user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 There should be no law that people are made to obey by force and coercion. People aren't "created" equal, (no creation, no created, quit adding Christian rhetoric to everything, it ruins it). People are not equal in terms of intelligence, but without the restrictions we have placed upon ourselves, we are born equal. There should be no law that people are made to obey by force or coercion??? Surely, you jest. No.. The burden of proof is upon the state just as the burden of proof is upon the religious.. Stoning someone / denying them freedoms are just as bad as eachother. I deny people without a driver's license the ability to operate a motor vehicle. That's just as bad as stoning them??? Denying people the right to marry because of genetic differences is just as bad as stoning people. You don't understand the concept of freedom. You kill freedom and you kill the people. You can laugh while you have the consensus Sly. People like you just don't get it. There's nothing to get, aside from the humor to be found in blatant melodrama We don't live in the same world. I love in the world that, beneath the glamour and glitz, IS. I know that our systems of politics do not represent that, but that does not mean that it is me that is wrong. You take shelter in the consensus but there will be a day when the people take back what is theirs. You're included in that, by the way. P.S. Are you black? Nope. I'm African. We're one step ahead of black people. (Yes, I kid.) Do you really see a difference between not letting blacks and whites marry and not letting gays marry? Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese666me Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 The thread title should be changed to Homosexuality: Right or Wrong in United States? Why even try with that idiot? Honestly, there is no point whatsoever. I'd get better replies if I argued with a tree stump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 The thread title should be changed to Homosexuality: Right or Wrong in United States? No it should be changed to "When will religion and the state stop conspiring against the people?" Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese666me Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 The thread title should be changed to Homosexuality: Right or Wrong in United States? No it should be changed to "When will religion and the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT stop conspiring against the people?" It doesn't happen in every country, you know? This debate only focuses in what's going on in USA. Why even try with that idiot? Honestly, there is no point whatsoever. I'd get better replies if I argued with a tree stump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_Wizard Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 No.. The burden of proof is upon the state just as the burden of proof is upon the religious.. The burden of proof for what? Denying people the right to marry because of genetic differences is just as bad as stoning people. You don't understand the concept of freedom. You kill freedom and you kill the people. Okay. We're not "discriminating" on the basis of genetic differences, as that would mean that only one sex would be allowed to marry. We're "discriminating" on the basis of who you are marrying-- Nothing else. I perfectly well understand the concept of freedom. You don't understand that freedom does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want", as that is an anarchy and has never worked nor will ever work. We don't live in the same world. I love in the world that, beneath the glamour and glitz, IS. I know that our systems of politics do not represent that, but that does not mean that it is me that is wrong. You take shelter in the consensus but there will be a day when the people take back what is theirs. You're included in that, by the way. ??? I can't offer up a response, 'cuz I have no idea what you're saying/what you're trying to get at. Do you really see a difference between not letting blacks and whites marry and not letting gays marry? Yes. See first response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 No.. The burden of proof is upon the state just as the burden of proof is upon the religious.. The burden of proof for what? "Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic." Noam Chomsky is more eloquent than me. Denying people the right to marry because of genetic differences is just as bad as stoning people. You don't understand the concept of freedom. You kill freedom and you kill the people. Okay. We're not "discriminating" on the basis of genetic differences, as that would mean that only one sex would be allowed to marry. We're "discriminating" on the basis of who you are marrying-- Nothing else. I perfectly well understand the concept of freedom. You don't understand that freedom does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want", as that is an anarchy and has never worked nor will ever work. Certain people are gay. It is not a choice. For you to say that they cannot marry is to say "people of certain genetic differences cannot marry." As for the last part, anarchism is not without order, but without rule. We don't live in the same world. I love in the world that, beneath the glamour and glitz, IS. I know that our systems of politics do not represent that, but that does not mean that it is me that is wrong. You take shelter in the consensus but there will be a day when the people take back what is theirs. You're included in that, by the way. ??? I can't offer up a response, 'cuz I have no idea what you're saying/what you're trying to get at. You won't be in the majority forever, is all I'm saying. Do you really see a difference between not letting blacks and whites marry and not letting gays marry? Yes. See first response. See my reply. There really isn't any difference between the two actions. You just need to rationalise your religious bs by claiming all these petty differences, but when it comes down to it, it's all the same. Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastortoise Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 you guys are in it way too deep lol *plays Let It Be* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_Wizard Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 "Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic." Noam Chomsky is more eloquent than me. Considering the guy's a libertarian, that kind of statement doesn't surprise me. Certain people are gay. It is not a choice. For you to say that they cannot marry is to say "people of certain genetic differences cannot marry." Once again, no, we're not discriminating against genetic differences. We are limiting who you can marry to man and woman, which thereby not only rules out same sex marriages, but any marriage not between a man and a woman (Of course, there are further limits but those are fine for the time being). As for the last part, anarchism is not without order, but without rule. Good luck arguing how you can have order without rule. You won't be in the majority forever, is all I'm saying. So, your argument is effectively "Just you wait!"? Okay... See my reply. There really isn't any difference between the two actions. You just need to rationalise your religious bs by claiming all these petty differences, but when it comes down to it, it's all the same. Just because you say it's the same, doesn't make it the same. Yet again, you fail to realize that people are not discriminating against gay people for being gay. That is the fallacy here. We're "discriminating" based on who they are trying to marry. It would be an ENTIRELY different matter if we were discriminating based on the fact that they were gay and allowed all other groups to marry whomever they wish. But we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Just because you say it's the same, doesn't make it the same. Yet again, you fail to realize that people are not discriminating against gay people for being gay. That is the fallacy here. We're "discriminating" based on who they are trying to marry. It would be an ENTIRELY different matter if we were discriminating based on the fact that they were gay and allowed all other groups to marry whomever they wish. But we don't. Bull****. You're discriminating against gays and the reasons are religious at the core of it. We're "discriminating" based on who they are trying to marry. Basically, you're discriminating against people who did not choose to be the way they are (I'm not saying it is negative, but it is true, they did not choose). You attempting to avoid hypocrisy here is hilarious. I mean the whole "oh no, we aren't discriminating against gays, we're just discriminating based on who they are trying to marry," - now that my friend, sounds like pure, unadultered bull****. Your argument can be used against black people marrying white people. "We aren't discriminating based on what they are, but rather on who they are trying to marry." You don't want people of certain genetic differences to be able to marry people of other genetic differences. Stop giving me this bs about "oh, well, ugh, it's who they're trying to marry!" because we both know you're full of it. Quit misleading people and just tell the [bleep]ing truth. Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_Wizard Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Bull****. You're discriminating against gays and the reasons are religious at the core of it. No. Just, no. Basically, you're discriminating against people who did not choose to be the way they are (I'm not saying it is negative, but it is true, they did not choose). You attempting to avoid hypocrisy here is hilarious. I mean the whole "oh no, we aren't discriminating against gays, we're just discriminating based on who they are trying to marry," - now that my friend, sounds like pure, unadultered bull****. :wall: You know, I figured my last post was pretty well constructed, but obviously not. So let's try this another way. I'll just adopt the Socratic was of arguing, in a manner. "By restricting marriage to one man and one woman, what groups are we "discriminating" against?" (And the answer isn't just "gays".) Your argument can be used against black people marrying white people. "We aren't discriminating based on what they are, but rather on who they are trying to marry." Except for the fact that marriages weren't being restricted based on whom they were trying to marry (Man or woman), but by the color of their skin (Man or woman and black or white). It'd be akin to allowing men to marry other men, but not letting white men marry black men. The latter would be discriminatory because it would take away a privilege from one set of men afforded to another set of men. The same goes for why miscegenation laws were struck down. Because it wasn't allowing one group of men and woman the privilege afforded another group of men and women. As no man nor woman is allotted the privilege to marry another man and woman, respectively, they are not being denied anything. You don't want people of certain genetic differences to be able to marry people of other genetic differences. Stop giving me this bs about "oh, well, ugh, it's who they're trying to marry!" because we both know you're full of it. Quit misleading people and just tell the [bleep] truth. No, on so many levels. Once again, no one is discriminating against gay people for being gay. Answer the question asked to you above, and you'll see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese666me Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 This debate is ridiculous, seriously. Why even try with that idiot? Honestly, there is no point whatsoever. I'd get better replies if I argued with a tree stump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 "By restricting marriage to one man and one woman, what groups are we "discriminating" against?" Those who love someone of their own gender. EDIT: I'm out for the night its like 6am Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_Wizard Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Those who love someone of their own gender. Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Those who love someone of their own gender. Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage I don't see why any of those should be illegal...? Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_Wizard Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Those who love someone of their own gender. Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage I don't see why any of those should be illegal...? That's great for you that you don't think any of those should be illegal, but the point was that by allowing gays not to marry we're not singling them out any more than we're singling out a person belonging to any other group which is not "one man and one woman". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Those who love someone of their own gender. Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage I don't see why any of those should be illegal...? That's great for you that you don't think any of those should be illegal, but the point was that by allowing gays not to marry we're not singling them out any more than we're singling out a person belonging to any other group which is not "one man and one woman". Gays make up a bigger percentage of them though, so they're bound to have a bigger voice... Okay, now that we've got that sorted Why should any of those be illegal? Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheP Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Well women have a vagina and men have a penis. A penis and a vagina are made for each other. Now penis and penis doesnt work neither does vagina and vagina. UNLESS we use some man made thing to make it possible. If homosexuality was meant to be don't you think humans would be made to make it possible without the assistance of something? Male and female sex requires only things that are already on your body. Straight up homosexuality wasn't meant for our bodies. ^Lol French Servers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squig Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Well women have a vagina and men have a penis. A penis and a vagina are made for each other. Now penis and penis doesnt work neither does vagina and vagina. UNLESS we use some man made thing to make it possible. If homosexuality was meant to be don't you think humans would be made to make it possible without the assistance of something? Male and female sex requires only things that are already on your body. Straight up homosexuality wasn't meant for our bodies. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheP Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Why you "lol"? :P ^Lol French Servers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 ^^ Because you're a bigoted [wagon]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheP Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Your saying I'm not open minded? I looked into it and other species have been reported to be homosexual (or just horny) but its not LOGICAL for it to happen. Sure someone may feel that way about their own gender. I have nothing against homosexuals it just doesn't make sense how someone thought of doing such acts when there is a way more reasonable way of doing such acts. ^Lol French Servers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese666me Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Well women have a vagina and men have a penis. A penis and a vagina are made for each other. Now penis and penis doesnt work neither does vagina and vagina. UNLESS we use some man made thing to make it possible. If homosexuality was meant to be don't you think humans would be made to make it possible without the assistance of something? Male and female sex requires only things that are already on your body. Straight up homosexuality wasn't meant for our bodies. Well, fyi, men can practice something called anal sex. Why even try with that idiot? Honestly, there is no point whatsoever. I'd get better replies if I argued with a tree stump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheP Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 But I'm saying who thought of that and how did it seem logical at the time? And anal sex would be quite painful without a type of lubricant. Which is not naturally made by the body for anal sex unlike vaginal sex which has a natural lubricant. ^Lol French Servers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 But I'm saying who thought of that and how did it seem logical at the time? And anal sex would be quite painful without a type of lubricant. Which is not naturally made by the body for anal sex unlike vaginal sex which has a natural lubricant. Saliva and erm, life juice is fairly slippery. I remember there was subject about homesexuality in the past (way back like 1500). Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese666me Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Well, it may not seem logical when it comes to sexual intercourse but, people are born with their sexuality determined, it's in their DNA. Why even try with that idiot? Honestly, there is no point whatsoever. I'd get better replies if I argued with a tree stump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now