changing the shitty minds of ignorant bigots who very likely will NEVER even have a decent mind to be changed. I’m just gonna let that kind of putrid ingnorance die out w/ the generation that holds onto it so dearly.

In fact you might polarize the gays from the main of society even more. But you don’t understand this, do you?

OH, I’m quite well aware of it. It is something I’m quite adept at using when necessary.
HOWEVER, if YOU would pull yer head outta yer ass just long enough for a quick look around….ya’d see that your “conerns” on this are as overly wrought as most of your other bullshit. Public opinion is dramtically shifting on acceptance of homosexuality…..due to education & death.

Now you are telling us you are going to contest the bible? Wow old man, you are going to have to go back 2000 years to confront the authors. LOL, you contest anything that doesn’t agree with your ideals. I don’t have to contest any of these books or documents as I am not trying to make some wild change in the fabric of society. Only you can make that distinction.

I have no fucking idea of why ya said all of that pap. I’m guessing some form of diversion from reality.
It is soooooo far off from what I said that other than insulting it….nothing more should be said of it.
Well, like tenco said: reading comprehesion. LOL
 
Flag Post

I’m aware not all federations are the same. However, you essentially said…

Me:

most countries have lengthy, detailed constitutions which are specific; the same cannot be said for the U.S. for the myriad of interpretations of so many amendments.

You:

It’s called federalism…

You’re saying that the reason the United States does not have a lengthy, detailed constitution which is specific is because the United States is a federation.

I disproved you by exemplifying other federations. Your argument is flawed as it does not work on more than one argument. Thus, you are incorrect.

 
Flag Post
You’re saying that the reason the United States does not have a lengthy, detailed constitution which is specific is because the United States is a federation.

Because the only way the Constitution could be ratified was to create a document that was limited in scope that would surrender rights to the states when it wasn’t specifically stated in the Constitution – hence federalism.

I disproved you by exemplifying other federations. Your argument is flawed as it does not work on more than one argument.

You read way too much into it. I wasn’t declaring some grand theory. People were really scared about having another monarch replace the monarch that was just overthrown. I didn’t say that was a model for all federal governments or that a short Constitution is a prerequisite to have the system.

Thus, you are incorrect.

The only thing I’m guilty of is doing a poor job of conveying my point. I never did/meant to make this grand theory that you’re asserting I did.

 
Flag Post

Then “It’s called federalism…” is incorrect as it is not because it’s federalism. By your own words this is.

The first paragraph contradicts the rest. There you’re saying that the read the United States has a brief constitution is because… federalism. Contradictory to what you said in the second paragraph; you disagree with yourself in the second and first paragraphs. This is untrue; the United States could have easily drafted a lengthy, extensive constitution which was unambiguous. They didn’t for some reason (very consequential today; aswell as politicians’ apathy to modernise it).

 
Flag Post

Wow, you could be Karma’s son. So who decided I didn’t have credibility…you? Karma? Vika? Or could it be the only way you can put up any kind of argument is to try and berate the opposition? Well, Jaume, it doesn’t always work like you think it should. We are on two opposing sides on this issue and we both think we are right. The difference is, I’m straight forward with what I say and you guys resort to name calling and berating anyone who disagrees.

I must say, it isn’t much of a debate if you are debating against those who haven’t got and argument and resort to personal insults. Karma is probably the best at this as his entire posts are the insulting of his opposition, which is usually me, since I don’t have any respect for him.

Am I intolerant? In some cases, yes I am. I have very little patience with people who think everyone around them must submit to what they think should be. You know, Karma mentioned human rights. Of course he misinterpreted what they mean, but let me explain. We each have rights, it doesn’t matter if you are green, black, blue, or gay. We all have them. But when one person abuses his rights by invading another’s space with his demands, he has stepped on another’s rights. The gays can do anything they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. That is their right. But when they start demanding and disrupting other people’s rights because they feel theirs are more important, they are going to get kickback. If you want to screw a knothole in a fence, I don’t care, do it in private. I don’t like gays invading my space anymore than I like heterosexuals doing the same. There is absolutely no reason for the gays to be making a spectacle in front of other citizens and their children. If gays want a civil union, fine. But if you think I’m going to bow down and kiss your feet and spit on the traditions I grew up with, you have another thing coming.

 
Flag Post
But when one person abuses his rights by invading another’s space with his demands, he has stepped on another’s rights. … But when they start demanding and disrupting other people’s rights because they feel theirs are more important, they are going to get kickback. … I don’t like gays invading my space anymore than I like heterosexuals doing the same.

Yesterday, Bob and Jill married in Mississippi. Did they step on your rights? No. Did they step on your liberties? No. Did they invade your space? No.

Yesterday, Bob and Jim married in Washington. Did they step on your rights? No. Did they step on your liberties? No. Did they invade your space? No.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Then “It’s called federalism…” is incorrect as it is not because it’s federalism. By your own words this is.

The first paragraph contradicts the rest. There you’re saying that the read the United States has a brief constitution is because… federalism. Contradictory to what you said in the second paragraph; you disagree with yourself in the second and first paragraphs. This is untrue; the United States could have easily drafted a lengthy, extensive constitution which was unambiguous. They didn’t for some reason (very consequential today; aswell as politicians’ apathy to modernise it).

It’s like talking to a cinderblock…

 
Flag Post

Isn’t that whole tangent sort of moot anyway?
Shouldn’t all citizens be granted the same rights, be it by federal or state level laws?

I don’t see how an argument about whether or not the issue should be handled at the federal level changes the argument that denying someone marriage is denying them equal status.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

They are just OT trolls, ignore them and they will go away.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

They are just OT trolls, ignore them and they will go away.

LOL, it appears Admin-mod did it for me.
AND, it appears that they agreed w/ my “Twilight Zone” assessment.

NOW, back to your regularly scheduled viewing: Gay Marriage.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:
But when one person abuses his rights by invading another’s space with his demands, he has stepped on another’s rights. … But when they start demanding and disrupting other people’s rights because they feel theirs are more important, they are going to get kickback. … I don’t like gays invading my space anymore than I like heterosexuals doing the same.

Yesterday, Bob and Jill married in Mississippi. Did they step on your rights? No. Did they step on your liberties? No. Did they invade your space? No.

Yesterday, Bob and Jim married in Washington. Did they step on your rights? No. Did they step on your liberties? No. Did they invade your space? No.

Isn’t what Jaume is saying here pretty much at the very core of the issue? How is anyone truly negatively impacted by their being “married”. If anyone serously believes some mystical “social moral fabric” is being ripped to shreds…..THEN, give some substance to this claim.

I would like for those who oppose Gay “Marriage” to give a meaningful, rational REASON why their being “married” (we have established, _ad nauseum, the whole “marriage” is NOT a term owned by religion, state, or otherwise. YES, it is used interchangeably by most all persons involved in the whole mess.

BUT, this is going to have to be cleared up….separated….managed in a manner that is relevant & realistic. It’s like the meaning of marriage really IS NOT THE ISSUE.
But rather, it is whether Gays—being the “perverts” they are—have equal rights at all.

 
Flag Post

Karma we have given rational reasons, lot’s of them, and you just rant a little and ignore them. All the while you spit out your reasons for, which we think are irrational.

If I murder my neighbor, does that affect you? No? How about if I run my truck through a crowd of spectators at a football game? does that affect you? No? So tell me again how Jaume is at the core of this discussion.

You are right, this is going to have to be cleared up. The people are voting one way and the liberal judges are spitting in their face and instead of following the law, are trying to legislate from the bench. I don’t understand why your mind won’t accept that they do have the same rights as everyone else and that they are trying to gain more through the courts. Think logically for a change and realize all of America are not willing to cow-tow to the gays and their demands. And then arguments like this thread does nothing for their plight. It actually hardens opinions. None of you are good representatives for the gay movement, except in your own minds.

 
Flag Post
I don’t understand why your mind won’t accept that they do have the same rights as everyone else and that they are trying to gain more through the courts.

I’m interested in hearing what extra rights homosexuals are trying to gain that heterosexuals don’t have.

 
Flag Post
If I murder my neighbor, does that affect you? No? How about if I run my truck through a crowd of spectators at a football game? does that affect you? No? So tell me again how Jaume is at the core of this discussion.

This is not only different, but ludicrous and preposterous.

In your example you will be affecting other individuals directly; you will be injuring and/or killing them.

On the other hand, marriage does not kill you or harm anyone who’s not involved. In fact, the institution of marriage does not physically harm or kill anyone either. The same way guns don’t kill people, marriage doesn’t kill people. While this may seem obvious, the following statement is necessary: in contrast, running over someone does affect them directly as it physically harms them.

The people are voting one way

Hmm, voting which way? Oh, that’s right, voting for same-sex marriage. Washington, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota? You have magically forgotten about their amendments/referenda. Magically you have forgotten about the fact that same-sex marriage is not only wanted by the majority of Americans according to thousands of polls but that it increasingly is becoming accepted. Disinformation, shameless lies abound.

Or maybe it’s misinformation and you truly are naive enough to not know that polls and binding referenda indicate Americans being in favour of same-sex marriage?

 
Flag Post

Why is it mainly the conservatives that have a problem with gay marriage? Aren’t they the ones that usually tout personal freedoms as the most important right to be defended?
Isn’t one of the greatest personal freedoms (for many) to be able to marry the love of your life?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator