Heil Intolerance

[SOB]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed,  they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer.  but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their  'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them.

LOL, somehow I've never been thought of by anyone I know as anything close to being "PC".  Actually, I think it's OK for homos to marry because it doesn't effect me and I'm not an prettythanghole.  They want to committ to a loving, long-term relationship and reap the tax benefits that come along with that.  Simple enough.  They're willing to committ to each other in the same way that any hetero couple would, and they should be extended the same benefits.


SOB

BTW...I'm not sure why it matters, but it wouldn't bother me in the least if someone in my family was gay.  If it makes 'em happy, then more power to 'em.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Toad
Jeez, Avro.. I DO hate to be the one to break this to you...

but "special interest groups" try to push laws because of their personal beliefs" all the time. Probably in every country in the world. Some of these groups push liberal causes, some push conservative causes, some push middle of the road causes.

I mean, here you are in this thread, pushing YOUR personal belief, eh?

Pretty comon thing.

Sure he does! It's HIS opinion. He made a comment, not a law. See... just like YOU do here, he gets to make comments that reflect HIS personal beliefs. Now, what he says gets more attention than this thread but that's the way it goes with Presidents and National Leaders.

You're not going to dispute that he has a right to his own opinion, just like you have a right to yours?

Horse poop. It's expressing his personal views, just like you just did.

Take a deep breath. Try not to hyperventilate.

He didn't limit anyone's rights. He VOICED HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

He limited no one's rights.

The Constitution remains unchanged. It's exactly the same now as it was before he spoke.

He imposed no morality on anyone. He merely said what he personally believed.

Here, once again, is the huge gap between perception and reality. Some of those taking the "liberal" view in this debate will not allow others the freedom to hold a different opinion. I must admit, it does make me smile.

Bush has every right to believe differently than you do... and to express those views.

Like I said, it's that "freedom of speech" thingie...... there's so many that love it, unless someone is saying something they don't agree with.

Obviously, there's a huge number of folks that have no clue that it means the "other side" gets to speak as well.

None. I didn't need any to begin with. You see, I'm not the one that has trouble distinguishing the difference between a President explaining his personal beliefs and the Congress passing a law.

I know about special interest groups you know.

What I saw on TV was Bush who seemed to be saying he would make a law that marriage as to be the way he sees it.

Maybe I heard wrong though.


That would be wrong because some religion might think its ok and then the law would tell them its wrong.
Which is imposing morality on someone because of what you believe.
Which IMO goes against freedom of religion.


Thats all I was saying so take a deep breath yourself.
I never said Bush didnt have the right to voice his opinion.


The only thing I have a problem with in this thread is people telling its immoral because they believe it is.
I dont see any reason why they have morale authority over me so why should I listen to them?


I dont have any secret agenda, im not gay and I dont know any of them either.
I just think giving them equal rights sounds logical.
They are human too, so why should they have less rights then I do?

[capt. apathy]

7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.

That's because it's a silly argument.

Keep the laws simple... Keep the age of consent at eighteen and remove all consensual crimes. If someone takes advantage of another below the age of consent, fine... charge them.

Marriage as a "holy institution" can be just that. It's not diminished by civil unions of people sharing the same sex. Both could and should share the same legal benefits. As far as the courts and the banks are concerned, marriage is a legal arrangement... period. Adultery is defined as sex outside of marriage. So... it's immoral to have sex with another consenting adult? Bull****...

Incest... Don't know how this even entered into the discussion. It's irrelevant. Certainly, it's repugnant to westerners, but there are other cultures that don't view it in the same way. Hawaiian history comes to mind... I'm not into it, but if they're consenting adults, I could not care less.

Bestiality... IMHO, it's cruelty to the animal. For this reason alone, it should be illegal.

Necrophilia... This an even more bizarre argument than incest. Again... not all the parties are consenting to this.


The list smacks of a typical slippery slope type argument. Keep in mind the mechanics... male homosexuals engage in something many heteros do as well... anal and oral sex...

As long as the participants are consenting adults, I don't see the big deal. I also don't see why two (or more) people cannot enter a civil partnership, that affords them all of the legal benefits of committed adults regardless of their sexual preference.

[Gunthr]

You don't have to "approve" of homosexuality to see that gays are human beings that may have a very good legal case for institutionalizing their relationships the way the rest of us do.

As far as the religious aspect of gay marriage is concerned, remember that many gays believe in God and are involved in organized religion. They believe that God will bless their unions.

Who are YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong, and yours are right?

[capt. apathy]

It is not possible to marry a cadaver, no matter how good it looks to you. Why? Our legislative bodies have written laws that have the effect of making it a crime.

The same with incest, pedophilia and the other examples you gave.

and thats the point whaere your argument falls apart.  it makes no sense to say  "it's not the same thing because we have laws, against these" when dicusing what the law should be.

I'd also like to point out that so far gay marriage is not recognised in the US, and in many states homosexual acts are in fact ilegal also.  so the idea that necrophilia, pedophilia, and incest are different because we have laws against them just doesn't hold up.

  US law doesn't recognise gay marriage (doesn't ban having a cerimony or writing a partnership contract), the push is not to make something that is legal ilegal,  the push is to clearly define what is meant by marriage, and make that deffinition the meaning we use today, so that it will be harder for people to change that deffinition, in the future.

I'm not "pro-gay." I do not wish to associate with most gay people.

well here we don't agree.  I am not anti-gay (person) but I am anti-gay(the act).  I have no problem associating with, talking to or doing bussiness with most gay people (I don't dislike any hire percentage of known gays I meet than I do people as a whole).

[Frogm4n]

hey capt. people should do whatever the hell they want to do behind closed doors as long they agree to it and noone is under 17. because if your underage your a moron that dosnt make good decisions.

stop being so jealous of gays capt. its turning me on.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.

The reason why I did not answer is because I dont find it relavent to the discussion.

But here I go:

Necrophilia: Can a  body give consent?
No, so its not relavent.

Pedophilia: Can underaged kids give consent?
No, so its not relavent.

Bestiality: Can an animal give consent?
No, so its not relavent.
Hurting an animal is also cruel like Sandman_SBM said.
Which is immoral.

Adultery: If some people dont mind sharing then thats fine with me.
I dont have a problem with someone marrying more then one person if everyone agrees.
I have heard of mormons being prosecuted for it.

Incest: What happens between 2 consenting adults is none of my business.
The victims here are the children with 47 chromosomes.
As long as they dont have any children there is no victim.
If there is no victim then I have no problem with it.


And you did not answer my questions either.


I am proud of Canada for allowing gay unions.
Not because I have any interest in the subject but because:
It shows that we are a modern society that can accept people for who they are.
It shows that we do not judge people based on their sexual preferences.
It gives them the same rights as every other citizens.
It shows the world that we are open minded.

I am Canadian and damn proud of it.

[Sabre]

A gallant effort, Capt Apathy, but it would seem they're simply caught in their circular logic to understand.

"Gays should be able to marry, same as straight couples!" they shout.
"What about these other types of relationships?" we ask. "Do you consider them immoral, or should they be allowed to marry too?"
"There's no comparison.  Those things are illegal," they thunder back.  "And There's no consent!"
"But, there's only no consent because the law says there isn't.  Are they immoral, then?"
"Er, no, they're just illegal."
"But why are they illegal? What about the laws against homosexuality in some states?"
"Your just a right-wing, religious, gay-hating bigot!"

I've got another question, though.  What is the purpose of the legal recognition of marriage?  What social reason was behind its creation, and perpetuation thoughout history?  Hint: it had nothing to do with whether the two people involved were in love (in many cases, love had nothing to do with who married who).  Simply being in love is no reason to extend legal status to gays, incest couples, pedophiles, etc.  

I've noticed that most of you pro-gay-marriage folks won't say these other acts are immoral (with the possible exception of beastiallity, ignoring the fact that we do all kinds of things to animals without their consent).  I suspect its because as soon as you say something is immoral, you're forced to confront your own circular reasoning on the gay issue.

[Toad]

Originally posted by AVRO1

What I saw on TV was Bush who seemed to be saying he would make a law that marriage as to be the way he sees it.

Maybe I heard wrong though.

No, you just obviously don't understand how the US governement works. The Executive Branch... the President.. .does not make law. The Legislative Branch, comprised of the House and the Senate, propose and pass laws.

Originally posted by AVRO1

Which is imposing morality on someone because of what you believe.

This is what I find so funny. You speak your mind, expressing what you believe and you are attempting to sway people to your opinion. That's a good thing, right?

Bush speaks his mind, expressing what he believes and he's attempting to sway people to his opinion.

But that's "imposing morality". Too funny.

[Gunthr]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not "pro-gay." I do not wish to associate with most gay people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


well here we don't agree. I am not anti-gay (person) but I am anti-gay(the act). I have no problem associating with, talking to or doing bussiness with most gay people (I don't dislike any hire percentage of known gays I meet than I do people as a whole). -Capt. Apathy

__________________

Captain Apathy, I arrested over 100 homos in one two month period working undercover with a "wire" taped to me. When you are new in the Det. Bureau you have to do the studmuffin detail in the parks. If you are successful, it makes you look good. Most arrests are for exposure/lewd-lascivious/ battery. I did it as long as I could until I got "used up". Its really a pathetic, rotten, crumby job. I had to learn the signals to use when cruising public places for homo sex to make the arrests.  I got "tuned in." You and I can go out cruising, and I will see all kinds of toejam going on that you probably wouldn't even notice. Of course, not all gays are like that though.

I don't have anything against everyday low profile gays.  I just don't particulary care to hang around gays who are out of the closet. Maybe its due to my experiences. As far as my good friend who is gay, well he feels more like a  brother to me. And we never talk about it except indirectly. He has had the same male live in partner for years now.

One thing I will give you Capt. Apathy, is that the people who are pushing for gay marriage, the gay organizations and gay attorneys are not people I care for at all, in general. I really dislike aggressive homosexuals.

But for the life of me, I don't think I can come up with a legal justification for denying them the right to their own version of marriage. Can you?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sabre
"But why are they illegal? What about the laws against homosexuality in some states?"

Why was slavery legal?  Why is illegal now.

Just because there is a law doesn't mean its just or moral one.  Perhaps it was concidered so at the time of it inception.  But like with slavery, people are becoming more enlightend and realised that homosexuals marriages are coming to pass.

[capt. apathy]

But for the life of me, I don't think I can come up with a legal justification for denying them the right to their own version of marriage. Can you?

well the legal precedent is that marriage has always been interpreted to mean 'between one man and one women'.  and aside from what is actually written as law our laws are also based on precedent (how we have dealt with or what the courts have decided on similar issues in the past).  various other variations on marriage have all been shot down. (polygamy,  bigamy, with bigamy actually being a crime. while polygamy and gay marriage are just ignored by the gov't and not recognized as a marriage)

some of the polygamist groups n Utah have been trying to get their marriages recognised for a hundred years or so.  if we refuse to expand our view on marriage to take in what these people want it to mean, then why should the gays get special treatment?


btw- gunthr, about your job.  if you ever wanted to make someone hate gays, that would probably be the way to do it.  I couldn't imagine making a living like that.

[mietla]

Many if not most of the arguments are based on a notion of "consent". What exactly is consent?

A clear "yes, I do want to participate please do it, I beg of you"?

"well, I guess so.."?

Does is have to be verbal (or even perhaps written), or will the body language suffice?

What about the NO answer. How strong does is have to be? A slap on a face? a push? a verbal no?

What about silence? Is it yes or no? Let's say the active side phrases the "offer" as:

"let me know if you want me to stop", does silence mean consent?


Can you change your mind after the fact? What's the "grace period"?


I do not mean to stirr the pot here (obviously I am, but that is not my intention), I just really think we have a problem with a definition of consent.

I know about all these college' "codes of conduct", but can the lawyer amongst us give a legal definition of consent?

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Toad
No, you just obviously don't understand how the US governement works. The Executive Branch... the President.. .does not make law. The Legislative Branch, comprised of the House and the Senate, propose and pass laws.

This is what I find so funny. You speak your mind, expressing what you believe and you are attempting to sway people to your opinion. That's a good thing, right?

Bush speaks his mind, expressing what he believes and he's attempting to sway people to his opinion.

But that's "imposing morality". Too funny.

Well then the legislative branch would be imposing there morality.

I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just saying I dont have a problem with them having marriage because I think everyone should have the same rights like it says in the constitution I think.
Or is the constitution just a piece of paper without value?

Again I dont have a problem with is opinion.
I never said I did either.
I have a problem if they impose a law based on their morality.
Their morality isnt any more right than anyone else so why should they decide.

I think people should have the choice.
If a church does not recognize gay marriage then thats fine by me.
They have the right to decide for themselves.
If another church wants to do it then by all means they should be allowed.
This does not limit anyone.


Sabre
I agree with Thrawn
People use to burn witches after torturing them.
Are you telling me that was right?

A gallant effort, Capt Apathy, but it would seem they're simply caught in their circular logic to understand.

Caught in circular logic?

I am not caught in anything.

I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone.
All I have said is that I believe people should be given choice.
I fail to see how that is limiting you from thinking it immoral.
If it does not limit you then I fail to say how it is bad for you.

If offering people the choice to decide is forcing my opinion on someone then I plead guilty on all charges.


As for the Captain
I answered your questions, now why dont you answer mine.