Marriage and sexuality

[Mr Cheese]

but how do these priviliges get handed out? does a commitee sit down and discuss whether or not certain people get certain priviliges? if so how do we know this commitee isnt just going "well i dont agree with the way he lives his life so i'm going to take his priviliges away"

it cant be a variation between different groups. it has to be all or nothing. having mixed rules for different groups breaks a fundamental part of western society - all men are equal.

so i ask you this, which do you prefer everyone getting married whether straight, gay, poly, etc or nobody allowed to get married at all?

He doesnt consider gay men equal

they have a genetic defect (his words)... apparently...

Bigots are bigots...:thud:

 

[Mr Cheese]

"

So apparently it isn't about allowing gays to marry it's about not letting gays have the right to their religious freedoms. It's about keeping gays out of your church and not allowing them to have the same rights and privileges as you have.
.

Was there ever any doubt?

 

[madhatter85]

So apparently it isn't about allowing gays to marry it's about not letting gays have the right to their religious freedoms. It's about keeping gays out of your church and not allowing them to have the same rights and privileges as you have.

Prop 8 was just a cover up for the actual of bigotry, intolerance and hatred of your church toward people who do not meet your expectations or definitions of "normal".

you are confusing my reasons for debating this with the reasons why it should not be allowed.

The question was asked why it was important to me. I answered why it was important to me.

My arguments against gay marriage have been separate from why it is important to me and based in anthropological, genetic, sociological, and psychological research.

 

[Mr Cheese]

No because they would have to allow gays to have the same religious freedom that they have and then madhatter would potentially have to sit next to a homosexual person while in church, which is just all around wrong, in the eyes of Mr. Hatter that is.

He might get a sudden urge to wear leather or listen to Barbera Streisand....

that would be horrible

Moderator cut: image removed

Babs Streisand.... converting religious bigots to homosexuality daily...

:flirt:

 

[madhatter85]

can you really see that?

the LDS chruch only repealled the "curse of cain" stating all black people were damned, because cain was black.... 40 or so years ago.

Yet not one high up member of the church is black....

At that rate, by the year 2100 we may have gay marriage accepted in the LDS church...

This is off topic and already been explained. Blacks were always told there would come a time when they would receive it. The same promise was never, and never will be given in regards to homosexuality. You falsely compare the two. Also, there are quite a few members of the 70 who are black black stake presidents and bishops.

 

[madhatter85]

He might get a sudden urge to wear leather or listen to Barbera Streisand....

that would be horrible

Babs Streisand.... converting religious bigots to homosexuality daily...

:flirt:

Again, you resort to mockery because you have nothing.

 

[Mr Cheese]

This is off topic and already been explained. Blacks were always told there would come a time when they would receive it. The same promise was never, and never will be given in regards to homosexuality. You falsely compare the two. Also, there are quite a few members of the 70 who are black black stake presidents and bishops.

Yes, you compare two things and see apples and oranges

The rest of us (non bigots) merely see hatred and prejudice on your and your churches part....

Yes blacks are free to be mormons now...lucky them...
Yet they still arent "leaders" in the church....

in your mind, you think its ok

because homosexuality is behavioural
because homosexuality is actually genetic (depending on which person you wish to respond to, in order to justify your hatred, yes you say one thing then the exact opposite the next, rather like a simpleton)

I wonder if you're spreading your bigotry to your children, that is, I would argue, where bigotry begins....parent to child

 

[Mr Cheese]

Again, you resort to mockery because you have nothing.

I dont go around stating I have "proven something"

:sarcastic

cmon you know you like streisand and really want to lick some moobs....

you can see it as mockery if you like... really its just humor, cause frankly your brand of non thinking can result in several reactions:

anger
or laughter

Laughter is far more divine... actually in some forms of mysticism laughter is considerd to be the closest to God we can get by using emotions....

If you cant take the heat...stop spouting utter idiotic, ill thought out, ridiculously cliched bigoted posts....

I am still waiting for a coherant argument or statement, one that essentially doesn't involve an underlying sentiment of "I dont like them homo people, I think its wrong and immoral"

but I grow tiresome of idiocy....

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Why would equal marriage rights suddenly make Homosexuals go flocking to LDS temples?
Why would someone want to go where they are reviled as abnormal?
What does the price of gold have to do with your Wii?
(unless of course you are the queen)

That is something Mr. Hatter appears to be avoiding in this particular conversation.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Was there ever any doubt?

Not really I just wanted to hear it straight from the horses mouth.

 

[sojourner]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

What if a church feels that God calls homosexuals to be married. In a State where religious freedoms are respected, and human rights are attempted to be made fair across the board, doesn't homosexual marriage make sense?

Further, if you wanna talk about affecting religious freedoms, what about homosexual couples who feel that God calls them to be married, but the gov't. steps in and says, "Nope. Sorry."

 

[Mr Cheese]

That is something Mr. Hatter appears to be avoiding in this particular conversation.

anythign to justify hatred....

that is usually how it goes

...

I think bigots shouldnt be allowed to marry, they are afterall damaging to the human race, you could argue that bigorty is behavioural... although they have shown many Bush supporters had smaller medulla oblongatas...I dont think its out of the question that bigots also have some form of genetic defect.

hmmm behavioural, forming some kind of impact on humanity and its need to survive, possible genetic flaws......

Yes I think bigots should maybe be sterilised and branded, so that no one marries them

what does anyone else think?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

you are confusing my reasons for debating this with the reasons why it should not be allowed.

The question was asked why it was important to me. I answered why it was important to me.

My arguments against gay marriage have been separate from why it is important to me and based in anthropological, genetic, sociological, and psychological research.

No I believe this discussion is proof positive that you have not separated your beliefs from your reasons. Your choice of bias sources is enough proof of that.

 

[sojourner]

So Religious freedom doesn't matter when you don't care? I see your position quite clearly.

I'm not telling anyone whom they can or cannot love or live with or express themselves however they feel.

All I'm saying is that marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not and therefore we are not required to provide marital benefits to those who chose to live that lifestyle.

Being black or hispanic isn't fundamental to our existence, either, yet we provide equal benefits to those folks, because, in the long run, the political philosophy we espouse in this country (and for which many people have died) dictates that equal treatment under the law is fundamental to -- not only our existence -- but to our right to health and happiness.

 

[sojourner]

Because there is no current distinction between them, there is a very big potential that this will do harm to religious freedom in our country.

How? What potential? Can you be specific, or are you just going to intimate about some amorphous "they" that are gonna "get us?"

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

I would hold any reference in question especially when it's preface opens with . . .

"DURING the thirty years which have passed since the publication of the first edition of the present work the study of marriage and matters connected with it especially among the lower races . . ."


I would also question any source as old as this one and maybe look for more updated sources for more accurate information.

 

[Mr Cheese]

lower races?

sack race?

egg and spoon?

geez...lower races....

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

lower races?

sack race?

egg and spoon?

geez...lower races....

Typical Victorian era attitude. The original book was published in 1891.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

You can go ahead and mimic animal behavior. I, personally, have opposing thumbs and I wear clothing when I am not casting a circle. Yea I know...why be different?

 

[Kerr]

The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

That book is old, you know.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

No one said we should mimic anything, we said it is natural.