Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60
  1. #31  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    For dancing with a same sex partner.



    You don't call the police when something like that happens. The police have no authority in that situation. You call a lawyer, and yes we did.
    So what you're saying is we have to take your word that it happened with no proof that it actually happened. Sorry, that's not going to fly because you have an agenda and are likely to make stuff up to futher that same agenda.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Well just a week or so ago you guys were cheering on bad and breakfast owners and championing their right to discriminate in public accommodations. Mind you I support the right to discriminate in public accommodation, as long as it's an open right to discriminate for any reason. But folks around here sure get their panties in a knot anytime they can convince themselves that "christians" are being discriminate against. What a joke.
    The only joke here is you and your claim that you get unequal treatment under the law.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    The only joke here is you and your claim that you get unequal treatment under the law.
    Keep repeating that lie and let me know if it makes it true.

    Meanwhile, read what intelligent people have to say on the subject.

    After three years of delay, that trial was finally held, and on December 3, 1996, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the refusal of the State of Hawaii to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the Hawaii State Constitution, and that the state had failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that could justify this “discrimination.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Keep repeating that lie and let me know if it makes it true.
    The only lies that are being repeated are the ones you keep saying about unequal treatment under the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Meanwhile, read what intelligent people have to say on the subject.

    After three years of delay, that trial was finally held, and on December 3, 1996, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the refusal of the State of Hawaii to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the Hawaii State Constitution, and that the state had failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that could justify this “discrimination.”
    How can this violate the State Consttution of Hawaii when Article 1, Section 23 of the same document states the following...

    MARRIAGE

    Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]
    LINK....See Nova, unlike you, I actually back up what I post with links from an unbiased source.

    Looks like your so-called "intelligent people" aren't so smart after all.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
    Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
    Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
    Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
    Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
    Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

    The fact that the gay rights movement has been successful in reducing some of these things is not evidence that they never existed or that the kind of people who practiced and promoted these violations would not gladly return to the good old days that they openly and unapologetically lament in their passing.

    Nobody turned fire hoses on Orientals and Jews either - but that doesn't mean there weren't civil rights violations there. Where did the Constitution say that Jews and Orientals had a right to buy a house in Chevy Chase? It doesn't. It says that they have a right to equal protection under the law.
    Okay, you've been persecuted. Welcome to the club. We have T-shirts.

    The issue isn't whether you've suffered, but whether your demands are valid. To answer that, we have to ask if that makes gay marriage (a) a good idea for the rest of the culture and (b) a critical offset to your prior suffering? As I've repeatedly argued (without referencing religious arguments), the redefinition of marriage to encompass things which it was never meant to be will open the floodgates to all manner of pernicious changes to marriage and culture. The fairness arguments apply equally to polygamy, incest and every other form of "marriage" that someone might want to indulge in. It becomes one of a long string of attacks on marriage that began when the various socialist movements recognized that socialism would be resisted by stable families that expected rational property rights and saw children as their own, rather than the state's. It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda. Destroy the family and you destroy the structure that raises self-sufficient adults. Destroy marriage and you destroy the family. So, the answer to the first question is, no, gay marriage, as another nail in the coffin of marriage, is not good for the culture as a whole. That leaves the second question, whether it is of value as remedy for past discrimination, and since we have demonstrated that it will be destructive to the culture as a whole, it will therefore have significant negative impacts to the subcultures, including yours. That makes it a poor compensation for prior injustices, unless you are seeking revenge. Are you?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Okay, you've been persecuted.
    One step at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Welcome to the club.
    Except that as a rule, Jews were persecuted by their host culture or oppressor culture not their own culture. Philosophically, I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    The issue isn't whether you've suffered, but whether your demands are valid. To answer that, we have to ask if that makes gay marriage (a) a good idea for the rest of the culture and
    Wrong, the question is not what good gay people bring (even though the evidence is easily seen) , it's what the "compelling state interest" would be in discrimination. To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest. When they try, they always end up saying something relating to religion or tradition (which in this case is the same as religion). Thousands of years of slavery didn't justify its continuation. Centuries of European nations keeping Jews second (or third or fourth) class citizens did not justify its continuation in America.


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    As I've repeatedly argued (without referencing religious arguments), the redefinition of marriage to encompass things which it was never meant to be will open the floodgates to all manner of pernicious changes to marriage and culture.
    Who defined marriage as we know it? What was the context of that definition? When you say "it was never meant", meant by whom? What difference does that make today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The fairness arguments apply equally to polygamy, incest and every other form of "marriage" that someone might want to indulge in.
    We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins. In Europe, Asia, and Africa our ancestors did these things, and we pay a lot of money to go see their homes and monuments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It becomes one of a long string of attacks on marriage that began when the various socialist movements recognized that socialism would be resisted by stable families that expected rational property rights and saw children as their own, rather than the state's. It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda.
    What a crock of shit. The USSR, China, and Cuba were and are in descendant forms openly hostile to even minor improvements in gay rights. These places were obsessed with "decadence of the West". China requires mediation in contested divorces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda.
    Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Destroy marriage and you destroy the family. So, the answer to the first question is, no, gay marriage, as another nail in the coffin of marriage, is not good for the culture as a whole. That leaves the second question, whether it is of value as remedy for past discrimination, and since we have demonstrated that it will be destructive to the culture as a whole, it will therefore have significant negative impacts to the subcultures, including yours. That makes it a poor compensation for prior injustices, unless you are seeking revenge. Are you?


    What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,270
    Hey Nova, still waiting for the links to unbiased sources for your claims in post #17.....or are they, like everything else you believe in, a total crock of shit? I'm going to go with the latter because, if you did have links to what you've claimed, I'm sure you would post them.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,762
    Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.
    Seriously Nova you make this too easy.

    NARL

    Planned Parenthood

    The Democrat Party of America

    National Organization for Women

    I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.
    Please tell me you're not trying to claim "gay" as an ethnic minority?


    We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins.
    Like?


    What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?
    Obviously sharpened it to a point where you're unable to keep up with his logical train of thought.



    To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest.
    So by that line of thinking...there's no compelling state interest to allow them to discriminate against me if I want to marry a goat?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    What I don't get is this. Gay men have a stereotype of thin, neat, affluent, and sensitive. Why wouldn't I want to remove them from my dating pool? Go ahead, get married. The more gay men the better. Makes it easier for fat insensitive slobs like me to get a date! Just sayin'

    If every man was gay but me... it would be good times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    One step at a time.
    Nobody denies this. I certainly don't. But there's persecution and there's persecution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Except that as a rule, Jews were persecuted by their host culture or oppressor culture not their own culture. Philosophically, I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.
    Irrelevant and pointless. First off, while Judaism is a religion, Jews have sought to assimilate in every culture that we have encountered. The shock of the Holocaust was that the Germans, who had the most thoroughly assimilated Jews on the continent, were leading the charge. We expected pogroms from the Poles, Russians and other Eastern Europeans, and the French had blamed their loss in the Franco-Prussian War on one of us, but the Germans had been far more accommodating and tolerant. And, let's also remember that some of the most virulent anti-semites started out with Jewish roots. Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Frederic Engels and a host of others have demonstrated that we Jews can excel at anything, even antisemitism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Wrong, the question is not what good gay people bring (even though the evidence is easily seen) , it's what the "compelling state interest" would be in discrimination. To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest. When they try, they always end up saying something relating to religion or tradition (which in this case is the same as religion). Thousands of years of slavery didn't justify its continuation. Centuries of European nations keeping Jews second (or third or fourth) class citizens did not justify its continuation in America.
    First, the argument of benefits vs. compelling state interest is semantics. In this case, the two are the same, because the issue is not discrimination. It is not discrimination to define marriage as the permanent union between a man and a woman, any more than it is discrimination to define a biscuit as a mixture of flour, water and other specified ingredients that has been baked. If a cat has kittens in an oven, they are not suddenly biscuits, and if two people of the same sex proclaim their undying love, that's not a marriage. What you have to prove is a compelling state interest in redefining marriage to accommodate your lifestyle, and that means that you must examine the costs and benefits. As stated previously, there are no benefits, except your self-esteem, but the costs are potentially astronomical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Who defined marriage as we know it? What was the context of that definition? When you say "it was never meant", meant by whom? What difference does that make today?
    It makes all of the difference in the world. Marriage predates recorded history, but has always been a union of a man and at least one woman. The Greeks were the first to have monogamous marriage, with the Romans following suit. The purpose of marriage in both cultures was to ensure property and inheritance rights and secure the protection of women. In polygamous or none-matrimonial cultures, women are reduced to chattel, and at constant risk of violence. We see this today, not just in the polygamous regions of the world, but in those areas of the west where marriage has collapsed as an institution, such as urban ghettos. Marriage protects the weakest members of society, women and children, by creating permanent, stable bonds with the strongest members, men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins. In Europe, Asia, and Africa our ancestors did these things, and we pay a lot of money to go see their homes and monuments.
    Wow. Talk about irrelevant. We celebrate historical figures as men and women of their times, but that doesn't mean that we have to copy every aspect of their lives. Alexander the Great died of a fever at 31. Shall we abandon medical science in order to emulate that? Washington and Jefferson were two of the most enlightened men of their generation, but we don't own slaves today. The point is to discard the failures and learn from the successes. Gay marriage is not a success, but a trendy fad among intellectuals, like pacifism in the 1930s, or militarism in the 1910s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What a crock of shit. The USSR, China, and Cuba were and are in descendant forms openly hostile to even minor improvements in gay rights. These places were obsessed with "decadence of the West". China requires mediation in contested divorces.
    Within their own borders, these states are extremely restrictive, but prior to coming to power, they were quite open to anything that undermined traditional families, and while the Soviets and Cubans are viciously antigay, they also used the coercive powers of their states to suppress family loyalties. Children were taught to inform on parents, and taught that family is a bourgious concept, and that only the party is entitled to their loyalty. And, as stated, the Soviets and Cubans are viciously anti-gay within their borders, but they constantly support movements in the west that advance sexual anarchy. The Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Party USA support gay marriage, not to mention the full gamut of feminist politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.
    Seriously? You want them alphabetically or in descending order of importance? Abortion on demand is a leftist position, going back to the early days of the Progressive Movement, when Margaret Sanger argued for it as both a means to liberate women and to control undesirable populations (various leftist groups were hardcore eugenicists, and only changed their tune after they saw where that would lead in the Holocaust, but today, they are coming full circle, with Peter Singer leading the way). In fact, it would be a substantially shorter list of leftists who weren't in favor of abortion on demand. However, since you asked, I'll hit a few of the obvious ones. A full list would fill my hard drive:
    • Green Party
    • ACLU
    • Planned Parenthood
    • RCP
    • CPUSA
    • Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviets had the highest per capita abortion rate in the world)
    • Communist Party of the People's Republic of China (Not just on demand, but on command of the state)
    • National Organization of Women
    • ACTUP
    • The Democratic Party
    • The United Nations
    • International ANSWER
    • People for the American Way
    • EMILY's List
    • NARAL
    • Alan Guttmacher Institute
    etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?
    They've basically left it alone, which is why I'm able to think, and ask questions that you cannot or will not address. The real question is whether you will do anything with your mind.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •