Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom, and you aren't allowed to pull children from school for *ahem* "discriminatory" or "hate" reasons...
Do you have any links or sources for this?
Because the "gay marriage in the classroom" claim sounds like bullshit.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.
as for the source:
this book is an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King
In 2006 Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Estabrook Elementary School, which their second grader attends in Lexington, Massachusetts. They claim that using the book in school constituted sexual education without parental notification, which would be a violation of their civil rights and state law. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying[1]
“ We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes. [...] My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be. [...] Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion. ”The judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation"[2] [3].
anti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.as for the source:
this book is an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_Kinganti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.
That wasn't what I was asking for, so I'm going to assume it was simply poor wording on your part. "I didn't say the kids were forced to go, but the gay marriage would be in the classroom" made it sound like they were actually getting married in the classroom.
And telling kids that this sort of thing exists is not forcing people to change their beliefs. Ignoring the topic of homosexuality will not make it go away, and it's not exactly a bad thing. Not in the least.
If it's the same thing, why not call it the same thing? Marriage is not defined by the Christian definition, you realize.
Originally posted by Peach
And telling kids that this sort of thing exists is not forcing people to change their beliefs. Ignoring the topic of homosexuality will not make it go away, and it's not exactly a bad thing. Not in the least.If it's the same thing, why not call it the same thing? Marriage is not defined by the Christian definition, you realize.
telling them that it exists is like the birds and the bees. it should be up to the parents, not society.
And if they already have all of the benefits of marriage, why are we all fighting?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.
Just curious: is this what Prop8 just repealed? 'Cause, ya know, that'd really screw up your argument.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 first of all, this makes you wonder why they even need marriage.
Because they are treated differently than heterosexuals. Which the government shouldn't do.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
anti-discrimination policies would force individuals and organizations to change their beliefs in the name of tolerance.
What a horrifying prospect! Tolerace becoming law? What's next; blacks and women being allowed to vote? See, folks who maintain your perspective like to reconcile their hate with federal mandate and socialism/fasciam/communism. This is where your prespective breaks down. What you're doing is saying that poor "Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker" are victims of irresponsible and overwhelming government, while ignoring the fact that supposedly the rights of "Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker" outweigh Adam and Steven to have their own life. "Rights" often come at the expense of those who theink they belong soley to them. *******, Queers, Ass-F**kers, sodomites, butt-pirates, etc, have just as many rights as do you. What you end up doing with such a transparent and laughable argument is only strengthening the justification for why you should have no rights. Folks like you profess that the founding fathers were all bible-thumping christians while ignoring the teachings of christ and making this a nation a where that ignorance is law. Sadly for you and happily for reality, you are wrong. Politicians and pundants have told you that you have the right to assume the responsability for the rights of others who are not you; but you don't. You just want to be Jesus, not worship him.
Besides, if you really did, you wouldn't have such a distaste for gays. After all, the man spent all his time in the company of 12 single men and one whore.
Robb and Robin...what a stupid name combination. I bet they name their kid Tommy Thompson.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. First of all, the main reason for gay marriage is so that they can get the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. The reasons that the government should not allow this are quite blatant.
1. Unlike blacks being allowed to vote, which is the popular analogy you seem so deft to take, Homosexuals chose the way that they are.
2. Now if you take away morals completely, you will find that homosexuality is still a grievous trespass against communities. First of all, it allows a homosexual to take his or her spouse on as a dependent. This means that the government would have to give him more of a tax return. It would also mean that, if in a government or other job that would give healthcare, these jobs would be forced to give healthcare to the spouse. Now this is fine in heterosexual marriages, because the social plan is that man+woman=children=citizens=taxes, so the government reaps what it sews in the long run. With Homosexual marriage, there are no children being produced, so this is already money just adding to the load on our tumbling economy's anvil. Furthermore, after homosexual sex, aids ensues and the two parties die. Now you have lost tax dollars, and citizens who could benefit society. That's why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.
Originally posted by Devil Kingfirst of all i am making my arguements from a totally secular point of view. Thank you. If you want me to argue bible thumping, yes, this country was forged by christians to be free. I think they did a good job.
Folks like you profess that the founding fathers were all bible-thumping christians while ignoring the teachings of christ and making this a nation a where that ignorance is law.
Sadly for you and happily for reality, you are wrong. Politicians and pundants have told you that you have the right to assume the responsability for the rights of others who are not you; but you don't. You just want to be Jesus, not worship him.Where did this come from. This is not the religion forum. If you want to argue that 'Lulz dey r in luffs so dey must marry' feel free. As for rights, they have the right to be gay, of course. I'm not denying them that right, but they are different, as marriage takes from the state and without the possibility of children, gives nothing back. If you want to say "lulz dey have same rites as u and sum pundant told you wrong" (what is a pundant anyway?) feel free. They have the same exact rights as me, and must take on the legal state of marriage as a joint effort to further our communities.
Besides, if you really did, you wouldn't have such a distaste for gays. After all, the man spent all his time in the company of 12 single men and one whore.
AND FINALLY. BLACK PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THEY DIDN'T CHOSE TO BE BLACK, AND BLACK IS NOT A BAD THING. HOMOSEXUALITY IS DETRIMENTAL, IS A CHOICE, AND IS NOT A STATE OF BEING BUT AN ACTION.
? where did this come from? random shit?Robb and Robin...what a stupid name combination. I bet they name their kid Tommy Thompson.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm sorry, you are wrong. First of all, the main reason for gay marriage is so that they can get the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. The reasons that the government should not allow this are quite blatant.
1. Unlike blacks being allowed to vote, which is the popular analogy you seem so deft to take, Homosexuals chose the way that they are.
2. Now if you take away morals completely, you will find that homosexuality is still a grievous trespass against communities. First of all, it allows a homosexual to take his or her spouse on as a dependent. This means that the government would have to give him more of a tax return. It would also mean that, if in a government or other job that would give healthcare, these jobs would be forced to give healthcare to the spouse. Now this is fine in heterosexual marriages, because the social plan is that man+woman=children=citizens=taxes, so the government reaps what it sews in the long run. With Homosexual marriage, there are no children being produced, so this is already money just adding to the load on our tumbling economy's anvil. Furthermore, after homosexual sex, aids ensues and the two parties die. Now you have lost tax dollars, and citizens who could benefit society. That's why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.
1)So when homosexuals choose to be straight, they're rejecting the idea of homosexuality: what more troll/sock position can be had?
2) What communities? Yours? Reality? History? Jesus? I like how you go on to answer the question by bringing in healthcare and the other managerie of stupidy that fail to answer the question into the "equation". Bottom line: you can't answer the question or come up with a viable excuse for why gay marriage should be illegal while your own herterosexual marriage is recognized. Only the dumb ass chooses tax money as their red herring, especially since straight, married couples pay less tax dollars than their gay counterparts. I do like how you think your marriage should cost less than the two people who live next to you that happen to be gay. Treasury department banality is a sad and sick place to hide when it comes to equal recognition under the law; especially since the loop holes and paper work are dismissable if two human beings are handled the same way straight couples are handled. What means something is the reality that you can love and respect and what ever all the other virtues of marriage, your partner in Kansas, but I can not. You know, there is a very real face to the laws you walk into the booth and vote away. It's your nephew or your neice and your cousin or your mother. These people are not strangers, they're you. Just because you were born an idiot, doesn't mean everyone in your life or family are just as repressed. I hope there's someone in your family that is gay and that you love, but are willing to deny them what you yourself have...
Homosexuals chose just as much as you did. You assume that **** did something wrong to become what they are, because you want to assure your ability to be inculpible in what you are. But you aren't. you can't say that you chose because you want to say that you are real and anyone who is different is reposnible because he or she is not. It's the position of a coward...of a person who is scared and a coward.
But you're willing to do so, because a baby in a book written 2000 years ago told you that you have a right to do so. And then this enlightened government came along and told you the same thing. Sadly, reality disagrees. You don't mean anything more than me to the system. You have the same value as a fa*got; I hope you realize that.
Do us all the favor of telling us the exact moment you chose to be attracted to women?
You can't? Then you're a ****ing liar and a hypocrit.
Originally posted by Devil King
1)So when homosexuals choose to be straight, they're rejecting the idea of homosexuality: what more troll/sock position can be had?
I don't see a question.
2) What communities? Yours? Reality? History? Jesus? I like how you go on to answer the question by bringing in healthcare and the other managerie of stupidy that fail to answer the question into the "equation".
Bottom line: you can't answer the question or come up with a viable excuse for why gay marriage should be illegal while your own herterosexual marriage is recognized.
Only the dumb ass chooses tax money as their red herring, especially since straight, married couples pay less tax dollars than their gay counterparts.
the fact is, My children will grow up to be hard workers that will pay their income tax, actually giving the money more money then it costs to maintaing them... IMAGINE! You haven't refuted a single theory or reason i have listed for my conclusions.
I do like how you think your marriage should cost less than the two people who live next to you that happen to be gay.
um... they aren't "dismissable" (dismissible, don't you mean?). homosexuality is bad for the ideal community.
Treasury department banality is a sad and sick place to hide when it comes to equal recognition under the law; especially since the loop holes and paper work are dismissable if two human beings are handled the same way straight couples are handled.
What means something is the reality that you can love and respect and what ever all the other virtues of marriage, your partner in Kansas, but I can not.
You know, there is a very real face to the laws you walk into the booth and vote away. It's your nephew or your neice and your cousin or your mother. These people are not strangers, they're you.
Just because you were born an idiot, doesn't mean everyone in your life or family are just as repressed.
perfectly willing. if you want to go cry about how marriage is soooo beautiful, i suggest you go to a wedding. this is a place of logic and intelligent thinking, not of base hormonal emotions.
I hope there's someone in your family that is gay and that you love, but are willing to deny them what you yourself have...
No, they have a right to be gay, but they do not have the right to take part in a legal three way agreement with the government that was designed for the betterment of society.
Homosexuals chose just as much as you did. You assume that **** did something wrong to become what they are, because you want to assure your ability to be inculpible in what you are.
But you aren't. you can't say that you chose because you want to say that you are real and anyone who is different is reposnible because he or she is not. It's the position of a coward...of a person who is scared and a coward.so now you fall back to the "homophobic" line of defense. Well then, my fair and homosexual genius with the incredible spelling and logic skills, what am I meant to be afraid of? I will tell you. An america where kids die of aids, where we shovel out even more money to people who give nothing back, an america where you are forced by the thought police to accept everything and anything that they decide is appropriate and just. That's what I'm afraid of. What are you afraid of? not being able to take the next big step with your boyfreind?
I don't think that's the issue... my "enlightened government" is actually enlightened, and if you judge it as a system, homosexuality is bad for it.
But you're willing to do so, because a baby in a book written 2000 years ago told you that you have a right to do so. And then this enlightened government came along and told you the same thing.
Sadly, reality disagrees.
You realized i have not used one slur against homosexuals. I have also not said they were less or better than me. I said that homosexuality is bad for society, yes, but homosexuality is an action. they as humans are just as important as you or me.
You don't mean anything more than me to the system. You have the same value as a fa*got; I hope you realize that.
Do us all the favor of telling us the exact moment you chose to be attracted to women?
You can't? Then you're a ****ing liar and a hypocrit.Why don't you make a valid argument before such strong words and accusations?
You can't? Then your a ****ing moron and an idiot.
Originally posted by Devil King
Tell me how it's not the same.
not the same. you fail, good sir. Being attracted to a woman is natural and hormonal and scientific.
He did tell you the difference...the fact is you choose to become aroused when you do...its not like you even have hormones..................................
Land of the Free eh...
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
you guys seem to think that I'm arguing that homosexuality is bad. NO! I have no problem with homosexuality. Its forcing children to learn about it, forcing people to accept it, and forcing the government to sanction it that's wrong.
Maybe forcing kids to learn about heterosexuality is wrong?
It isn't the government's place to make a moral judgement on this matter...