The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

http://www.tuesdayschild.com/emails/tPF/Customers/DieThread.jpg

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

its too bad abraham lincoln was just another man.  his opinion is not above reproach.  feel free to go ahead with your plans to overthrow the courts and congress if you don't like the way they rule on gay marriage.  i'll be sure to crack a beer and watch the shitshow!

NH:  for a 13 year old girl or boy to get married, they need both judicial approval and parental consent.  lets leave the parental consent issue out of it for now since you would have to be batchit nuts to give parental consent to your 13 year old.  anyways...for a lawsuit like the one you described to be successful, the gay man would have to show that the state regularly issues marriage licenses to 13 year old heterosexuals and that they declined the marriage license to a 13 year old simply cause of their sexual orientation/gender.  you would have to have a history of 13 year old heteros being issued licenses and 13 year old homos, not being issued licenses.  when deciding whether or not to issue a license to a 13 year old, the court is gonna get pretty wide latitude.  and a reviewing court is gonna give wide deference to the court who made that decision.  so, a person filing an appeal for being denied a marriage license to a 13 year old will have to show the denial was based purely on sexuality.  here is why i don't think such a lawsuit would be successful... 1.  i doubt NH has rarely (if ever) issued marriage licenses to 13 year olds.  2.  the court who issues them could give a number of reasons outside of sexuality for denying it.  3.  i also doubt NH has a history of denying them to 13 year olds simply cause they are gay.  so, in conclusion, my answer is "no. i don't think a gay man would be successful in appealing a denial of a marriage license to a gay 13 year old boy".  

i am not gonna respond to your hypocritical discrimination hypotheticals cause they are silly and reflect your inability or unwillingness to study up on constitutional review of state sponsored discrimination.  and i also know you will follow up with a bunch of other silly hypotheticals... don't bother... i won't answer or respond... which will certainly satisfy your insatiable hunger to always get the last word in and therefore consider yourself "right" in your own mind.  carry on.... 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

There are degrees of which we rate "another men" as you put it. And Abraham Lincoln was not just another man, like guywhofishes stoner waiter was another man.

This thread is #epicallygay

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
its too bad abraham lincoln was just another man.  his opinion is not above reproach.  feel free to go ahead with your plans to overthrow the courts and congress if you don't like the way they rule on gay marriage.  i'll be sure to crack a beer and watch the shitshow!

NH:  for a 13 year old girl or boy to get married, they need both judicial approval and parental consent.  lets leave the parental consent issue out of it for now since you would have to be batchit nuts to give parental consent to your 13 year old.  anyways...for a lawsuit like the one you described to be successful, the gay man would have to show that the state regularly issues marriage licenses to 13 year old heterosexuals and that they declined the marriage license to a 13 year old simply cause of their sexual orientation/gender.  you would have to have a history of 13 year old heteros being issued licenses and 13 year old homos, not being issued licenses.  when deciding whether or not to issue a license to a 13 year old, the court is gonna get pretty wide latitude.  and a reviewing court is gonna give wide deference to the court who made that decision.  so, a person filing an appeal for being denied a marriage license to a 13 year old will have to show the denial was based purely on sexuality.  here is why i don't think such a lawsuit would be successful... 1.  i doubt NH has rarely (if ever) issued marriage licenses to 13 year olds.  2.  the court who issues them could give a number of reasons outside of sexuality for denying it.  3.  i also doubt NH has a history of denying them to 13 year olds simply cause they are gay.  so, in conclusion, my answer is "no. i don't think a gay man would be successful in appealing a denial of a marriage license to a gay 13 year old boy".  

i am not gonna respond to your hypocritical discrimination hypotheticals cause they are silly and reflect your inability or unwillingness to study up on constitutional review of state sponsored discrimination.  and i also know you will follow up with a bunch of other silly hypotheticals... don't bother... i won't answer or respond... which will certainly satisfy your insatiable hunger to always get the last word in and therefore consider yourself "right" in your own mind.  carry on.... 

You seem to have trouble capturing the point behind things espringer's given the opening statement of your post. Wooosh, right over your head.

And all that is required to blow your "explanation" out of the water is the simple fact that the State of NH has a law that allows an adult to marry a child as young as the age of 13.

If the state has a law allowing that there is simply NO WAY you can predict what an activist judge would rule.

You may have an "opinion" but the validity of that "opinion" must be weighed in the following manner.

Your opinion comes from a set of values you have admittedly said believe an adult should NOT be able to marry a child of age 13. New Hampshire  on the other hand has already said they think the law should allow it. 
 
So the "moral values" that YOU use to determine YOUR legal opinion are clearly NOT the same "moral values" the people in the state of New Hampshire have in creating their laws nor that of a judge representing the people of the state of NH in interpreting their laws.

So as these "moral values change" you simply can not assume that your ideals will be followed by judges in New Hampshire now can you.

Ask people you know if they believe a state would ever mandate schools allow boys to "comingle" with girls in the girls bathroom or locker room and see what answers you get. Then tell them it is state law in California and see what they say.

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-force-school-district-allow-transgender-girl-boys-152007043.html
 
Note the Federal govt involvement by the US Dept of Education in the above ruling.

Oh and lets not forget Massachusetts
http://bighealthreport.com/6981/state-mandate-allow-transgender-boys-in-girls-locker-rooms/

Perhaps you think Mr Lincoln's "opinion" was that of just a man to you, but to me it is a reminder of the importance to control the ever growing monster that is our Federal govt. lest we lose the intent of what this nation was founded on coming from a man largely responsible for the very example people like to hold up as "discrimination" against blacks in arguing "discrimination" against gays when it comes to the "right" of marriage.
 
I guess now that you have refused to "answer" any more questions you are "right" in your own mind. No problem. 

Just step outside your glass house before you throw stones next time. 
 
Or at the very least, admit upfront YOU are more than willing to "discriminate" against children based on their confused "sexual orientation" because of YOUR ideals when you condemn others for their "discriminatory" discretions based on theirs. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

gst Said:
"We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the Courts.

Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution."
 
Abraham Lincoln

Yes, and the people that think the supreme court is all powerful have been brain washed by our public schools.   The founding fathers are crying in their graves.  The shock is some of these people think they are conservative.  How far we have fallen.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

U can participate in the process to try fix whatever perverted problems you see or just overthrow the government. Let me know which one you pick... I want to have my popcorn ready. Both would be rather entertaining... At least in my brainwashed world. Do conservatives now advocate for overthrowing the guberment? Cause in public school they taught me another word for those that want to do that.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Gst said, "But what I am wondering is how do you decide where to draw the line over who you choose to "discriminate" against while condemning others for the line they draw?

I mean we all do it. I draw a line regarding views someone else may have all the time.
We are all a bit hypocritical in this unless you are truly "tolerant" to anything."

Not trying to be a dick here gst. I am not sure why but I didn't think you understood this previous to writing it. I am truly shocked that you think this way because a lot of what you write on fbo comes across as the complete opposite to me. You come across more to me as the you can't have it both ways type. Do you really believe that or are you playing the "I'm trying to paint you in a corner" game? #mindblown

 

Pinecone, JR.'s picture
Pinecone, JR.
Offline
Joined: 10/8/10

schagma fuck this gay site if this post don't get rid of this faggotyish thread I'm gonna be pissed booby avatars are terrible unless your getting paid stupid ice an stupid laughs, winter is hear stupid winter haha fuckin ice pirates

I'll catch more eye's than you

Pinecone, JR.'s picture
Pinecone, JR.
Offline
Joined: 10/8/10

yes kurt r windsor

I'll catch more eye's than you

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

They can still have bowel movements without marriage or even sex.

 Nuke the Whales

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
U can participate in the process to try fix whatever perverted problems you see or just overthrow the government. Let me know which one you pick... I want to have my popcorn ready. Both would be rather entertaining... At least in my brainwashed world. Do conservatives now advocate for overthrowing the guberment? Cause in public school they taught me another word for those that want to do that.

espringers you really can't be that.........well whatever to not understand the quote in context.

gst Said:
"We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the Courts.

Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution."
 
Abraham Lincoln

It is a reminder that the Founding Fathers created a govt whereby the people were expected to be informed and involved in said govt.

The primary way we can do this is thru the vote. The vote is the means by which we can "overthrow the men" which compromise the govt who as men would pervert the Constitution.

Note the absence of the word government by Lincoln.

I mean that was basic 101 in govt class in high school wasn;t it?

And to point out the obvious answer to your last statement I have taken the "liberty" of emboldening, in the history classes I took in my public school these men were called patriots.

I would hope they would still be refered to as this even with todays "new history".

After all, they were the ones that started all this "rights" stuff.

Hey, I thought you were done!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Marbleyes Said:
Gst said, "But what I am wondering is how do you decide where to draw the line over who you choose to "discriminate" against while condemning others for the line they draw?

I mean we all do it. I draw a line regarding views someone else may have all the time.
We are all a bit hypocritical in this unless you are truly "tolerant" to anything."

Not trying to be a dick here gst. I am not sure why but I didn't think you understood this previous to writing it. I am truly shocked that you think this way because a lot of what you write on fbo comes across as the complete opposite to me. You come across more to me as the you can't have it both ways type. Do you really believe that or are you playing the "I'm trying to paint you in a corner" game? #mindblown

Everyone wants to promote their ideals so they are the ones followed. If you want to be honest, in doing so it is difficult in some cases not to have a degree of hypocrisy. And some times you simply can not have it both ways. If you are a  parent I am surprised that this would surprise you. I make it very clear to my kids that in a lot of situations, you "can't have your cake and eat it too/have it both ways" in life. 
 
I really do not want my kids doing some of the stupid things I did growing up so in that I am a bit hypocritical in some of the rules I put in place.

What my involvement in these threads on gay marriage is two fold.

First, get people to stop and look to other states that have incrementally had their "morals change" and look at the path they have traveled and HOW it happened and where they ended up and perhaps not be so foolishly arrogant to think it could not happen here in ND over time if we follow the same path.

And secondly, bring a bit of honesty to the discussion to those that wish to condemn those of us whose ideals believe marriage should be the traditional title between a man and a woman by showing that if the curtain is pulled back a bit they themselves have ideals that "discriminate" against others based on their own ideals not really any differently than those they are condemning.

So I would suggest perhaps looking at places like California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and take a lesson because a fair percentage of the people I know that favor gay marriage also believe ND should be more "progressive" like other states such as these in their thinking.

It is a lot easier to slide down a slope than it is to crawl back up.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Pinecone, JR. Said:
schagma fuck this gay site if this post don't get rid of this faggotyish thread I'm gonna be pissed booby avatars are terrible unless your getting paid stupid ice an stupid laughs, winter is hear stupid winter haha fuckin ice pirates

Or perhaps just the person that posted this post.

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Get, raising kids is a whole different story. Most parents lie and are hypocrites. Some of it out of necessity. I get that. I was talking more about social opinions etc. which you answered. Thanks.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, the simple fact that can not be denied is the "claim" by national gay rights groups was all about "rights" . Survivorship rights, healthcare rights ect.....

gay couples can be given these "rights" thru civil unions, domestic partnerships ect...
and yet now that is not enough. Domestic Partnership is not marriage

Lie to yourself if you wish to convince yourself this is NOT about incrementally dismantling Christian values, but when you start to lie to others what this is really about to achieve an agenda is when I take exception. I haven't lied about anything, and marriage does not belong to Christianity

For YOU personally it might not be about dismantling Christian values and traditions, but for the national gay movement it is indeed about that. I guess I'm directly involved with any movement. I just see no reason to deny same sex couples marriage. You might be on to something. The gays are out to get all the Christians. 

I am sure most people see the irony in YOU claiming YOUR reasons to disagree with others states laws that allow 13 year olds to marry 40 years olds are "valid", but the views they hold regarding gay marriage are not. If you want to ignore logic, than I can see you calling it irony. Some opinions are more valid than others. 

So btr please explain why when one state passes laws to allow 13 year olds and 40 year olds to marry, there exists "valid" concerns to oppose this, but when a state passes a law to prevent two men from marrying there are NO "valid" reasons to support this OUTSIDE YOUR PERSONAL VEIWS. What are the valid reasons not to allow to men from marrying each other?

Then explain why YOUR views are any more "valid" than anyone else's. When you groups arguments are out debated or one groups beliefs are more based on evidence or logic,  that indeed makes on side more valid.
 
Explain what age you believe is able to give "consent" legally. All kids are different. Some at the age of 12 are probably more capable of understanding laws and society than some 18 year olds. Maybe there should be a "consent' test for children.

I probably do not disagree with you on the subject of laws restricting the age of when people can marry, and why, but clearly in other states there are other views that have been "valid" enough to influence state law. Yeah, depends on the people. Doesn't mean what holds the people's support is always right. 

So the point you seem to be missing here, as these traditional views and values are dismantled, (marriage between a man and a woman, marriage younger than 18 or even 16) to the point we now legally have men marrying men and 13 year old girls marrying 40 year old men, are we really that far from a state passing a law that a 40 year old man can legally marry a 14 year old boy? These are different matters of which society is perfectly capable of looking and judging these topics base on their own individual merits. Tradition has is a constantly evolving. Always has, always will. 

How will we argue a law like this is wrong when we have allowed gay marriage, and 13 and 40 year old heterosexual marriage?Consenting Adult gays want to be able to marry. I don't see much in the same sex marriage movement about trying to allow kids to be able to marry adults. 

Should not gays have the same age laws regarding marriage as heterosexuals do??? why not?

If a gay group filed suit on this in New Hampshire, where gay marriage is legal and a 40 year old man can legally marry a 13 year old girl, how would a judge be forced to rule? Sounds kind of complicated, but I imagine that a 40 year adult would be able to marry a 13 year old boy. If you were a New Hampshire resident, would you vote against a 13 year old to marry an adult?

You mention that I may be on the losing "side" 10, 15, 20 years from now on gay marriage, the whole point is that if we continue to allow these incremental changes to traditions and law regarding marriage, we may BOTH be on the losing side in arguments regarding other restrictions on marriage down the road as well. Maybe

So btr, where do we stop and say that is not right? 

History has shown in the downfall of most every great society, the incremental degrading of moral values has played a large part.  Do you know what a slippery slope argument is?

So btr, where does your "tolerance" level start and stop? I'm not sure. Ed and Ted getting married doesn't bother me though.

What will YOU do when others wish to push their ideals past that point? I guess I will have to wait and see.

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, glad to see you making YOUR choices of what is tolerable and demanding others follow them while suggesting others choices simply are untolerable by dismissing them according to YOUR ideals.

Exact;y what credibility do you have in dismissing others concerns as not holding merit?

It seems here in ND your do not have as much as you would believe.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Okay btr, if you wish to readdress this thread, here are a few questions.

1. Why would the first openly gay school teacher in Calif. push to pass a law that FORCES public schools to allow "confused" boys to use the girls bathroom and locker rooms?

2. If an openly gay school teacher was trying to force your daughters school to allow boys to use the girls bathroom and locker room, how would YOU vote?

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) 

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal?

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Maybe not such a bad idea.  Give the boy some rubbers and he'll likely get un-confused in the girls bathroom.  Another time machine project for old Dad.  A bit involved but doable; back to '83 to share the info and the time machine, build another time machine then sit here with cherished golden memories.  It's all wholesome.

 Nuke the Whales

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

I read little of the past threads, but this caught my eye.  BTR asked which traditional marriage.  What makes anything traditional BRT?  I would say a traditional marriage is the type  that has existed a few thousand years.  There is nothing traditional about gay marriage, or the way you look at the world for that matter.  If we are to speak of hypocrisy then you are the most guilty if you really stop and give it honest serious thought.  I think the real goal of the gay marriage people is to destroy all marriage. I don't know about the rest of you, but thinking about what they do, and how screwed up gay marriage is nauseates me. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, glad to see you making YOUR choices of what is tolerable and demanding others follow them while suggesting others choices simply are untolerable by dismissing them according to YOUR ideals.
I am, and have explained my views a few times now. Certainly not demanding anything. 
Exact;y what credibility do you have in dismissing others concerns as not holding merit? Well, this thread an all the other ones similar to this, are what I'm talking about. The valid reasons to deny gays from marrying each just don't exist, or are at least outnumbered greatly. Every single question you've asked, I've answered. Same in the real world. The anti gay marriage crowd's questions have been answered and or debunked. That is what the citizens of this country are seeing, that is why the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. 

It seems here in ND your do not have as much as you would believe. That vote banning same sex marriage was almost 14 years ago. Silly to believe the numbers in support of same sex marriage hasn't risen since then. 

gst Said:
Okay btr, if you wish to readdress this thread, here are a few questions. Imagine that, more questions  Not completely sure you've shown me the same respect answering all of mine, but I'd have to check for sure. 

1. Why would the first openly gay school teacher in Calif. push to pass a law that FORCES public schools to allow "confused" boys to use the girls bathroom and locker rooms? I'm not that gay school teacher so I can't really speak for him. I do know that I don't have a problem with some chick taking a dump in the stall next to me. Bathrooms for different genders might or might not be necessary, but maybe it's more simple to just keep them seperate?

2. If an openly gay school teacher was trying to force your daughters school to allow boys to use the girls bathroom and locker room, how would YOU vote? Bathrooms I probably wouldn't have a big deal with. Locker rooms, are a little different since people are often naked in them. 

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

Plainsman Said:

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

I read little of the past threads, but this caught my eye.  BTR asked which traditional marriage.  What makes anything traditional BRT?  I would say a traditional marriage is the type  that has existed a few thousand years.  There is nothing traditional about gay marriage, or the way you look at the world for that matter.  If we are to speak of hypocrisy then you are the most guilty if you really stop and give it honest serious thought.  I think the real goal of the gay marriage people is to destroy all marriage. I don't know about the rest of you, but thinking about what they do, and how screwed up gay marriage is nauseates me. 

Traditions changed constantly. Polygamy existed for hundreds of years as the norm. 2 person heterosexual marriage is kind of new in the history of the world. Gst said something along the lines of gays wanting to ruin all marriage. You guys do have something in common! As for the your last line, imagine that. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it.

No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. 

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans.

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter)

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest.

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia.

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities?

why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this?

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards.

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

For those that think the incremental  pedophilia arguement regarding gay marriage is NOT a valid one, please read the above question and btr's answer in red.  

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

zogman's picture
zogman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/23/02

I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

"If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given us plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense—what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"

Floyd R. Turbo

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it. I've explained this to you multiple times now on this thread alone. Opinions are not always equal. Opinions can be wrong. When one group has repeatedly disproved, debunked, or shown the other groups ideas to be illogical, then the arguments are not equal. Question. Lets assume two groups disagree on a subject. One of these groups has all the logic and facts supporting it and the other group has nothing and has been proven wrong. Are these two groups opinions equal? 

No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. Yes, 14 years ago.

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans. Most people probably haven't though about it. Are you afraid to take a dump in a stall next to a women? To me privacy is privacy whether it is a male or female. If I have to go to the bathroom have no problem taking a nasty dump with a women in the stall next to me. This by the way is a little off topic, but that's how you roll when you've been going around in circles many many times now. 

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter) quite frankly, this has nothing to do with not allowing gays to marry.

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest. To be honest, people judge different topics on their own merits. 

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not? Your question was boys and girls, not a gender confused kid. For a guy who has called me a liar a few times in this thread alone, please try to be honest. I never said you can't choose whether mixed bathrooms are alright or not. 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1


BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia. As you have mentioned, it is legal in that state for an adult to marry a child. If that state chooses to allow pedophilia, that is their choice. An adult man marrying a 12 year old boy is as much pedophilia as an adult man marrying a 12 year old girl. I thought you supported states rights?

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities? "I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone" That was my answer. It isn't my fault that you didn't understand it. 

why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? I would not hire and unqualified individual over a qualified individual. I don't care what race or sex they are. Unless the qualified individualis a d bag, just like I said before. 

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? You don't have to accept it, just like you don't have to vote to allows gay to marry. No one has achieved it yet. You sure love logical fallacies. 

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards. So you want to force your morals onto everyone? That's it. That's the reason you are against gay marriage?you just don't like it. I've asked you that a few times, it's ok to answer. 

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to. Yes, because it hasn't been voted on since 2014. And no, it doesn't bother me.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think. Could be. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Plainsman Said:
BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

I really don't need a dictionary definition to understand that yes, traditions are traditions because they've been something for a certain amount of time, and yes traditions change, like marriage for example. Women have rights in the marriage now unlike 'traditional' marriage, they are just objects anymore. And Blacks and whites can now marry each other. Marriage does not belong to you. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BringingTheRain Said:
 

Plainsman Said:
BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

I really don't need a dictionary definition to understand that yes, traditions are traditions because they've been something for a certain amount of time, and yes traditions change, like marriage for example. Women have rights in the marriage now unlike 'traditional' marriage, they are just objects anymore. And Blacks and whites can now marry each other. Marriage does not belong to you. 

Your right it doesn't belong to me.  It's a long established social norm.  A norm that is one man and one woman and held as such for thousands of years.  I see it as a group wanting to destroy it because they can not really achieve the normalcy of a heterosexual marriage.  It's that childish "if we can't have it neither can you" destructive behavior.  Not you specifically BRT, but speaking of those who wish to destroy marriage.  We better take it very seriously before we destroy the foundation that has advanced out civilization for thousands of years.  Gay marriage will make a mockery and bring down our society. 

Like the typical liberal taxing and redistributing wealth they will also destroy the traditional foundation of our society thinking it's the "fair" thing to do.  Destroying the reality of the vast majority for a small minority of pretenders is ludicrous. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09



BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it. I've explained this to you multiple times now on this thread alone. Opinions are not always equal. Opinions can be wrong. When one group has repeatedly disproved, debunked, or shown the other groups ideas to be illogical, then the arguments are not equal. Question. Lets assume two groups disagree on a subject. One of these groups has all the logic and facts supporting it and the other group has nothing and has been proven wrong. Are these two groups opinions equal? 


You really have a hard time accepting your "opinion" is not as "special" as you believe don't you btr.


No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. Yes, 14 years ago.

How much would you like to bet the percentages would not be significantly different

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans. Most people probably haven't though about it. Are you afraid to take a dump in a stall next to a women? To me privacy is privacy whether it is a male or female. If I have to go to the bathroom have no problem taking a nasty dump with a women in the stall next to me. This by the way is a little off topic, but that's how you roll when you've been going around in circles many many times now. 

Come on btr you KNOW I am not talking about adult unisex bathrooms. I am talking about the forcing of STUDENTS in public schools to allow gay kids and transgender kids access. BIG difference.

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter) quite frankly, this has nothing to do with not allowing gays to marry.

Your answer reinforces by belief you do not have a young daughter that would be affected by this govt ruling.

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest. To be honest, people judge different topics on their own merits. 

I know, I know, your "opinion" once again

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not? Your question was boys and girls, not a gender confused kid. For a guy who has called me a liar a few times in this thread alone, please try to be honest. I never said you can't choose whether mixed bathrooms are alright or not. 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1

btr I have referenced "gender confused kids"/transgender a number of times
in this thread and others. But do you think the schools will have separate bathrooms for non "gender confused kids" ?

Anyone that still claims gays are not attempting to "force" their views onto others and impacting their lives, please read btr's replies and make that claim with a straight face.

It is clear if you do not believe in gay marriage your opinion is worthless and simply wrong and does not deserve recognition or consideration.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia. As you have mentioned, it is legal in that state for an adult to marry a child. If that state chooses to allow pedophilia, that is their choice. An adult man marrying a 12 year old boy is as much pedophilia as an adult man marrying a 12 year old girl. I thought you supported states rights?
 
The question was not about whether or not the STATE should allow it btr, (if the state wants to be that screwed up so be it) it was about whether YOU would allow it. It was asked as a question to show the incremental slide from gay marriage to what most people other than yourself consider pedophilia.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities? "I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone" That was my answer. It isn't my fault that you didn't understand it. 

btr the "explanation" is simple even you should understand, the govt forces that upon you because of anti "discrimination" lawsuits.
why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? I would not hire and unqualified individual over a qualified individual. I don't care what race or sex they are. Unless the qualified individualis a d bag, just like I said before. 

In some states you simply do not have this choice. Sucks when the "anti discrimination" issue affects you doesn't it.

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? You don't have to accept it, just like you don't have to vote to allows gay to marry. No one has achieved it yet. You sure love logical fallacies. 

btr, I have provided a number of links to a couple of different states that have this as state law! Are you denying it?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards. So you want to force your morals onto everyone? That's it. That's the reason you are against gay marriage?you just don't like it. I've asked you that a few times, it's ok to answer. 

btr, I have stated numerous times I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman because that is the batting teams that are required to reproduce. Try not to deflect.

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to. Yes, because it hasn't been voted on since 2014. And no, it doesn't bother me.

you sure seem to act like it "bothers you" claiming everyone with this "opinion" is simply wrong.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think. Could be. 
Prove it.

It appears btr all you are now doing is dragging the conversation away from questions you know the answers to will not support your position.

Enjoy working to change North Dakotans views on gay marriage by telling them they don't know what they are talking about and are simply wrong so their opinions are invalid and simply should not count.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

funny, most everyone else would likely believe the same points are likely being made  over and over to the point of nausea!

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I purchased a T shirt yesterday that sums things up for me.  It says "I may not be politically correct, but I am correct".

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

I'll offer up an absolute.  When our government grants a right to one segment of the population (in this case, the right to choose one mutually consenting adult with whom to enter into the contract of marriage, which gives government-sanctioned benefits), it must grant that same right to all segments of the population. To not do so is discrimination, and that's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans across the country.  Once again, there's an easy solution.  Get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and sanctioning marriage.  


sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

guywhofishes Said:

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

If marriage of heterosexuals promotes those things, wouldn't the marriage of homosexuals also promote those things?  Some people like to think of homosexuals as sexually promiscuous people, if not sexual predators.  Here some of them are asking for the right to enter into the contract of marriage, which is supposed to promote all the things listed above.

As I've asked before, if the definition of marriage revolves around the ability of two people to conceive a child, should people who are biologically unable to have children be allowed to marry?  I think you are a thoughtful individual guywhofishes, and I would like to hear your perspective on it, not gst's by design business.

How precisely does allowing two gay people to marry undermine "true" marriage?  If you drive a Corvette and it is a car, and I drive a SmartCar and it is a car, is the identity of your Corvette as a car undermined?  You have every right to judge it however you like.  

It still comes down to this for me.  Marriage as recognized by our government is simply a contract between two individuals.  It's not about what anybody's church does, what anybody teaches their children in their own homes, or any of that.  When it comes to adults who are granted the ability to enter into a contract, our government must not discriminate based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  Call me a libtard if you must, but I would like to point out that this is another matter of personal freedom, which FBO members generally support.


Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Not true.  It comes down to definition, and that is what has been corrupted by an attack on common sense and morality in this country.  I'm not talking about this issue only, but in broad terms.  Marriage is and should be defined as a union between one male and one female.  PERIOD.  That, is an absolute.  An absolute our forefathers intended.

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
Not true.  It comes down to definition, and that is what has been corrupted by an attack on common sense and morality in this country.  I'm not talking about this issue only, but in broad terms.  Marriage is and should be defined as a union between one male and one female.  PERIOD.  That, is an absolute.  An absolute our forefathers intended.

What are you saying is not true?  

Can you provide a reference to support the statement that our forefathers intended what you contend they did?  

Even if you can, think about this.  Our forefathers intended to deny some people rights based on their race.  Does that make racial discrimination OK, because people thought it was OK over 200 years ago?

I have not denied you have the ability to define marriage however you want it to be in your life.  I don't think government entities should do the same.  

Here is what our forefathers said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

No, what I am saying in terms of what our forefathers wanted has to do with absolutes.  There are absolutes.  Liberalism wants to destroy absolutes.  Liberlas want to destroy the Bible, destroy the Constitution, and destroy the base our forefathers gave us.
The issue should not be in the Federal courts at all, this is strictly a states issue.  Something like 37 states have ruled that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  Our forefathers did not directly address gays and marriage, they could never have fathomed such an outcome.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They certainly were not talking about gays here, and apparently they weren't talking about slaves either.   Men are created equal, but we all must live by certain absolutes.  The idea that 3 men could marry, or 2 women and one man could marry, or a man and his German Shepard could marry is not an absolute, and an idea our forefathers could not have dreamed of. 

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I just posted some factoids for those interested in the debate. I've moved on from this topic with the understanding that the world I knew, and countless generations before me knew, is a dodo bird and won't be coming back.

I can long for its return and affect/influence who I can, but debating on FBO has gotten me nothing but a feeling of disdain for some some of the more passionate debaters on the other side and at some point you realize that societal slide is an avalanche that you can't manage or nudge by debating on FBO.

I will say this as a final post on this thread: Growing up without both a mother and a father yields far less desirable results on the average. Stats prove it out over and over and over and over. Adding yet another socially acceptable way for this to not to occur and to further water down the Dad-Mom-Kids recipe that just plain seems to work will yield the same predictable and absolutely undeniable result as easy divorces or non-marriage has. That is, a less healthy and happy society, more crime, more misery, and less of what ties a society together.... and more power and influence into the hands of power-hungry dictators in gov't who are there to "pick up the pieces".

Here's a guy who's scarred and hurt and, some would say, has a chip on his shoulder because his father was a POS. He eloquently points out the critical role that fathers provide. How is society fair to the kid who gets adopted by two married lesbians or two married homos and grows up without the critical support that BOTH SEXES PROVIDE? Kind of like the national debt debate.... F the kids as long as the parents get what is "fair" and makes them feel like society accepts them.


 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Alpine-Liberals want to destroy the Bible, etc....blah,.....
What a bunch of crap designed by your own simple, cramped view on life within the universe.
You parrot things and call on our forefathers to back up your close minded dribble. Absolutes? Like all men being created equal? As long a they're white land owners????
NO matter how you look at it there were some things I've noticed you consider absolute that run directly contrary to what many of our forefathers believed in like:

Were the Founding Fathers also huge fans of an unfettered market? Um, no. Here's Thomas Jefferson on banks: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies" John Adams believed that "property monopolized or in possession of a few is a curse to mankind." Ben Franklin went even further, writing that: "no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." I think it's safe to say all of them believed that free markets require a great deal of regulation in order to meet people's needs. Since we're on the topic maybe you should view Washington's somewhat liberal views on gays in the military and some of the actions he took in regard to so called flagrant behavior at the time. Not quite the reaction that was called for at the time. The absolutes you think exist are only in your mind. Apparently with your above statements you really don't know what our forefather's, even at that time, meant and stood for!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

Alpine Said:
Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

I'll offer up an absolute.  When our government grants a right to one segment of the population (in this case, the right to choose one mutually consenting adult with whom to enter into the contract of marriage, which gives government-sanctioned benefits), it must grant that same right to all segments of the population. To not do so is discrimination, and that's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans across the country.  Once again, there's an easy solution.  Get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and sanctioning marriage.  

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

spare, the law in ND states marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Regardless of "biological" reasons, there are only two sexes that can combine to create another human.

That singular concept should not be that hard to understand.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

With every post you paint yourself more the socialist fishmahn, more the dunce, more the liar.

How many quotes would you like me to come up with directly from our founders against big power government? Against socialism, even though the word was not yet popularized? You try to sell us the fact that the founding fathers were socialists! What can of azz wipe propaganda do you suck from the teat of? And you're dumb enough to believe all of it?

" John Adams believed that "property monopolized or in possession of a few is a curse to mankind."

Why don't you read the Federalist Papers. Why don't you read the Constitution. Why do you not read ALL of what Adams and the rest of the founders had to say. Their ideal of free enterprise and power to the individual and for LIMITED power to government is what grew this great nation. Capitalism is what it spawned, and ambition and prosperity for all was their vision and what capitalism provided! This system allows ALL of us to prosper, we have a right to happiness and prosperity but as Franklin said we must catch it ourselves. Our founders did not set up socialism, they set up capitalism and free enterprise with LIMITED government. You can't really believe what you've written on your own soiled diaper. Or can you?

All founding fathers and others like Andrew Jackson warned of the central bank. The central bank is a puppet of big corrupt government, and Jackson destroyed it for that reason. Today we have it in the worst way imaginable with the Federal Reserve, and leftist socialists like Obozo use it against we the people every time they print worthless money and coins that are nothing more than tokens. We can thank liberalism for that.
The central bank is not a product of free enterprise or capitalism, it is a product of big government, a product of socialism. You don't even know your own system!

Socialism shares nothing but misery and poverty for all. Socialism is the system that creates the filthy rich at the top, those in power, while we the people suffer with no options. Capitalism breeds ambition and wealth for all in contrast.

If the founding fathers were alive today Obozo and his band of merry thieves would be in prison waiting for trial with the gallows being built. HE and the blind dumb sheep like YOU are exactly what our founding fathers warned us of.

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

gst Said:

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

I never said the government shouldn't discriminate.  The right to practice medicine requires education, passing a few tests, and getting licensed.  Any person of any gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation, may try to meet the requirements.  

As far as the marrying whomever they wish, I would say yes, as long as that person is a consenting adult.  There is currently no law that allows for some people to marry 10 people and for some people to marry dogs.  To continue to allege that those who support gay marriage support bestiality is just a smokescreen.  

I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.


johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

sparetire Said:
 
I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.

Well you see that is why it is between a man and a woman, as they can potentially recreate. However this will be unknown until after marriage, and trying for a period of time. Then if no pregnancy happens, we will know that one of them or possibly both are infertile.

No matter how many times Lance tries to get Jim pregnant it just aint happening...

And worse yet is the poor child that has to go thru life having Lance and Jim as his loving gay dads. Kids are cruel, and I just dont see the love in adding to that.

A child needs a mother and a father, regardless of what nonsense talking points are out there. Do Lance and Jim love the adopted child? I am sure as much as any parent would. Does that make it a great situation? I guess I really dont think so, as love is only one aspect of what comes from a mother and a father in learning lifes lessons.

A couple of dudes or chicks want that life style, whatever, but to call it a marriage, and put some children into the mix, I just dont see the good. However I am a Christian, and also a conservative, and a North Dakotan, who raised/raising 4 kids, so what the hell do I know.

Neat

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

And where do you get off trying to imply our founding fathers approved of homo's?   Under British law it was a capital offense.  ALL 13 colonies made it illegal, and followed through with it!

George Washington approved of homo soldiers?   In one instance he court martialed one and had him shot for perjury and other crimes when everyone knew the real reason.  In other instances soldiers were court martialed and marched out of camp and that is well documented.
In "Notes to the States of Virginia" Jefferson called for castration of those involved.  Practically ALL of the founding fathers openly condemned the act, and none would have allowed it openly.  THAT'S just to set the record straight.

Back to the issue at hand.   Consenting adults?  Consenting adults should be able to do what they want you say?  So then 3 men can marry.  4 women can marry.  A man and his well cared for and loved German Shepard can openly enjoy marriage and all the fun stuff that comes with it, right?  WHO are YOU to say????

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

johnr Said:

Well you see that is why it is between a man and a woman, as they can potentially recreate. However this will be unknown until after marriage, and trying for a period of time. Then if no pregnancy happens, we will know that one of them or possibly both are infertile.  

No matter how many times Lance tries to get Jim pregnant it just aint happening...  Just as no matter how many times Lance tries to get post-menopausal Judy pregnant, it ain't happening. Should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry?  Should women with androgen insensitivity syndrome be allowed to marry?

And worse yet is the poor child that has to go thru life having Lance and Jim as his loving gay dads. Kids are cruel, and I just dont see the love in adding to that.

A child needs a mother and a father, regardless of what nonsense talking points are out there. Do Lance and Jim love the adopted child? I am sure as much as any parent would. Does that make it a great situation? I guess I really dont think so, as love is only one aspect of what comes from a mother and a father in learning lifes lessons.

A couple of dudes or chicks want that life style, whatever, but to call it a marriage, and put some children into the mix, I just dont see the good. However I am a Christian, and also a conservative, and a North Dakotan, who raised/raising 4 kids, so what the hell do I know.

The who should be allowed to have kids can be a whole different discussion.  There are HORRIBLE heterosexual parents out there.  

Again, why not take the government out of the business of licensing marriages?  


sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
And where do you get off trying to imply our founding fathers approved of homo's?   Under British law it was a capital offense.  ALL 13 colonies made it illegal, and followed through with it!

George Washington approved of homo soldiers?   In one instance he court martialed one and had him shot for perjury and other crimes when everyone knew the real reason.  In other instances soldiers were court martialed and marched out of camp and that is well documented.
In "Notes to the States of Virginia" Jefferson called for castration of those involved.  Practically ALL of the founding fathers openly condemned the act, and none would have allowed it openly.  THAT'S just to set the record straight.

Back to the issue at hand.   Consenting adults?  Consenting adults should be able to do what they want you say?  So then 3 men can marry.  4 women can marry.  A man and his well cared for and loved German Shepard can openly enjoy marriage and all the fun stuff that comes with it, right?  WHO are YOU to say????

I never said that consenting adults can always do what they want, nor would I ever say that.  What I said was that government allows TWO consenting adults to enter into a contract, as long as one of them is a woman and one is a man.  That is gender discrimination.  Since our government doesn't allow polygamy, I have no basis to argue that the right to polygamy should extend to all consenting adults.  This is that same old tired incrementalism argument.


Pages