Author Topic: Heil Intolerance (Read 11757 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #75 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:39:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

Point four: Adoption
Studies show that while growing up children need to relate to both male and female parents. We can surmise from this:

a) Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children

b) Homosexuality has no bearing on parent performance, a mom is a mom and a dad is a dad, but you need both.

Your logic is pretty good up until the end there. By the same logic all divorced or widowed parents should lose their children to a couple ASAP.

Since I won custody of my children from my divorce I guess I should have lost my kids to a foster parental unit. Silly really. Love is the key, not gender.

Dowding · « **Reply #76 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:46:09 PM »

While I've never understand why homosexual men do what they do, it doesn't bother me. As long as they don't do it in front of me why should I care?

And why on earth would anyone choose to be gay? Spend the formative years of your life thinking you're a dirty persona non grata, perhaps feeling that your own faith is not as good as a heteosexual's (ostracized by the 'true believers') and also risking the being beaten crapless if you try and seek out people of a similar persuasion in gay clubs or whatever. Yeah, that sounds like a choice worth making.

I'm glad I'm heterosexual - puberty was hard enough nevermind adding in the problems of coming to terms with being 'abnormal'.

And I love Capt. Apathy's analogy with a child rapist. That's just crazy.

I don't agree with gay adoption - not because it would be wrong, but precisely because of the views expressed in this thread. The child would never stand a chance.

Furious · « **Reply #77 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:47:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
Ok...here I go...I know you guys wanna know what I think.

I love them as God loves me....it's their lifestyle and the sin which I'm against.

Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.

Gays need help, not encouragement to continue to ruin their lives further.

I think the difference is I believe Gods word and base my morality by the same...some of you are your own Gods making up your own morality.

Mans nature is corrupt, including my own.

That's all well and good, except that there is no god.

...and I agree with Lance (who?) Why should we suffer SOB's intardnet findings alone?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #78 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:49:58 PM »

Quote

What is the LEGAL argument that would preclude them from having spousal rights such as visitation in a hospital or inheritance or filing joint tax returns, or ADOPTING?

what about other types of imoral relationships? should adulterer be able to set up side mariages for when they are out of town? should their employers be required to admit a girlfreind on the side to your health plan?

how about paligamists? should one person be able to mary 30 or 30 women(hell every women he knows not covered by health care) then join the army. thereby setting them all up with health care? he could really set up a great bussiness. they get free health care, he keeps the extra dependence allowance. that could be some great cash wouldn't it? what is the extra pay for being married right now? x30? how about 2 soldiers who set up a "marriage" they could each get adependet allowance and get a rasie just for signing paper.

other than the religios reasons, the purpose of mariage is to provide some kind of contract in an atempt to provide stability for children both have brought into this world. otherwise the proper 'foreward thinking' way to do it would be to do away with mariage all together. I mean why else would you need it? I mean women don't need someone to be legally bound to them financially, they can take care of themselves just fine thanks. isn't that the 'right' way of thinking?

so if it's a contract set up to protect children and gays can't produce children, then there use of mariage consideration is just an atempt to exploit a already burdened system that wasn't set up with them in mind.

Wanker · « **Reply #79 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:56:29 PM »

Rude said..

Quote

Gays need help, not encouragement to continue to ruin their lives further.

For someone who is usually so well spoken and thoughtful , I can hardly believe that came from your cursor.

Exactly how many documented cases of sexual re-programming have been successful, Rude?

Dowding · « **Reply #80 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:59:07 PM »

That explains his close links with the North Korean secret police...

Curval · « **Reply #81 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:01:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
so.. What, being gay makes him be a good DR and a caring person? it's imposable to do a good job and be a caring person without sleeping with other men? exactly what is your point?

The man stands to be discriminated against merely because he gay by people with attitudes like yourself. That is my point.

He isn't a great man because he is gay, he is just a great man who happens to be gay.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #82 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:01:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
Exactly how many documented cases of sexual re-programming have been successful, Rude?

Sorry for buttin' in (no pun intended) but Ann Heche changed affiliation. (last I heard)

capt. apathy · « **Reply #83 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:12:48 PM »

Quote

The man stands to be discriminated against merely because he gay by people with attitudes like yourself. That is my point.

He isn't a great man because he is gay, he is just a great man who happens to be gay.

so if he could still be just as great if he decided not to act on his imoral urges I fail to see the point you where trying to make.

and exactly how is he being discriminated against? he has a right to mary any woman who is mutually interested, just like the rest of us? we can aknowlege him as a great man and still not aprove of with every aspect of his life. there are many great men who have done things in their personal lives that are somewhat less than wonderful(in fact you could probably say most have something) that doesn't negate the great things they have done. but their being outstanding people doesn't make imoral activitys moral just because some great men also have that fault.

sometimes good men do bad things.

Toad · « **Reply #84 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:26:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Next tacky remark will see some attention. Stay on topic.

Roger, Skuzzy. I apologize for saying the Pope was a Republican.

At least my garage looks better than this thread now.

Curval · « **Reply #85 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:29:34 PM »

I agree with what you are saying when you say the good things he has done need not be negated Capt., but the moral highground that you are effectively preaching from "tends" to lead toward people discrimminating against others merely because they are gay in many different ways. You have already judged this man to be immoral, the next guy who has the same belief may well think that it justifies a good bellybutton kicking. THAT is where your stance leads, and that, once again, is my point.

Octavius · « **Reply #86 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:39:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
do the courts and your future ex-wife a favor. if you don't find it sacred don't do it.

If I want to pledge my faith and love to my partner in the future, I don't need to go through a ceremony or jump through some hoops to get a piece of paper "proving" my love and devotion. If it means I'll owe less in taxes and get some nifty benefits on the side, then sure, I'll get that piece of paper.

And whats this sacred business? sacred to what? christianity? islam? the easter bunny?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #87 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:41:18 PM »

Quote

You have already judged this man to be immoral, the next guy who has the same belief may well think that it justifies a good bellybutton kicking. THAT is where your stance leads, and that, once again, is my point.

fist off I never judged HIM to be imoral. just aknowleging that hparicipates in an activity that is imoral.

second we already have a standard law making it illeagal for someone to kick his bellybutton so he's covered. if that legal decision wont protect him what makes you think this one would.

and btw - not only he protected by the standard laws against assault but he also has special protection most of us don't. whereas someone who kicked his bellybutton would get much more time than an attacker who comitted the same crime against me, his being a hate crime would get extra sentencing where my guy would probably be out by noon tomorow.

fd ski · « **Reply #88 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:44:57 PM »

Dowding you're not being consistent.

First you say that you don't understand why someone would choose to be gay, and if I understand correctly you are implying that you agree with "born gay" principal.

On the other hand you state that kid wouldn't have a chance - as in it would have to make a choice to be gay because of the "parents" influence.

So which is it ?
If kid wasn't born gay, then it won't be despite the parents.

midnight Target · « **Reply #89 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:48:15 PM »

People are using the same argument against gay marriage that was used a few years back about mixed race marriages. "The kids will never have a chance!" "They'll be ostracised" "They'll be teased".......

Or maybe other people will start to learn that it's not such a big deal.