Obamacare: Eugenics

[OldTrapper]

You are the one advocating that we allocate rights by popular vote. That would mean that the majority could vote away equal rights but still require those who are "less than" to pay an equal portion of taxes. That's slavery, ask Genseca.

Not at all, and youlie again. The "right" to marriage, and I will assume you are thinking that the failure for society to give homosexuals the "right" to marry them is "punishing them", or treating them as slaves, is equally guaranteed to the gay as well as the heterosexual, between a man, and a woman. If you then extend this "right" to one of sexual orientation what is to stop polygamy from being legal? How about the desire of NAMBLA? How about incestual marriages? When it becomes all about sexual orientation then there are no boundaries.

Besides that, aside from the title what benefit is there to a "marriage" that cannot be granted by civil unions?

You've mixed two subjects here. In the first sentence you ask about moral behavior. No one is forcing you to change your opinion--it's your right to hate. But it is not your right to persecute those you hate. Nor is it your right to force those you hate to obey YOUR relgious tenets. Somehow you have gotten the idea that you have some God-given RIGHT to pass laws to force your beliefs on others--no one is doing that to you. No one is suggesting laws to make you behave gay or to like gays, you get to keep and cling to all your antiquated hates and fears, the law just doesn't let you beat others with them. Giving gays equal rights does nothing to you, your religion, or your right to hate.

LOL, to you any opposition to a perversion is hate, right? FYI, I have probably known more homosexuals in my lifetime then you just due to my lifestyle.

Now, I have never advocated forcing my religious beliefs on others. This cannot be said for you. If you hate a certain thing, such as the way you were born, you have the right to "fix" God's "mistake", and even have others pay for it. That has been ruled legal.

In the issue I presented, the law does force an employer to do what he religiously objects to, and you have said nothing to refute that.

The Constitution guarantees equality for all. You don't like that, you WANT to discriminate and thereby punish those who don't live as you think they should. This is an especially important provision of the Constitution when there is a huge majority that hates a tiny minority--we need some way to protect the minority from the depredations of the majority. In this case you just happen to be in the majority. Turn it around, pretend that you were the one on the receiving end of the hatred you express, would you feel that those people were following the Love Others As Yourself rule of Jesus?

Christians are always on the hating end of things with people like you. You just won't admit it. One of the definitive examples of such hate are your constant lies about how people like me feel. Another is your insistence that your worldview be taught to my children, and my grandchildren.

Out of curiousity, when your "people" spit on others in an attempt to transfer HIV/AIDS to them; or when the ACLU, and homosexual activist groups, went to Court to try and prevent the testing of blood at blood banks; or when the homosexual activist goes to Court to overturn laws requiring mandatory reporting even to spouses, sexual partners, and they and their children become infected; or when homosexual groups defend an infected person from prosecution when they infect another; just what kind of "love" is that?

When you advocate laws to force others to obey YOUR religious beliefs that is the hallmark of theocracy.

Please, please, give an example, ok.

Slavery was traditional in the country's founding time, so was the ownership of women, preventing women from voting, denying women the right to own property, and the indiscriminate slaughter of the indigenous peoples. In some places killing women for adultery, female circumsicision and genital mutilation are traditional, does that make them right?

Since all of those conditions have been changed in the US, I would then believe that you are referring to foreign law. Over that we have no control, yet amazingly, those same countries do not have abortion laws that kill the unborn up to the time of birth, or even beyond, and it is the US, and people like you, that are trying to change that.

What is apparent is that you think you, and only people like you, are the "perfect and chosen" ones.

Then, out of curiousity again, I wonder why you have not mentioned the inequality of men in your diatribe.

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, I am asking for the same right to believe what I believe as you have, and the same right to live my life according to my beliefs as you have to live according to your beliefs. Gay people having the right to marry has no effect on you or your marriage, does it? What effect do you think it has?

Not concerned about the effect on marriage, and you know that is a red herring. It is the effect on society as a whole, the lowering of the moral standard, and the acceptance of what can only be called a deviant lifestyle.

Look it up. How can you have a Doctorate in Theology and not know the term "Ayatollah"?

Who said I didn't? I was just using you as an example of one contrary to your opinion.

What are you trying to do then? Wouldn't it feel like punishment to you if YOU were denied marriage because gay people didn't think you were worthy of it?

When a homosexual can produce offspring without the aid of a surrogate then talk to me.

Actually, it isn't PROOF, but evidence. Are you an American? Do you recall that a person is innocent until proven GUILTY in our system of jurisprudence? Right now gay people are being denied equality with NO PROOF of guilt. Any worthless, scum-sucking, drug-dealing, wife-beating, child molestor on death row can marry is he can find a willing mate--but gay people can't, that's justice?

Only because they have chosen not to have a relationship with a woman, or in the case of the lesbian, a man. That is THEIR choice.

There is a mountain of evidence to show that homosexuality is a natural variation in sexual behavior in almost all the higher animals. I can supply you with the material, but would you read it? No, probably not. And the reason that you think the twin studies don't support the genetic basis for homosexuality is due to the fact that you don't have enough scientific education and you think that "identical twins" are identical. I can give you a source that talks about the biological basis of homosexuality in a video presentation by Dr. Cynthia Chappelle, a researcher who has two sons, one of whom is gay.

LOL, there you go again making your ASSumptions. I can't even begin to number the times I have been all over this topic, and all over the evidence.

Now, in your "higher animal" theory, what eveidence is there that it is "natural" aside from the fact that they do it, and it is accepted among the animals? The answer is NONE, yet in your desperation to have that behaviour accepted among humans you will say it is a good enough excuse.

Also, I have two sets of twin daughters, and they are interesting to say the least.

And, if I remember correctly, Dr. Chappelle also admits that the "evidence" is inconclusive does she not?

Your refusal to learn is hardly BS on my part. Your education is lacking in some areas as I have amply demonstrated on other threads. Pony up, DOT, learn about the science.

Just as in this example, you have shown nothing except your desire to lie, BS, and continue on in your fantasy much like your world of phrenology.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not at all, and youlie again. The "right" to marriage, and I will assume you are thinking that the failure for society to give homosexuals the "right" to marry them is "punishing them", or treating them as slaves, is equally guaranteed to the gay as well as the heterosexual, between a man, and a woman. If you then extend this "right" to one of sexual orientation what is to stop polygamy from being legal? How about the desire of NAMBLA? How about incestual marriages? When it becomes all about sexual orientation then there are no boundaries.

Golly, DOT, it isn't a failure to GIVE THEM THE RIGHT, it's a proactive denial of the right to equality. And this proactive relgiously-based denial is to punish them for not following the Christian moral standard. You don't allow them to stop paying taxes because they are denied jobs, homes, and marriage equality, do you? Then they are tax slaves.

I'm actually good extending marriage equality to all consenting adults, why not? You have given NO reason why any consenting adult should not be allowed to marry the person they love. Why are you such a coward that you refuse to answer difficult questions?

Children and animals are not consenting adults, they can neither give consent nor understand the ramifications of marriage. It's much the same as driving and drinking. Christianity has often accepted polygamy, bigamy, and incestuous marriages traditionally, so why cavil about it now?

The boundaries that you don't see are "consenting adults", that's it, end of story. Why do you care what consenting adults do? Isn't that between them and God?

Besides that, aside from the title what benefit is there to a "marriage" that cannot be granted by civil unions?

There are more than 1047 specific rights and privileges reserved for "legally married" people in US law. (From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) Tables of Laws in the United States Code Involving Marital Status.)

None of the US States have reciprocity in relation to these laws, so while some of these rights can be gained through civil unions as soon as the couple move to a new State they have to go through the whole process again, and it's very expensive. The other point is that many States have passed laws specifically DENYING civil unions or ANY OTHER FORM OF UNION THAT APPROXIMATES MARRIAGE. Here are just two examples:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Commonwealth of Virginia Ban on Gay Marriage

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Michigan Gay Marriage Ban

Pony up, here, DOT, what does it matter if gay people can marry? What does it cost you? If gay men can marry does that mean that you will no longer find your wife/girlfriend attractive? Will God punish you by making your dick fall off? What's your problem with this?

LOL, to you any opposition to a perversion is hate, right? FYI, I have probably known more homosexuals in my lifetime then you just due to my lifestyle.

Don't be a horse a$$, we have not discussed any perversion that I know of so you can hardly speak to my position on any of them. You stance is obviously baseless since you have not given a single reason for not wanting gays to marry. It's hate, pure and simple. Your statement that you know more homosexuals doesn't mean diddlysquat, I know a lot of Christians too.

Now, I have never advocated forcing my religious beliefs on others.

Denying other people equal rights because they don't obey your religious tenets IS forcing your beliefs on others.

This cannot be said for you. If you hate a certain thing, such as the way you were born, you have the right to "fix" God's "mistake", and even have others pay for it. That has been ruled legal.

I assume that you are speaking about my transsexuality? No one paid for that but me. Why would you deny a person the right to fix a birth defect? Do you know that the Christian church attempted to force doctors NOT to fix birth defects like cleft palates and club feet once medical science was able to? The Bible-beaters said that God made those people that way and the doctors had no right to change them. Are you really going to try to make that same argument? You should read up on transsexuality (not on the porno sites) and find out about it before you lecture on the subject.

In the issue I presented, the law does force an employer to do what he religiously objects to, and you have said nothing to refute that.

One cannot achieve equality if discrimination is legal. Someone's sexual orientation is of no concern to an employer as long as the employee behaves, if the employee is out of line--hetero or homo--they can be dismissed for cause. That's as it should be, people should be judged on their actions, not on skin color or sexual orientation.

Christians are always on the hating end of things with people like you. You just won't admit it. One of the definitive examples of such hate are your constant lies about how people like me feel. Another is your insistence that your worldview be taught to my children, and my grandchildren.

Know ye them by their works. You are arguing for denial of equality and your holy book demands death to gay people. Seems hateful to me, especially when your holy book demands the same punishment for many crimes, but you do not support the punishment of any of those other "sins". When you single out one tiny minority for your opprobrium it makes you look hateful. When you teach your children to express the same meaness of spirit in direct contravention to the teachings of Jesus, then that seems hateful too. You have yet to give your reasons for persecuting gay people, what's your dog in this fight?

Out of curiousity, when your "people" spit on others in an attempt to transfer HIV/AIDS to them; or when the ACLU, and homosexual activist groups, went to Court to try and prevent the testing of blood at blood banks; or when the homosexual activist goes to Court to overturn laws requiring mandatory reporting even to spouses, sexual partners, and they and their children become infected; or when homosexual groups defend an infected person from prosecution when they infect another; just what kind of "love" is that?

Until you provide some valid links to all those things I have no way to address them. You may very well have made them up.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Part 2

Please, please, give an example, ok.

Denial of marriage equality. Denial of all the rights and privileges cited in the GOA list of marriage laws.

Since all of those conditions have been changed in the US, I would then believe that you are referring to foreign law. Over that we have no control, yet amazingly, those same countries do not have abortion laws that kill the unborn up to the time of birth, or even beyond, and it is the US, and people like you, that are trying to change that.

I was using those examples to address your contention that "traditional" meant good or appropriate. The fact that many of those things are now illegal proves that we, as a nation, can progress and stop traditional activities that are discriminatory like persecuting gay people.

As yet you have not proven that I support abortion. You are just upset because I refuse to cram my beliefs down everyone else's throats by passing laws to force them to obey the dictates of my conscience. Why can't you let others live their lives and exercise their free-will? Isn't that between them and God?

What is apparent is that you think you, and only people like you, are the "perfect and chosen" ones.

Not at all, I give you the right to live by your own lights as long as you don't hurt others. You can hate gays all you want, but you can't pass laws to express your hate in legal persecution. You can teach your children and grandchildren to hate just like the KKK, that's between you and God. I don't require you to change anything you believe, you don't have to be gay, you don't have to have an abortion, but equally you can't prevent others from living by their lights. Fair enough? It's called equality, you give the same rights to others that you take for yourself, no more, no less.

Then, out of curiousity again, I wonder why you have not mentioned the inequality of men in your diatribe.

There are all kinds of equality that I have not addressed in my "diatribe". Why, are you setting out to deny men equal marriage benefits under the law?

Not concerned about the effect on marriage, and you know that is a red herring. It is the effect on society as a whole, the lowering of the moral standard, and the acceptance of what can only be called a deviant lifestyle.

You have not demonstrated any effect on marriage--in fact you haven't even mentioned any except the lowering of some "moral standard" that you have not defined nor proven to be lowered by gays being able to marry. Please note that none of the other countries that have gay marriage have imploded morally because of it. You have not given ANY REASON for your position on gay marriage.

Who said I didn't? I was just using you as an example of one contrary to your opinion.

You asked what an Ayatollah was, a question that suggests that you don't know the meaning of the word. If you do, then good for you and your Doctorate.

When a homosexual can produce offspring without the aid of a surrogate then talk to me.

Okay, why didn't you say that you were a member of the NO STERILE MARRIAGE movement. I'm okay with that as long as the law applies to everyone. No one can marry or remain married if they do not have children. I'm looking for equality, if marriage is to be legally ONLY for procreation, then make it apply to all and I'll be okay with it.

The stupid thing about that argument is that procreation is only a small part of most marriages, procreation isn't in the marriage ceremony, and procreation is only a small part of animals' sex lives as well. Marriage is a social relationship that is about love and commitment. You squeeze most of the value out of marriage when you make it ONLY about procreation.

Only because they have chosen not to have a relationship with a woman, or in the case of the lesbian, a man. That is THEIR choice.

That's an arbitrary standard with no basis but religious dogma. Love is love.

LOL, there you go again making your ASSumptions. I can't even begin to number the times I have been all over this topic, and all over the evidence.

Now, in your "higher animal" theory, what eveidence is there that it is "natural" aside from the fact that they do it, and it is accepted among the animals? The answer is NONE, yet in your desperation to have that behaviour accepted among humans you will say it is a good enough excuse.

Also, I have two sets of twin daughters, and they are interesting to say the least.

And, if I remember correctly, Dr. Chappelle also admits that the "evidence" is inconclusive does she not?

In science one can rarely PROVE beyond a shadow a doubt, science requires an open mind so that one can look at new evidence. The preponderance of evidence shows that it is genetic.

Animals never fell from grace according to your religion, so they cannot make evil choices, what they do is natural. But the biggest argument is that YOU have nothing to prove your position, no science, just some scribbles by a bunch of people thousands of years ago. You also have a long religious history of being wrong about things: slavery, women as chattel, selling children, incest, torture, rape, mental illness, alcoholism, genocide, etc., etc.

If you have two sets of "identical" twins then you know that they are not identical.

Just as in this example, you have shown nothing except your desire to lie, BS, and continue on in your fantasy much like your world of phrenology.

At least I post sources for my comments and I have rational arguments not based on invisible sky pixies. My arguments also support equality, I do not deny to you any right that I reserve for myself. You cannot say that.

 

[OldTrapper]

Golly, DOT, it isn't a failure to GIVE THEM THE RIGHT, it's a proactive denial of the right to equality. And this proactive relgiously-based denial is to punish them for not following the Christian moral standard. You don't allow them to stop paying taxes because they are denied jobs, homes, and marriage equality, do you? Then they are tax slaves.

Got anything aside from your BS? Under your logic I am a "tax slave" because I am forced to pay for abortions, a failed public education system, for medical care for those who have acquired self inflicted illnesses, farm welfare, corporate welfare, etc.

I'm actually good extending marriage equality to all consenting adults, why not? You have given NO reason why any consenting adult should not be allowed to marry the person they love. Why are you such a coward that you refuse to answer difficult questions?

Well, it was about time that you admitted it is not about extending rights, it is about destroying the traditional marriage.

Children and animals are not consenting adults, they can neither give consent nor understand the ramifications of marriage. It's much the same as driving and drinking. Christianity has often accepted polygamy, bigamy, and incestuous marriages traditionally, so why cavil about it now?

While under Jewish customs polygamy, etc., were accepted in some cases, under Christian teachings they never have been. Christ clearly taught that a marriage was between one man, and one woman, and even if one was to remarry after a divorce it was still adultery. Some cultic "denominations" such as the Mormons perverted that belief, and even the RCC perverted it by denying Priests the right to marry.

The boundaries that you don't see are "consenting adults", that's it, end of story. Why do you care what consenting adults do? Isn't that between them and God?

Might be the end for you, however, not for the practicing Christian.

There are more than 1047 specific rights and privileges reserved for "legally married" people in US law. (From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) Tables of Laws in the United States Code Involving Marital Status.)

And for what reason could not civil unions be included in those same benefits?

None of the US States have reciprocity in relation to these laws, so while some of these rights can be gained through civil unions as soon as the couple move to a new State they have to go through the whole process again, and it's very expensive. The other point is that many States have passed laws specifically DENYING civil unions or ANY OTHER FORM OF UNION THAT APPROXIMATES MARRIAGE. Here are just two examples:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Commonwealth of Virginia Ban on Gay Marriage

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Michigan Gay Marriage Ban

Pony up, here, DOT, what does it matter if gay people can marry? What does it cost you? If gay men can marry does that mean that you will no longer find your wife/girlfriend attractive? Will God punish you by making your dick fall off? What's your problem with this?

Obviously you have a problem with States rights, and the right of the majority.

Now, first off, you have made it quite clear that the objective is not one of equality. That is a farce since your objective is the destruction of traditional marriage.

The next objective is about gaining the benefits of tax breaks due to marriage. If you were really interested in doing other then destroying traditional marriage you would be fighting for a change in the tax laws to benefit a contractual marriage, or even a "common law" marriage, or civil unions.

Don't be a horse a$$, we have not discussed any perversion that I know of so you can hardly speak to my position on any of them. You stance is obviously baseless since you have not given a single reason for not wanting gays to marry. It's hate, pure and simple. Your statement that you know more homosexuals doesn't mean diddlysquat, I know a lot of Christians too.

As usual you lie. I have given many. You choosing to ignore them does not eradicate them.

Denying other people equal rights because they don't obey your religious tenets IS forcing your beliefs on others.

Problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that they do have equal rights. It is the extension of that right to a deviant sexual orientation that you are arguing for.

I assume that you are speaking about my transsexuality? No one paid for that but me. Why would you deny a person the right to fix a birth defect? Do you know that the Christian church attempted to force doctors NOT to fix birth defects like cleft palates and club feet once medical science was able to? The Bible-beaters said that God made those people that way and the doctors had no right to change them. Are you really going to try to make that same argument? You should read up on transsexuality (not on the porno sites) and find out about it before you lecture on the subject.

Just the other day Oprah had as a guest a transsexual. IMO it is not a birth defect. It is a mental defect. In that particular case the "man" had the operation to become a "woman", and then lives as a lesbian.

And that "christian" church you are referring to was the Catholic church who also persecuted Galileo.

One cannot achieve equality if discrimination is legal. Someone's sexual orientation is of no concern to an employer as long as the employee behaves, if the employee is out of line--hetero or homo--they can be dismissed for cause. That's as it should be, people should be judged on their actions, not on skin color or sexual orientation.

You ignore the fact that the employer is being forced to act against his own beliefs. Then too, the Homosexuals tried to do the same thing to the BSA, the Salvation Army, and numerous other groups.

Know ye them by their works. You are arguing for denial of equality and your holy book demands death to gay people. Seems hateful to me, especially when your holy book demands the same punishment for many crimes, but you do not support the punishment of any of those other "sins". When you single out one tiny minority for your opprobrium it makes you look hateful. When you teach your children to express the same meaness of spirit in direct contravention to the teachings of Jesus, then that seems hateful too. You have yet to give your reasons for persecuting gay people, what's your dog in this fight?

Do you really think if you keep repeating that lie often enough that anything will change?

What do you know of in regards to how I think other sins should be punished? Granted, I do not agree with death for adultery, however, I have not advocated death for homosexuals either.

Until you provide some valid links to all those things I have no way to address them. You may very well have made them up.

Since you seem to be so well "informed" I am quite sure you are lying, and know quite well they are true.

 

[Alana]

I guess when you can't discuss the issues intelligently you just post made up pictures.

 

[OldTrapper]

Part 2

I was using those examples to address your contention that "traditional" meant good or appropriate. The fact that many of those things are now illegal proves that we, as a nation, can progress and stop traditional activities that are discriminatory like persecuting gay people.

Again the BS. Slavery, etc., were not traditional in the manner of morality. They were political decisions.

As yet you have not proven that I support abortion. You are just upset because I refuse to cram my beliefs down everyone else's throats by passing laws to force them to obey the dictates of my conscience. Why can't you let others live their lives and exercise their free-will? Isn't that between them and God?

Another problem for you aside from the usual hate speech. Where have you shown you oppose abortion? Your pathetic excuse of giving the woman a choice is non-sensical. If you opposed abortion you would not use such excuses as "it is between them, and God"

Not at all, I give you the right to live by your own lights as long as you don't hurt others. You can hate gays all you want, but you can't pass laws to express your hate in legal persecution. You can teach your children and grandchildren to hate just like the KKK, that's between you and God. I don't require you to change anything you believe, you don't have to be gay, you don't have to have an abortion, but equally you can't prevent others from living by their lights. Fair enough? It's called equality, you give the same rights to others that you take for yourself, no more, no less.

Could be "fair" if it were not for the fact that you, andothers of similar mentality, want to force your beliefs on my children, and grandchildren. When a school can teach that a babe in the womb is nothing more then a tumor, a parasite, or a blob of cells; or teach that homosexual behaviour is a normal sexual choice, and encourage homosexual activity (google " fistgate " for an example, or go here http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda ); while denying others the right to present contradictory evidence, then it is my problem, and obviously not equal. When is opposition to the homosexual lifestyle solely based on hate, and a required law to arrest those in opposition for "hate speech" based on anything other then coercion?

There are all kinds of equality that I have not addressed in my "diatribe". Why, are you setting out to deny men equal marriage benefits under the law?

And that excused your failure to mention men how?

You have not demonstrated any effect on marriage--in fact you haven't even mentioned any except the lowering of some "moral standard" that you have not defined nor proven to be lowered by gays being able to marry. Please note that none of the other countries that have gay marriage have imploded morally because of it. You have not given ANY REASON for your position on gay marriage.

Guess you missed the part where I said it had nothing to do with an effect on marriage. Seems like you miss a lot of what I say.

You asked what an Ayatollah was, a question that suggests that you don't know the meaning of the word. If you do, then good for you and your Doctorate.

Again you demonstrate a failure in reading comprehension. I gave you an example, and then asked WHO was the ayatollah when your position, and mine, are compared.

Okay, why didn't you say that you were a member of the NO STERILE MARRIAGE movement. I'm okay with that as long as the law applies to everyone. No one can marry or remain married if they do not have children. I'm looking for equality, if marriage is to be legally ONLY for procreation, then make it apply to all and I'll be okay with it.

Another assinine response.

The stupid thing about that argument is that procreation is only a small part of most marriages, procreation isn't in the marriage ceremony, and procreation is only a small part of animals' sex lives as well. Marriage is a social relationship that is about love and commitment. You squeeze most of the value out of marriage when you make it ONLY about procreation.

More stupidity, and irrationalality.

In science one can rarely PROVE beyond a shadow a doubt, science requires an open mind so that one can look at new evidence. The preponderance of evidence shows that it is genetic.

There are NO genetic markers indicating homosexuality.

Animals never fell from grace according to your religion, so they cannot make evil choices, what they do is natural. But the biggest argument is that YOU have nothing to prove your position, no science, just some scribbles by a bunch of people thousands of years ago. You also have a long religious history of being wrong about things: slavery, women as chattel, selling children, incest, torture, rape, mental illness, alcoholism, genocide, etc., etc.

Can you demonstrate for me that secular reasoning has improved on any of these conditions? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Islam, anything?

If you have two sets of "identical" twins then you know that they are not identical.

They aren't. We thought at birth one set was, however, that changed when they reached about 3 years of age.

At least I post sources for my comments and I have rational arguments not based on invisible sky pixies. My arguments also support equality, I do not deny to you any right that I reserve for myself. You cannot say that.

You haven't posted any sources in the last three posts. Just your opinions. Again you lie.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This really makes me mad. Its horrible to force tax payers to pay for people to kill thier kids.

....As if "conservatives" aren't responsible for a high-ENOUGH body-count!!!​

"Deaths from pregnancy and childbirth in the United States have doubled in the past 20 years, a development that a human rights group called "scandalous and disgraceful" Friday.

In addition, the rights group said, about 1.7 million women a year, one-third of pregnant women in the United States, suffer from pregnancy-related complications.

Most of the deaths and complications occur among minorities and women living in poverty, it noted."

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Got anything aside from your BS? Under your logic I am a "tax slave" because I am forced to pay for abortions, a failed public education system, for medical care for those who have acquired self inflicted illnesses, farm welfare, corporate welfare, etc.

You really should think more before posting. WE ARE ALL TAX SLAVES the difference is that we are all tax slaves EQUALLY, whereas with your religious restrictions on gay people YOU MAKE THEM TAX SLAVES WITHOUT THAT EQUALITY and therein lies the problem.

Well, it was about time that you admitted it is not about extending rights, it is about destroying the traditional marriage.

So when you don't have anything to say you make up an answer to something I DIDN'T SAY. Nothing in my post suggest an attempt to destroy marriage, quite the opposite in fact, I am happily married and think EVERY CONSENTING ADULT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY. Try to read more carefully, DOT, you look silly posting non sequiturs.

Might be the end for you, however, not for the practicing Christian.

Are you stating here that it is the Christian's DUTY to interfere in the lives of others and FORCE them to obey YOUR religious dictates? Or are you saying that it's only Christians who have additional restrictions on them due to their belief system? Try to write clearly, say what you mean.

And for what reason could not civil unions be included in those same benefits?

They could indeed be rewritten to give equality, but it would be a massive job to rewrite all those laws, but it would be very simple to just let everyone be covered by the current law. Why make it complex? It seems a bit like giving heteros a Driver's License but requiring gays to get an Operator's License, what's the point if the two things are truly equal? But they wouldn't be truly equal would they? You WANT to differentiate, you WANT to be better than gays, you DON'T want them to have equality. Bear in mind that even after you rewrite all the laws that the Supreme Court has already ruled that separate but equal IS NOT EQUAL.

Obviously you have a problem with States rights, and the right of the majority.

Yes, when Mississippi re-enslaves black people or a State denies equality on the basis of religion in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

Now, first off, you have made it quite clear that the objective is not one of equality. That is a farce since your objective is the destruction of traditional marriage.

Now that's twice in one post that you have come up with this same rectal reclamation, try the other thumb, DOT. Nothing I have written suggests that I have any interest in destroying marriage, I like my marriage and I think marriage should be legally available to all consenting adults.

The next objective is about gaining the benefits of tax breaks due to marriage. If you were really interested in doing other then destroying traditional marriage you would be fighting for a change in the tax laws to benefit a contractual marriage, or even a "common law" marriage, or civil unions.

You just contradicted yourself in the course of one paragraph. This suggests to me that you are simply scrambling to write anything that comes to mind in hopes of some of it making sense. Sorry.

As usual you lie. I have given many. You choosing to ignore them does not eradicate them.

Really? Why don't you list them as individual sentences and number them so we can all see them listed clearly?

Problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that they do have equal rights. It is the extension of that right to a deviant sexual orientation that you are arguing for.

It's YOUR opinion that homosexuality is "deviant", and as yet you have given no proof that sexual orientations don't vary naturally in humans just as they do in most higher animals.

If we pass a law making legal only for gay people to marry, will you feel that you have lost some equality?

Just the other day Oprah had as a guest a transsexual. IMO it is not a birth defect. It is a mental defect. In that particular case the "man" had the operation to become a "woman", and then lives as a lesbian.

Ok, you have an opinion, does that give you the right to deny transsexuals equal rights under the law? I have an opinion about you too, does that give me the right to deny you rights that I enjoy for myself? No, I don't think it does. Jesus said to love others as yourself, I extend that to you by giving your the rights that I find most valuable. Why can't you do the same?

And that "christian" church you are referring to was the Catholic church who also persecuted Galileo.

So? All of Christianity is descended from the Catholic Church.

You ignore the fact that the employer is being forced to act against his own beliefs. Then too, the Homosexuals tried to do the same thing to the BSA, the Salvation Army, and numerous other groups.

Discrimination based on attributes over which the person has no control are not constitutional. People cannot choose their skin color or sexual orientation, so the law says that you cannot discriminate against them for it.

I'm curious why a peson's sexual orientation is an issue on the job. I run a construction and my sexual orientation has never come up on the job.

Do you really think if you keep repeating that lie often enough that anything will change?

As yet you have not given a single example of a lie I have told--you accuse me of it, but you never provide any proof. Baseless accusations are just another kind of rectal reclamation.

What do you know of in regards to how I think other sins should be punished? Granted, I do not agree with death for adultery, however, I have not advocated death for homosexuals either.

Know ye them by their works. All I can do is go by what you write. The 96% of the population that is hetero is definitely engaging in more acts of adultery than all the gays put together, but you have never mentioned any legal sanctions against them--all you talk about is laws against gay people and transsexuals.

Of course you advocate death to homosexuals, it's right there in your holy book--or are you now disagreeing with the Bible? According to Scripture breaking any one of the laws is akin to breaking all of them, but you are giving adulterers a pass and coming down with the wrath of God on gays. Do you know what a "hypocrite" is?

Since you seem to be so well "informed" I am quite sure you are lying, and know quite well they are true.

You show up with a handful of lies and claim that I (and everyone else on this site) is well educated enough to know that your lies are really true. Talk about twisted logic--do you ever meet yourself coming around a corner?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again the BS. Slavery, etc., were not traditional in the manner of morality. They were political decisions.

You should read the Bible more often--and more closely--since slavery is sanctioned by the Bible clear back in Genesis I would guess that 1500 years of usage makes it "traditional".

Another problem for you aside from the usual hate speech. Where have you shown you oppose abortion? Your pathetic excuse of giving the woman a choice is non-sensical. If you opposed abortion you would not use such excuses as "it is between them, and God".

You wish to force others to obey YOUR beliefs by use of the law, I am willing to let people live by their own consciences. You wish to make this into a theocracy, I do not.

Could be "fair" if it were not for the fact that you, andothers of similar mentality, want to force your beliefs on my children, and grandchildren. When a school can teach that a babe in the womb is nothing more then a tumor, a parasite, or a blob of cells; or teach that homosexual behaviour is a normal sexual choice, and encourage homosexual activity (google " fistgate " for an example, or go here http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda ); while denying others the right to present contradictory evidence, then it is my problem, and obviously not equal. When is opposition to the homosexual lifestyle solely based on hate, and a required law to arrest those in opposition for "hate speech" based on anything other then coercion?

Well, first off, abortion has nothing to do with gay rights because it is 100% a heterosexual problem, so when you drag it into our discussion of gay rights we have to assume that you are trying to divert attention from the fact that you don't have anything to say.

Fistgate was a group of crazies and they were soundly beaten for their actions. If you are going to try to portray all gay people like them, then I will feel justified in portraying all Christians like Rev. Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson. Fair enough. There are crazies in every group.

And that excused your failure to mention men how?

It's not part of our discussion. We haven't talked about the rights of all kinds of people because we are discussing gay rights. If you would like to start a new thread, then we can discuss men's rights. You see, if we cover too many subjects it makes the individual threads huge and unwieldy.

Guess you missed the part where I said it had nothing to do with an effect on marriage. Seems like you miss a lot of what I say.

Sometimes it's good for you to repeat yourself to clarify things. So, no effect on marriage. What's your problem then?

Another assinine response.

Well you brought it up by using procreation as a way of denying marriage to gay people--and yes, it's assinine, but I'm too polite to say that about you so I'm glad that you did.

More stupidity, and irrationalality.

Your marriage is ONLY about procreation? You don't value the love, companionship, commitment, intimacy, and sharing? Ok, but you're missing a lot of the benefits of marriage.

There are NO genetic markers indicating homosexuality.

You need to read more scientific papers written in this century.

Can you demonstrate for me that secular reasoning has improved on any of these conditions? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Islam, anything?

No, but then we aren't discussing that, are we? We're discussing the abuses of the religion to which you belong. Trying to blame other people for being even worse than you are in an attempt to deflect examinations of your shortcomings is dealt with in Matthew 7:1-5.

You haven't posted any sources in the last three posts. Just your opinions. Again you lie.

I didn't quote any sources because there were none to quote. Whenever I need to shore up a point I cite a source. If you think I'm lying why don't you give some examples?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You know, DOT, our posts are getting quite long, maybe we should start over with a short, concise, cogent statement of position and see if we can't find some common ground?

1) My position is that all consenting adults should have access to marriage equality because I think marriage is a good institution and a benefit to people in general.

2) I know of no valid reason for homosexual or transsexual people to be denied marriage equality.

3) Going even one step further, I see no reason for sex between consenting adults in privacy to be regulated in any way.

 

[OldTrapper]

You should read the Bible more often--and more closely--since slavery is sanctioned by the Bible clear back in Genesis I would guess that 1500 years of usage makes it "traditional".

So, according to your scholarly efforts the Bible only covers 1500 years. Right.

You wish to make this into a theocracy, I do not.

Show where I have ever said that. You keep repeating this lie as if you expect it to be true some day.

Fistgate was a group of crazies and they were soundly beaten for their actions.

Glad to see you think GLSTN (now GLSEN) is a bunch of crazies. They are the ones that organized FistGate you know.

You need to read more scientific papers written in this century.

If you know of one that proves homosexuality is genetic then please produce it. Until then I will rely on what is known.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/un/born-gay

I didn't quote any sources because there were none to quote. Whenever I need to shore up a point I cite a source. If you think I'm lying why don't you give some examples?

You have never posted any sources. Just made fallacious references to them.
And if you have no sources then it kind of makes most of what you say just your opinion, and mostly BS.

 

[OldTrapper]

You know, DOT, our posts are getting quite long, maybe we should start over with a short, concise, cogent statement of position and see if we can't find some common ground?

1) My position is that all consenting adults should have access to marriage equality because I think marriage is a good institution and a benefit to people in general.

So far, so good.

2) I know of no valid reason for homosexual or transsexual people to be denied marriage equality.

Because the "equality" is based on sexual orientation, and that is enough for me.

3) Going even one step further, I see no reason for sex between consenting adults in privacy to be regulated in any way.

I have never said otherwise.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, according to your scholarly efforts the Bible only covers 1500 years. Right.

No, it's just that using the Bible to justify slavery can only be traced back for about 1500 years.

Show where I have ever said that. You keep repeating this lie as if you expect it to be true some day.

Do you think that limiting gay people's legal rights with the force of law is correct and acceptable when those laws are passed by a RELIGIOUS majority who believe that homosexuality is a sin? That is the hallmark of a theocracy, limiting the behavior others based on YOUR religious beliefs.

Glad to see you think GLSTN (now GLSEN) is a bunch of crazies. They are the ones that organized FistGate you know.

The people involved were the crazies, I have seen nothing to suggest that all members of GLSEN were/are supporters--in the same sense that not all Baptists are supporters of the Westboro Baptist church's program.

If you know of one that proves homosexuality is genetic then please produce it. Until then I will rely on what is known.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/un/born-gay

Your link doesn't work. I've already told you that "proving" something in science is pretty difficult, what we have is a lot of evidence while you have none to support your position that homosexuality is evil/sin/abomination/etc. I do find the fact that homosexual bonding is so prevalent in the animal kingdom that it must have a genetic basis since animals can't sin.

You have never posted any sources. Just made fallacious references to them. And if you have no sources then it kind of makes most of what you say just your opinion, and mostly BS.

I recall a statement much like this one in which you said that rape, genocide, incest, etc. were not condoned in the Bible too, but since I posted my Scriptural SOURCES you have been very quiet on the subject. Hmmmmm...

I referenced Bruce Bagemihl's book BIOLOGICAL EXHUBERANCE in relation to the behavior of animals. I referenced Dr. Cynthia Chappelle's presentation and she gives a number of her sources as well. I have also referenced THE FEMALE BRAIN by Dr. Louanne Brizendine which has a bibliography of more than 1000 peer reviewed papers. No sources? Half-time, switch thumbs!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because the "equality" is based on sexual orientation, and that is enough for me.

Your equality is based on your sexual orientation. You're a member of the hetero majority so you get to be equal under the laws passed by the hetero majority.

So far I haven't seen any REASON to deny gays marriage.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS-

(A) IN GENERAL- If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [provides elective abortion coverage], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:

(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS- In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall—

(i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following:

(I) an amount equal to the portion of the premium to be paid directly by the enrollee for coverage under the plan of services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [all health services besides elective abortion coverage] (after reduction for credits and cost-sharing reductions described in subparagraph (A)); and

(II) an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [elective abortion coverage], and

(ii) shall deposit all such separate payments into separate allocation accounts as provided in subparagraph (C).

In the case of an enrollee whose premium for coverage under the plan is paid through employee payroll deposit, the separate payments required under this subparagraph shall each be paid by a separate deposit.

(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS-

(i) IN GENERAL- The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts described in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving amounts described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS- The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit—

(I) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and

(II) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).