The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
eberg83's picture
eberg83
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/11/12

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

 Sorry for the floooooooooood of posts.   T'wer not intentional

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

Are you saying some people were born to hate gays?    

johnr Said:
I guess I amstraight because I find gay gay
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:

So spare, what do YOU think of New Hampshire's law that allows a 40 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl? 
 
How about Florida's marriage laws that allow "adults" to marry "children"?

Perhaps you just think they are "silly".

Candiru, Same question.

I think such laws are wrong.  A 13 year old is not a consenting adult.  These laws have nothing to do with the so-called incrementalism between gay marriage and pedophilia. I think marriage is a legally binding contract, and as such, a person should be the age of majority in order to enter into it.

I don't think that states' rights are the be-all end-all.  

This whole business that marriage needs to be between people who can procreate together is a slippery slope.  I ask you, which of the following people would you allow to get married?

-women with Turner syndrome.
-women with androgen insensitivity syndrome.
-men who have had a vasectomy.
-post-menopausal women.

If you would allow them to marry, why?  They can't procreate.  

Would you let a post-op trans-sexual woman marry a man?  Should each person have chromosomal testing before marriage, in order to prove their biologic gender?


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design" before you wish to quibble about such things as you list.

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

 

The Mantis Said:
I didn't answer your other questions because I'm stressing the point that you think it is a birth trait and I do not,   therefore the other questions are VOID.  

This relates to gay marriage because I believe it has to do with the root of the 'problem'.   I believe homosexuality is a mental health issue,  not a birth trait.    

As I told candiru.   Gays can do whatever they want,   but when they want to defile traditional marriage and share the title, traditional marriage supporters aren't going to like it.  Those are really the points I'm trying to make here.   We clearly disagree.   Eight more pages won't decide the issue so I think I'll be done now.  

   I simply disagree with you,  and to me this is a very big issue.

Okay, try these then.

Should women who choose permanent contraception, such as tubal ligation be allowed to marry?
Should men and women who have no intention of having children be allowed to marry?

I'll say it again, if marriage were not something that was sanctioned by governments, I would have no beef with you, your church, or whatever other organization defining it however they see fit.  As it stands, currently two mutually consenting adults are able to enter into a contract that is sanctioned by the government.  This contract confers special privileges to those people.  Currently, those people must be (or at least claim to be) a man and a woman.  This contract is called a marriage by government entities, who issue a marriage license.  This is discriminatory, and I don't believe governments should discriminate in this way.  My thoughts on this wouldn't change even if I thought gay people made a choice to be gay.  

If people who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman would convince their governments to stop sanctioning what they see as a religious institution, this problem would melt away very quickly.  No more marriage licenses.  If it is felt necessary to retain such things as spousal privilege, inheritance rights, filing of joint income tax, allow each consenting adult to identify one other mutually consenting adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ability to have children, or any other thing, and let the government sanction that relationship.


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

Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?


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

Candiru Said:
Good grief,   Why are you so infatuated with teenagers getting married?  Is that all you got?

I would guess that those laws, NH in particular, are holdovers from another era.   If this stuff were actually going on now I would imagine there would be a drive to repeal it due to public outrage.    At one time a 13 year old getting married to an older man was viewed as being OK.  It is no longer.

 I strongly disapprove of people under 18 getting married.  If I was living in one of those states I would be asking my legislator to change those laws to make the age 18.    

How many people under 18 are getting married these days?   I really don't think it is very many at all.      Where is the movement out there to lower the age of marriage?   I really don't see it.    

I think we were all sickened a few years ago when the dealings of Warren Jeffs and the polygamist FLDS were revealed.   It is some really sick shit.  Google and read up on it.  It is a cult built around old men having sex with girls.   Or do you think that the gov't was violating the "religious freedom" of Warren Jeffs when they threw him in jail for life?

Instead of just guessing perhaps you can inform yourself a little. I provided a link to several states marriage laws some of which allow by law the marriage of children to adults.

In Florida, a judge can make that decision regardless of what the parent might wish.

Stop trying to "deflect" from what is happening as our "morals change" in this country.

But at least thanks for admitting you would argue against something you find morally wrong.

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

espringers Said:
I assume a 14 year old would need parental consent and a court waiver to get married... And also assume the same rules would apply to boys as they do girls... I find it disgusting and doubt they are allowed under anything but extremely extraordinary circumstances that i couldnt even imagine...

So this is your answer to the question regarding marriage laws in New Hampshire?

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

beminoid31 Said:
 Gst-last I checked we were in ND, not NH,OR,NV, FL ect ect. Your argument keeps going to what most think is pedophilia. Get over it. Who cares if a guy wants to marry a guy or woman wants to marry a woman. Through 12 pages we get that your opinion is the only one that you care about, #letitgo

nice deflection from having to take a stance on what happens as our "morals change".

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

Candiru Said:
 If protecting gay people so they can live their lives without fear of being fired from a job, denied housing, or discriminated against including entering into marriage with another fully consenting adult and all the benefits attached to it;  means I am imposing my morals on others, I will proudly plead guilty.  

Where has anyone suggest gays be fired, denied housing or even denying gays the benefits associated with the legalities of marriage outside a title?

Quit trying to deflect by making false claims.

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Gst don't answer questions if you read the whole forum. #pedophiliaandbeastiality

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

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

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

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

Gst... Hasn't your stance on gays and civil unions changed in the last couple of years? Maybe I am wrong... But, I swear you used to argue they shouldn't be granted civil unions and the rights associated with them. No?

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

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

beminoid31 Said:
 Gst don't answer questions if you read the whole forum. #pedophiliaandbeastiality

instead of trying to deflect away from the "changing morals" why not answer a simple question. Do you think the laws in NH that allow a 40 year old man to marry a 13 year old child allow pedophilia?

Do you agree with these laws or are they wrong?

Just where do YOUR morals start to "change" bemi?

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

How's about transexuals? Can they marry? And to whom? Or is their nature not by design?

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

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

espringers Said:
Gst... Hasn't your stance on gays and civil unions changed in the last couple of years? Maybe I am wrong... But, I swear you used to argue they shouldn't be granted civil unions and the rights associated with them. No?

espringers I have always maintained the title of tradition marriage should remain between a man and a woman. 
 

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

espringers Said:
How's about transexuals? Can they marry? And to whom? Or is their nature not by design?

espringers, really?

I thought you would have been smarter than to actually put that in writing.

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 I might care if I lived in NH but I don't therefore it's got nothing to do with me so I could careless. Do I think it's wrong:yes but what does that have to do with gay marriage which this topic is about? Your speculating and got way to many theory's and conspiracies for what you think is gonna happen 20yrs from now. Like I said before go out to the pasture and get a new horse to beat on cuz this ones dead already🐎🏃

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

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

 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.


beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 But then again you probably don't think I got morals since I haven't been to church in about 17yrs and can't see myself going anytime soon either

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

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

schamgma, this otta get rid of this discusioun :)

I'll catch more eye's than you

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

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.

spare I guess I have to make it pretty basic then. 

 "by design"  a person is a man or a woman.

By design the only way a new life can enter this world is if a man and a woman create it.
 
Pretty simple if you aren't trying to deflect away from a pretty basic principal.

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

We ask those ?s not cause we are Stupid... But In response to your by design silliness.

Let's go back to the 14 year olds... No we don't support it. There is a huge difference tho.. In nh, the state has granted more rights to the class of folks aged 14-18... They aren't taking them away or restricting them. When analyzing these things from a legal perspective, we don't care if you grant more rights... But courts start to take notice when you restrict them... Even more notice when the discrimination occurs in a protected class. We've been down this road before gst. If one state wants to grant more rights to 14 year olds, thats their perogative regardless of the fact my moral compass points the other way. But when a state wants to restrict rights against people based on their sex, the analysis will involve more than just a moral compass... You will have to prove you are doing it to prevent some harm to society. You remember that discussion?

You didn't answer my ? On civil unions. Its clear where you stand on traditional marriage. And now you seem to be OK with states granting rights associated with civil unions. But my memory is that you used to oppose the granting of those rights too based on your same incrementalism argument.

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

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

I've answered your questions. You feel no need to address my questions of you. And I'm the one deflecting?  If a person is chromosomally 46 XY, but their body doesn't respond to testosterone and other androgens, they develop the body of a woman. Is that a man or is it a woman? Is it an example of "the design" not panning out, kinda like when a person is born gay?

By the way, thanks for using the condescending tone but not knowing when to use the word "principle". That made me laugh. 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

sparetire Said:


Spare tire, perhaps you missed the two important words I emboldened.

"by design"

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you can not deny by design it takes a man and a woman to procreate the species.

Perhaps you can think abit about the phrase "by design".

Sometimes that design doesn't work out, though, does it?  Which is why I asked those questions.  I notice that you didn't answer them.  I believe I've offered my perspective on each of the questions you've asked me.  How about you go back and answer mine?

Spare Stop and think for a moment what two words "by design" means in the context of the discussion and you will find I have answered your question. 
 
By design it takes a man and a woman to procreate. By design two men or two women by themselves can not. There genders will forever preclude them from reproduction.

You wish to draw subtexts into that conversation, and in doing so to validate your point you choose to overlook the very essence of the words "by design".

If you are a man and a woman, by design you are the genders which allow reproduction whether you physically can or not by choice or condition.

  

I'm not dumb, I know what you mean when you say by design. Thanks for highlighting it though.  A woman with androgen insensitivity will never be able to procreate.  A woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser will never be able to procreate.  Was this by design?  

You've missed the point that design doesn't always work the way nature and/or God intended.  Which is why some people are gay, or why some other people have abnormal chromosomes, or some people have intersex conditions.  You are the one who stated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together.  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll have to guess.  I will have to guess you would allow a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome to get married to a man.  What about the fact that "she" is chromosomally male?  So how were her sexual preferences developed? 

She is "different".  Most gay people will tell you that they recognize that they are "different".  The design didn't work out for them.  So let's call them unnatural and deny them rights that the government affords to others, right?  Wrong.

spare I guess I have to make it pretty basic then. 

 "by design"  a person is a man or a woman.

By design the only way a new life can enter this world is if a man and a woman create it.
 
Pretty simple if you aren't trying to deflect away from a pretty basic principal.


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

And you aren't answering the ? On the person with male or female sex organs but other chromosome s... Who should they be allowed to marry? The person they can procreate with or the person their Dna says they should?

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

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

See... Here is the difference when it comes to us and the 14 year olds... We disagree with it. But we aren't telling nh what to do. You know why? Cause its their business AND ( and that's a big and) they aren't restricting rights. They are expanding them.

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

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

espringers Said:
We ask those ?s not cause we are Stupid... But In response to your by design silliness.

Let's go back to the 14 year olds... No we don't support it. There is a huge difference tho.. In nh, the state has granted more rights to the class of folks aged 14-18... They aren't taking them away or restricting them. When analyzing these things from a legal perspective, we don't care if you grant more rights... But courts start to take notice when you restrict them... Even more notice when the discrimination occurs in a protected class. We've been down this road before gst. If one state wants to grant more rights to 14 year olds, thats their perogative regardless of the fact my moral compass points the other way. But when a state wants to restrict rights against people based on their sex, the analysis will involve more than just a moral compass... You will have to prove you are doing it to prevent some harm to society. You remember that discussion?

You didn't answer my ? On civil unions. Its clear where you stand on traditional marriage. And now you seem to be OK with states granting rights associated with civil unions. But my memory is that you used to oppose the granting of those rights too based on your same incrementalism argument.

espringers can two men create a child together?

Can two women?

Can a man and a woman create a new life?

Remember here the question is not about two specific people just a gender.

You guys are trying to specific issues to "deflect" and there really only is the one issue that you should be able to answer if you answer the three questions above.

didnl;t answer a question!!!!!

man that sucks when people don't answer questions doesn't it.

My stance on allowing people the same "rights" outside of title has softened over the years.

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

No. No. And yes. And that's what I thought. So now its just about Websters definition of a word? Now we are getting somewhere... I for one couldn't give two shits how the word is defined in a dictionary or if gays ever get included in Merriam's definition. But, if you guys want to burn up all that energy arguing against a change in a dictionaries defining language, regardless of the legal rights, knock yourself out. we may have found some common ground.

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

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

On a side note, it appears that in California "morals" have "changed" to the point where now a boy, if he believes he has a feminine side can use the girls bathroom or vice versa.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/state-ordering-girls-locker-rooms-open-to-boys/

from the article;
"Ammiano told the Los Angeles Times some parents may be uncomfortable with their children sharing bathrooms with students of a different sex, but he said, "It is also important to protect our children from prejudice."

"There's no trampling of other peoples rights" he said. "There's a recognition that other people have the same rights as you do."

Mr. Ammiano is an openly gay Democrat teacher who pushed this bill thru the legislature.

So for those that are claiming gays are not "forcing" anything onto those that do not agree with their life style, how would you like a 14 year old boy walking into the girls bathroom where your 15 year old daughter is going pee and pulling his pecker out of his pants and taking a leak?

At age 15, I bet most of the pee hits the ceiling instead of the toilet.

Come on guys lets be a little honest here and admit whether you would have a problem with this law being "forced" down your schools throat and having teenage boys standing outside the door of the stall when your daughter is taking a leak all because a gay teacher doesn't want someone's "rights" trampled..

Come on guys you know who you are, answer the question.

Who's "rights" are being trampled here? When did boys peeing in girls bathrooms become a "right"? What got "forced" onto who?

If I lived in Ca, I would like to believe in school my daughter would have the "right" to go pee without some teenage boy standing outside the stall door.

Guess my concerns are "silly" as hey "morals change" and "what should I care" cause this really isn't about "forcing" something onto anyone else.

Now hey if California wants to legalize this crap, so be it. But do NOT lie and claim these kinds of things will NOT happen as our "morals change" because as we speak, they are already.

And what kind of Federal judges that will rule on these things do you think Obama will appoint and the Senate will now push thru unopposed?

espringers how would you feel about a Federal Judge ruling that some teenage boy can walk into your daughters bathroom at school and pull out his pecker and take a leak while she is sitting on the toilet with her pants around her knees so his "rights" are not trampled?

spare, bemi, btr, multi anyone???

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

espringers Said:
See... Here is the difference when it comes to us and the 14 year olds... We disagree with it. But we aren't telling nh what to do. You know why? Cause its their business AND ( and that's a big and) they aren't restricting rights. They are expanding them.

I'm not telling NH what to do when it comes to gay marriage either. My concern is here in ND and what an activist Federal judge appointed by a liberal progressive elitist who despises the US Constitution, unopposed due to changed Senate rules because of the same sort of politicians, may rule sometime in the future.

The only reason any other state has been brought into the discussion is to show the things some claim will not happen ARE happening as we speak. (shoveling a little sand away so to speak) and maybe to highlight a bit of hypocrisy.

Pages