West Point men become first to marry at academy [Archive] - Debate Policy

Arbo

11-05-2013, 06:35 PM

You might be able to make an argument for people being outraged over something like this when it perhaps isn't something worthy of being outraged over. With that said, save the "homophobia" term meant to vilify those against homosexuality. I don't know of anyone myself that has any type of fear over homosexuality or gay marriage. There is no fear here, only disgust, disagreement and differences. Twisting a term like this to suit ones own agenda was wrong and transparent on day one and remains so today.

You can call me "anti gay marriage" maybe. Or one who disagrees with homosexuality. But you would be wrong if you stated or implied that there was any type of fear at all involved. Using terms like that is like when liberals refer to those in the tea party as "teabaggers". It's a label only meant to degrade the opponent or person who disagrees.

Considering you defended the term 'queers' as if it was not being used in a derogatory manner, that it was just fine… well… :laugh:

As for you saying that this is worthy of being outraged over. OMG, two guys got married! They served there country and it is outrageous they would ever be free to do such a thing. :laugh:

jimnyc

11-05-2013, 07:10 PM

Considering you defended the term 'queers' as if it was not being used in a derogatory manner, that it was just fine… well… :laugh:

As for you saying that this is worthy of being outraged over. OMG, two guys got married! They served there country and it is outrageous they would ever be free to do such a thing. :laugh:

So somehow out of that you figure I have some sort of fear about gay people? You're calling people names that are factually inaccurate. It's obvious that it's more the person not liking another members position on an issue, so they label them as homophobic as a result. Someone disagreeing with homosexuality and/or gay marriage comes nowhere in the same universe as meaning they therefore are afraid of either.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-06-2013, 09:45 AM

So somehow out of that you figure I have some sort of fear about gay people? You're calling people names that are factually inaccurate. It's obvious that it's more the person not liking another members position on an issue, so they label them as homophobic as a result. Someone disagreeing with homosexuality and/or gay marriage comes nowhere in the same universe as meaning they therefore are afraid of either. Jim, those that defend and want gay marriage to be viewed as normal are messed up cases themselves! Two guys butt banging ain't never going to be ok with any decent human being . When face to face with such indecent minded jacknaps I get to put 'em in their place. This agenda to force we that know (what an evil perversion and sickass insanity it is) to accept it as normal is itself a damn perversion!! About 9 years ago one of my good friends came over to my home for a visit and brought a friend from work with him. After about twenty minutes I knew the guy was gay. I called my buddy into the kitchen away from his new friend and asked him if he knew the dude was gay. He replied ,yes but he is a cool guy. I then told my friend, leave take your perverted friend with you because I do not allow such scum as that in my home. Should you ever come here to visit me again and bring such as that into my home I'll break you like a damn twig! Now its not a damn matter of being scared of gays. Its a matter of not wanting to be embracing or associating with such perversion. They have not made the damn man that I am afraid because I learned a long time ago this from my dad. "If you are going to be man enough to deliver a damn good ass stomping you had better be man enough to carry one. Because sure as hell there is always a man that can give you one no matter how damn tough you are!" From that principle comes the this, don't worry about the consequences if it comes time to beat a man's ass . Just do what is required and face the music later. So when some loon tries to say I am homophobic I laugh because that person hasn't a damn clue what being a real man is.. I allow no such perversion around me or mine. No force on earth can force me to view that crap as normal. I pity any that give it a serious try.. --Tyr

Arbo

11-06-2013, 10:18 AM

Jim, those that defend and want gay marriage to be viewed as normal are messed up cases themselves! Two guys butt banging ain't never going to be ok with any decent human being .

Not only are children more tolerant than you, they are more intelligent. How civil of you to suggest todays youth are not 'decent' human beings. Real classy. Thankfully ignorant dinosaurs like yourself won't be around much longer.

The world won't miss such people when gone.

You serious are part of the problem in this world… you are just like Islamists and Communists that stand against gay's. Not a bit of difference. Yes, you are just like those you hate. I irony is indeed sweet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJxnYgP6D8

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-06-2013, 07:16 PM

fj1200

11-06-2013, 07:28 PM

WHY DONT THE JACKNAPS...

Actually I think it's up to the other jacknaps :dunno: to explain the state's compelling interest in denying privileges to some that they grant to others.

aboutime

11-06-2013, 07:28 PM

WHY DONT THE JACKNAPS THAT SUPPORT IT EVER EXPLAIN HOW THE SEX ACTS ENGAGED IN BY GAYS ARE NORMAL, ARE SAFE AND/OR ARE SANITARY!?? OR DO THOSE (GUYS) THAT SUPPORT GAYS SO DAMN MUCH VIEW THEM AS GOOD AND MAYBE LIKE TO FANTASIZE ABOUT BEING A WILLING RECEPTICLE FOR THE GAY ACTIVITIES? One has to wonder why so many supposedly straight men are so ardent and committed in their feverish support .. I bet some of those supporters are just fantasizing ....... the poor weak minded fools. :laugh2: Even if some of them had a job that fostered that crap it's still no excuse IMHO.. --Tyr

Tyr. My oldest son's father-in-law is a retired Major of the Marines. Privately. He quietly laughs, and takes great pleasure in reminding THIS OLD SAILOR how I wouldn't recognize today's NEW NAVY. I asked him, and joked with him about the Marines, and he said he's not worried. New WEEDS that sprout up, barely make it through the Paris Island Summer training period.
He also admits. Obama's D.A.D.T. really has changed the Readiness Factor. Which also helps to explain why Obama is firing so many from the Upper Ranks at the Pentagon.
Those officers see the WRITING ON THE WALL, and are taking their retirements early.
That's what normally happens to Our Military when the C-I-C isn't a Leader.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-06-2013, 08:20 PM

Actually I think it's up to the other jacknaps :dunno: to explain the state's compelling interest in denying privileges to some that they grant to others. That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr

Arbo

11-06-2013, 11:13 PM

Hanging Judge

11-07-2013, 12:01 AM

This is a travesty.

fj1200

11-07-2013, 08:13 AM

That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr

Well I see we agree that the state shouldn't have a role in marriage but since it does then you open the door for an equal protection case which was the basis for striking DOMA iirc especially as some states have accepted it by a majority vote. Your personal acceptance is a whole 'nother matter which still leave the compelling state interest.

And by "vile sex acts" do you mean the same ones that some straights engage in?

logroller

11-07-2013, 08:49 AM

That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr
I'm not gay so I can't be a gay anything, but I support leaving others to their own decisions on their sex life, vile though it may be -- if it doesn't involve me and those doing so think its ok, then ok.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-07-2013, 11:37 AM

I'm not gay so I can't be a gay anything, but I support leaving others to their own decisions on their sex life, vile though it may be -- if it doesn't involve me and those doing so think its ok, then ok. ok is ok but government sanctioned and promoted is not. At least it is not in my book. And my life and my book are the basis for me being. Its called living with and standing own principles. I have no great objection to what YOU just presented as your principle judgment on this subject but ten again you are not the STATE. FJ JUST PRESENTED A QUESTION I WILL REPLY TO LATER DEALING WITH THAT BUT NOW I SIMPLY HAVE BUSINESS TO ATTEND TOO. In fact I am running later by my just replying to you now. -Tyr

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 11:41 AM

I'm still waiting for the remotest of proof that I, or others, are scared or have an irrational fear of homosexuality. Inventing names only serves to avoid the debate and for one to take cheap shots at another due to their opinion.

jafar00

11-07-2013, 01:37 PM

What great camouflage.

This is the new image the enemy has of your army.

http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/1/61803/740976/tutusoldier.png

http://peterviney.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/i4j7m7jyudxm.jpg

Abbey Marie

11-07-2013, 03:12 PM

aboutime

11-07-2013, 03:30 PM

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 04:13 PM

And by "vile sex acts" do you mean the same ones that some straights engage in?

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

aboutime

11-07-2013, 04:15 PM

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

jimnyc. I get a sense that 'fj' is merely speaking for himself.

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 04:23 PM

jimnyc. I get a sense that 'fj' is merely speaking for himself.

I can see where he's coming from. On paper, one IS hypocritical if they find it OK for one to engage in the act, but not the other. But I honestly do see a big difference between acts being performed by man and woman, as opposed to 2 men doing so. But I don't think anyone's stance on this necessarily makes the other person wrong.

Abbey Marie

11-07-2013, 04:26 PM

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

I'm not sure which act you are referring to that heteros do too. But I will say this: Mouths are engineered to be two-way. Not so anal cavities.

aboutime

11-07-2013, 04:29 PM

I can see where he's coming from. On paper, one IS hypocritical if they find it OK for one to engage in the act, but not the other. But I honestly do see a big difference between acts being performed by man and woman, as opposed to 2 men doing so. But I don't think anyone's stance on this necessarily makes the other person wrong.

And, that is not what I said.

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 04:32 PM

And, that is not what I said.

Wasn't trying to place any words in your mouth, sorry about that. I'm honestly unsure then what it is you're referring to that FJ was speaking for himself about.

fj1200

11-07-2013, 05:21 PM

But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope).

And that's the point.

I'm not sure which act you are referring to that heteros do too.

Um...

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 05:36 PM

I'm not sure which act you are referring to that heteros do too. But I will say this: Mouths are engineered to be two-way. Not so anal cavities.

Well, heteros engage in anal sex too, as well as the aforementioned act. And while you and I likely are in agreement that it's kinda gross no matter who is having it, I STILL say it's worse and more vile when between 2 men. I suppose it comes down to ones outlook on homosexuality to begin with, IMO.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-07-2013, 05:54 PM

We have an NFL tackle running out of the locker room because he's scared/offended, and now this. At least they aren't currently in the army. If this is the state of our men, we women may have to take over.
:rolleyes: Well stated. These same people that want to pansy-fy our men are the same ones that want to appease the muslims by surrendering everything they ask for. Such morons haven't a clue about the concept of survival and national security. Even common sense points out one can not give control over to a group that wants to destroy all Christian values and the freedoms insured by our Constitution. Anybody that claims Islam does not seek to do that to this nation are either dumb as hell, gullible as hell, ignorant as hell or a damn liar IMHO! THE DEM/LEFTISTS ALLY WITH ISLAM BECAUSE IT DOES SEEK TO DESTROY ALL CHRITIANITY... --TYR

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-07-2013, 06:12 PM

And by "vile sex acts" do you mean the same ones that some straights engage in? I was speaking of sex acts only two men can do to each other.... Lots of heterosexual men will not do that EVEN to a female. I know I never have and never will and I am no innocent type person when it comes to crazy and wild sexual escapades with many women. God made man and woman and they fit together just perfectly if you know what I mean. The State now sanctioning what used to be a crime makes no sense to me. It was a crime for a reason but these new so-called enlightened idiots see it differently because they are stupid. It should still be a crime simply because it goes against nature and goes against decency. Why should I agree with the State sanctioning it when I do not even believe the State should have authority over marriage? I can not control what society or the State does but I still control what is allowed around me and mine in my home. No gays allowed. That is as firm as granite in my book. Should the State attempt to force me to allow such inside my home I'd rather see how fast my guns can be fired. A man's home is his last refuge. Give that up and your are a slave to the State. A man stands on his principles or else he is not a man.. I bend mine for no man not even myself!! -Tyr

aboutime

11-07-2013, 07:11 PM

Not speaking for anyone else in this thread, or on the entire forum for that matter. But...In all my more than SIX decades alive.

I have not, and never considered receiving, or placing any of my body parts in someone else's Pooper...not male, or female. Nor have I ever allowed such a disgusting thing to take place.

To anyone who finds such actions between ANY human being attractive at all.

You have more than Mental Problems going on in your life. And...nobody here needs to hear, or learn how TWISTED your mind is by bragging about such Filthy..(literally) behavior.

jimnyc

11-07-2013, 07:35 PM

aboutime

11-07-2013, 08:05 PM

Some will tell you that you're wrong because you dislike it based on the "yuck factor". As if there is something wrong with disliking filthy and abnormal behavior.

Right you are Jim. And, it won't be the first time. Nor, will it be the last.

It does sound more disgusting if one considers where something is inserted, then, where it later finds a place to rest???? If that's the appropriate word, or description to use.

But. Like a puppy...if it kisses you on the mouth. You have to remember where the puppy's nose may have been with itself, or another puppy first.
"YUCK factor"??? You bet.

jafar00

11-07-2013, 08:17 PM

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

Yes, it is vile, icky and downright unnatural. I don't have to like it because of PC culture or because it's trendy these days. I accept gays as people and I do business with them but I don't have to accept their deviant lifestyle choices just the same way as if I learned one of my friends had sex with a dog. I would be "dude, that's vile" too.

tailfins

11-07-2013, 08:24 PM

Yes, it is vile, icky and downright unnatural. I don't have to like it because of PC culture or because it's trendy these days. I accept gays as people and I do business with them but I don't have to accept their deviant lifestyle choices just the same way as if I learned one of my friends had sex with a dog. I would be "dude, that's vile" too.

Yet, you support political candidates that promote all those things.

Arbo

11-07-2013, 10:55 PM

So there are several members that are just like Muslims when it comes to gays. Gotta love it.

fj1200

11-08-2013, 03:59 AM

I was speaking of sex acts only two men can do to each other.... Lots of heterosexual men will not do that EVEN to a female. I know I never have and never will and I am no innocent type person when it comes to crazy and wild sexual escapades with many women. God made man and woman and they fit together just perfectly if you know what I mean. The State now sanctioning what used to be a crime makes no sense to me. It was a crime for a reason but these new so-called enlightened idiots see it differently because they are stupid. It should still be a crime simply because it goes against nature and goes against decency. Why should I agree with the State sanctioning it when I do not even believe the State should have authority over marriage? I can not control what society or the State does but I still control what is allowed around me and mine in my home. No gays allowed. That is as firm as granite in my book. Should the State attempt to force me to allow such inside my home I'd rather see how fast my guns can be fired. A man's home is his last refuge. Give that up and your are a slave to the State. A man stands on his principles or else he is not a man.. I bend mine for no man not even myself!! -Tyr

And lots will so you need to at least be consistent IMO. And no, it shouldn't be a crime because the state has no compelling interest in making it so.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-08-2013, 10:24 AM

And lots will so you need to at least be consistent IMO. And no, it shouldn't be a crime because the state has no compelling interest in making it so. The once had a compelling interest. So what has changed? OH YES, the dem/leftist/socialist enlightenment factor. Would that be the same enlightenment that has this nation in such a sad state now? Answer---yes it would be.. :poke: Now lets ask why the State would want gays to legally marry and be able to take advantage of the tax breaks it offers when the State always wants more taxes not less. That points to an agenda that seems to counter the State's usually greed and lust for power. Surely an enigma! - :laugh:--Tyr

fj1200

11-08-2013, 11:41 AM

The once had a compelling interest. So what has changed? OH YES, the dem/leftist/socialist enlightenment factor. Would that be the same enlightenment that has this nation in such a sad state now? Answer---yes it would be.. :poke: Now lets ask why the State would want gays to legally marry and be able to take advantage of the tax breaks it offers when the State always wants more taxes not less. That points to an agenda that seems to counter the State's usually greed and lust for power. Surely an enigma! - :laugh:--Tyr

I disagree with your premise that the state once had a compelling interest, we may have had laws but doesn't that validate that the compelling interest was legitimate, and thus I disagree with your conclusion. :poke:

tailfins

11-08-2013, 11:48 AM

Well, heteros engage in anal sex too, as well as the aforementioned act. And while you and I likely are in agreement that it's kinda gross no matter who is having it, I STILL say it's worse and more vile when between 2 men. I suppose it comes down to ones outlook on homosexuality to begin with, IMO.

In the not very distant past, both were illegal in Missouri.

fj1200

11-08-2013, 01:21 PM

In the not very distant past, both were illegal in Missouri.

Link to last prosecution?

jafar00

11-08-2013, 01:42 PM

Yet, you support political candidates that promote all those things.

My support for the Rudd govt was based on economic and foreign affairs policy. No one candidate is perfect.

tailfins

11-08-2013, 02:11 PM

My support for the Rudd govt was based on economic and foreign affairs policy. No one candidate is perfect.

I would like to remind you one of the heavy influences on my attitude about Islam was George W. Bush. You should recall that his focus was on punishing the evil-doers. He also reminded the country that we are not at war with a religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ygTbwGrTELc#t=19

Trigg

11-08-2013, 03:57 PM

That some think that is interesting, but of more interest is the simple homophobia behind the 'outrage' of this story.

I've never understood the hostility that comes from simply saying I am against Gay Marriage. People automatically start throwing out the "homophobic" line.

Marriage has been and should always be between one man and one woman. If gay people want to make a commitment to one another, I have no problem with that, if one man and 4 women or one woman and 4 men want to live together and do what they do, more power to them.

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????

Arbo

11-08-2013, 05:15 PM

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????

At one point it meant a man and a woman of the same race. At one point it meant 'together forever'. The 'meaning' changes all the time, why are so many hung up on a word? Why do so many stand on the same side as the 'horrible' muslims when it comes to this topic?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-08-2013, 08:38 PM

Link to last prosecution?

Sodomy laws in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down.
Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.

Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1979.

Laws repealed or struck down from 1980-1989.

Laws repealed or struck down from 1990-1999.

Laws repealed or struck down from 2000-2002.

Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia). I believe sodomy laws have been struck down in all the states now.. I do not agree it was the right thing to do but still it has been done.. -Tyr

aboutime

11-08-2013, 08:57 PM

I believe sodomy laws have been struck down in all the states now.. I do not agree it was the right thing to do but still it has been done.. -Tyr

Tyr. As I have stated before. This is what the Obama admin. had in mind when they got rid of D.A.D.T.
If anyone thinks about it...honestly. This seems like a Green Light...so to speak, that will continue to INCREASE the rapes that take place in the military.
We all know. Reported rapes have been increasing steadily lately. So now. Removing Sodomy from the books, and the UCMJ at the same time. Seems to INVITE cross gender "CLINTON ACTIVITIES..known as Monica's" between members of the Military as well.

The destruction of the military, and the moral decay of the American society is HAPPENING.

logroller

11-09-2013, 12:13 AM

I've never understood the hostility that comes from simply saying I am against Gay Marriage. People automatically start throwing out the "homophobic" line.

Marriage has been and should always be between one man and one woman. If gay people want to make a commitment to one another, I have no problem with that, if one man and 4 women or one woman and 4 men want to live together and do what they do, more power to them.

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????
From a policy perspective, WHY SHOULD MARRIAGE BE DEFINED AT ALL?

Quite simply, why does it matter to you whether gays are 'married'; how does it affect you; what is the adverse effect that gay marriage has on others who engage in traditional marriage?

jimnyc

11-09-2013, 07:09 AM

From a policy perspective, WHY SHOULD MARRIAGE BE DEFINED AT ALL?

Quite simply, why does it matter to you whether gays are 'married'; how does it affect you; what is the adverse effect that gay marriage has on others who engage in traditional marriage?

I don't think some sort or measurable adverse affect is necessary in order for this subject to matter to people. I don't think it needs to affect someone directly in order for them to want to preserve the traditional marriage. I believe that any answer given will not be sufficient to those asking these questions. They've been asked for years now and the answers are never accepted as good enough. For example, if I say that it matters to me as now the "marriage" I entered into has now changed it's meaning a bit, it's sacredness, if you will. This of course will not be good enough, or be disputed, but it's why it matters.

fj1200

11-09-2013, 07:37 AM

I believe sodomy laws have been struck down in all the states now.. I do not agree it was the right thing to do but still it has been done.. -Tyr

I'll glean from that the last prosecution was in '98, which was later than I would have guessed, but I guess I should also have asked the last prosecution for "straight" sodomy.

Arbo

11-09-2013, 10:22 AM

if I say that it matters to me as now the "marriage" I entered into has now changed it's meaning a bit, it's sacredness, if you will. This of course will not be good enough, or be disputed, but it's why it matters.

It isn't 'good enough' because it is a BS excuse. Your marriage is between you and your spouse, PERIOD. Nothing anything anyone else does changes that. Only the actions of yourself or your spouse can change that.

Does it changed when people get married for reasons other than love (as many do), does it change it when people give up easy and divorce left and right? No, because what others do has nothing to do with the bond and commitment you and your wife make. To suggest that it does or can means your marriage is at at the whim of the rest of society, and you and I and everyone else know that is BS.

Trigg

11-09-2013, 10:33 AM

At one point it meant a man and a woman of the same race. At one point it meant 'together forever'. The 'meaning' changes all the time, why are so many hung up on a word? Why do so many stand on the same side as the 'horrible' muslims when it comes to this topic?

I could ask you the exact same question, WHY are gays hung up on the word?

There are civil unions that afford people the same rights as a married couple, but gays don't want that. They want the WORD.

There are laws against polygamy, WHY????? If the word marriage means nothing and everything than all the laws need changed, correct?

jimnyc

11-09-2013, 10:35 AM

It isn't 'good enough' because it is a BS excuse. Your marriage is between you and your spouse, PERIOD. Nothing anything anyone else does changes that. Only the actions of yourself or your spouse can change that.

Does it changed when people get married for reasons other than love (as many do), does it change it when people give up easy and divorce left and right? No, because what others do has nothing to do with the bond and commitment you and your wife make. To suggest that it does or can means your marriage is at at the whim of the rest of society, and you and I and everyone else know that is BS.

Like I said, you guys ask questions and then dismiss any answers given. The answer given is bs to YOU, but not by others. Luckily for all of us, none of us needs the others approval in order to have an opinion or to take a stance on an issue.

Arbo

11-09-2013, 10:50 AM

I could ask you the exact same question, WHY are gays hung up on the word?

They are not hung up on a word, they are hung up on having the ability to do, with a loved one they want to spend their life with, what other couples are allowed to do. It is those that stand against them that are hung up on a word and worried about it's 'definition'.

Like I said, you guys ask questions and then dismiss any answers given. The answer given is bs to YOU, but not by others. Luckily for all of us, none of us needs the others approval in order to have an opinion or to take a stance on an issue.

The answer is not dismissed, it is shown to be bogus. Nobody outside of your marriage can change your marriage, no matter what they do. It and it's 'sanctity' are between you and your spouse. But you didn't address that point, you merely sidestepped into this strange fantasy of needing approval to have an opinion, which has nothing to do with the discussion.

jimnyc

11-09-2013, 11:09 AM

The answer is not dismissed, it is shown to be bogus. Nobody outside of your marriage can change your marriage, no matter what they do. It and it's 'sanctity' are between you and your spouse. But you didn't address that point, you merely sidestepped into this strange fantasy of needing approval to have an opinion, which has nothing to do with the discussion.

I believe the sacredness of marriages as a whole are affected by gay marriages. That's my opinion. I believe the tradition as it's known for thousands of years has changed, and now doesn't hold as much value to me. This is my opinion and it's valid. You saying otherwise doesn't change my opinion. That's cool though, I know a lot of people look at this issue differently than me.

Arbo

11-09-2013, 11:21 AM

I believe the sacredness of marriages as a whole are affected by gay marriages. That's my opinion. I believe the tradition as it's known for thousands of years has changed, and now doesn't hold as much value to me. This is my opinion and it's valid. You saying otherwise doesn't change my opinion. That's cool though, I know a lot of people look at this issue differently than me.

My marriage is between myself and my wife, no outside forces change the commitment or love of that. How does what others do outside of your marriage effect your marriage?

I can't even begin to understand how someone can look outside of their own marriage and let things out there effect the bond they have with their spouse. Tis neither rational or logical.

Do those that marry so another can get healthcare or so they can get more benefits effect the sanctity of marriage? I saw a lot of people that did this when in the military, and some outside of the military. Do those that do not take marriage seriously and divorce at the first sign of problems effect the sanctity of marriage?

jimnyc

11-09-2013, 11:39 AM

My marriage is between myself and my wife, no outside forces change the commitment or love of that. How does what others do outside of your marriage effect your marriage?

I can't even begin to understand how someone can look outside of their own marriage and let things out there effect the bond they have with their spouse. Tis neither rational or logical.

Do those that marry so another can get healthcare or so they can get more benefits effect the sanctity of marriage? I saw a lot of people that did this when in the military, and some outside of the military. Do those that do not take marriage seriously and divorce at the first sign of problems effect the sanctity of marriage?

It doesn't change my commitment or love for my wife, but being married, as to what I know it as from growing up, is not as sacred as I once saw it. It's that simple.

And yes, others that abuse marriage and don't take it seriously also lower the value of the entire bond we know as marriage, IMO. It won't affect the love I have for my wife and won't split us up. But I don't need to point out tangible damage in order to FEEL that the once cherished act is slowly being tarnished.

Arbo

11-09-2013, 12:43 PM

It doesn't change my commitment or love for my wife, but being married, as to what I know it as from growing up, is not as sacred as I once saw it. It's that simple.

And yes, others that abuse marriage and don't take it seriously also lower the value of the entire bond we know as marriage, IMO. It won't affect the love I have for my wife and won't split us up. But I don't need to point out tangible damage in order to FEEL that the once cherished act is slowly being tarnished.

Perhaps that is the difference between my mindset and the mindset of others. I don't care what anyone thinks 'marriage' is, I know what it is to me and what it means WRT myself and my wife, and nothing can change that. And I don't care what others think it is or means, as that does not effect mine, nor will it ever.

I see the 'other side' as similar to the whole 'offended' thing… you know, those that claim offense at just about anything. If one is secure in their own situation nothing outside of that matters or effects it.

jimnyc

11-09-2013, 12:48 PM

Perhaps that is the difference between my mindset and the mindset of others. I don't care what anyone thinks 'marriage' is, I know what it is to me and what it means WRT myself and my wife, and nothing can change that. And I don't care what others think it is or means, as that does not effect mine, nor will it ever.

I see the 'other side' as similar to the whole 'offended' thing… you know, those that claim offense at just about anything. If one is secure in their own situation nothing outside of that matters or effects it.

I am very, very rarely offended. I'm certainly VERY far from one of those that you speak of that claim offense at just about anything. I'm quite capable of having the opinion I do without feeling insecure in the slightest bit.

Arbo

11-09-2013, 01:11 PM

I am very, very rarely offended. I'm certainly VERY far from one of those that you speak of that claim offense at just about anything. I'm quite capable of having the opinion I do without feeling insecure in the slightest bit.

Then logically it seems you shouldn't care who get's married as it doesn't offend your sense of what your marriage is.

fj1200

11-09-2013, 02:50 PM

There are civil unions that afford people the same rights as a married couple...

Not federally. Marriage should be stripped out of all legislation and left to a church IMO then every marriage would be a union.

logroller

11-10-2013, 12:22 PM

I don't think some sort or measurable adverse affect is necessary in order for this subject to matter to people. I don't think it needs to affect someone directly in order for them to want to preserve the traditional marriage. I believe that any answer given will not be sufficient to those asking these questions. They've been asked for years now and the answers are never accepted as good enough. For example, if I say that it matters to me as now the "marriage" I entered into has now changed it's meaning a bit, it's sacredness, if you will. This of course will not be good enough, or be disputed, but it's why it matters.
If thats the case then that is an adverse effect. For me though, the State and others' marriages don't define my own and neither do they sully its sacredness.

Abbey Marie

11-10-2013, 01:25 PM

It isn't 'good enough' because it is a BS excuse. Your marriage is between you and your spouse, PERIOD. Nothing anything anyone else does changes that. Only the actions of yourself or your spouse can change that.

Does it changed when people get married for reasons other than love (as many do), does it change it when people give up easy and divorce left and right? No, because what others do has nothing to do with the bond and commitment you and your wife make. To suggest that it does or can means your marriage is at at the whim of the rest of society, and you and I and everyone else know that is BS.

Do you deny that the huge increase in pre-marital sex and the resulting children, have led to a corresponding huge increase in single parenthood, poverty levels and gov't aid programs to help those very people?

We do not live in isolation, and every cultural shift affects society for better or worse, and often both simultaneously. I wonder at someone who feels this seismic shift in the meaning of marriage exists in a meaningless vacuum, yet a Christmas tree in the town square has far-reaching dastardly repercussions.

Arbo

11-10-2013, 01:34 PM

Do you deny that the huge increase in pre-marital sex and the resulting children, have led to a corresponding huge increase in single parenthood, poverty levels and gov't aid programs to help those very people?

What does that have to do with the conversation? Are you suggesting that if gays are allowed to use the term 'marriage' that somehow they will start producing more unwanted children and then break up and go on welfare? LOL. Funny stuff.

red states rule

11-10-2013, 01:42 PM

Abbey you are such a sweetheart and I know you really wanted to try and have a conservation with Arbo. However you attempt is a wasted one. I can sum up any attempt to engage Arbo with a quote from Proverbs

Go into the presence of a foolish man, And thou shalt not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

IOW Abbey do not waste your time arguing with an idiot like Arbo. I know you have kids so I guess you felt you might be able to get through to him - but alas it was not to bo

fj1200

11-10-2013, 01:55 PM

Do you deny that the huge increase in pre-marital sex and the resulting children, have led to a corresponding huge increase in single parenthood, poverty levels and gov't aid programs to help those very people?

We do not live in isolation, and every cultural shift affects society for better or worse, and often both simultaneously. I wonder at someone who feels this seismic shift in the meaning of marriage exists in a meaningless vacuum, yet a Christmas tree in the town square has far-reaching dastardly repercussions.

I'd argue that the latter was created to address poverty issues and based upon poorly designed government programs had the opposite of the intended effect and led to, at least in part the breakdown of family. All of this happening long before gays decided that they should be included in the government's definition of marriage. Which, of course, leads to the question of what is the state's compelling interest in marriage?

Abbey Marie

11-10-2013, 02:03 PM

What does that have to do with the conversation? Are you suggesting that if gays are allowed to use the term 'marriage' that somehow they will start producing more unwanted children and then break up and go on welfare? LOL. Funny stuff.

I don't engage with people whose go-to move is mockery.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-10-2013, 02:50 PM

I'd argue that the latter was created to address poverty issues and based upon poorly designed government programs had the opposite of the intended effect and led to, at least in part the breakdown of family. All of this happening long before gays decided that they should be included in the government's definition of marriage. Which, of course, leads to the question of what is the state's compelling interest in marriage? TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS SO IT WASNT THE OPPOSITE EFFECT THAN INTENDED. They designed the programs to enslave those people because it would insure votes from those that they had just bought with our damn tax monies. 4 and 5 decades later we see exactly that. --Tyr

tailfins

11-10-2013, 03:22 PM

What does that have to do with the conversation? Are you suggesting that if gays are allowed to use the term 'marriage' that somehow they will start producing more unwanted children and then break up and go on welfare? LOL. Funny stuff.

Let me put it in simpler terms you'll (hopefully) understand: When marriage doesn't mean much, you have more bastards running around demanding public assistance.

fj1200

11-10-2013, 03:24 PM

Let me put it in simpler terms you'll (hopefully) understand: When marriage doesn't mean much, you have more bastards running around demanding public assistance.

I think you have your causes and effects backward.

Arbo

11-11-2013, 09:34 AM

I don't engage with people whose go-to move is mockery.

Funny, I engage with people that put forth silly concepts that don't link to what was actually being talked about. Like marriage vs poverty issues.

Is the problem that you don't like such things to be pointed out or that you simply have no rational response?

Arbo

11-11-2013, 09:37 AM

Let me put it in simpler terms you'll (hopefully) understand: When marriage doesn't mean much, you have more bastards running around demanding public assistance.

Yeah, um, you have it all backwards. When government wants to keep people enslaved and dependent, it makes it more profitable to not be married. This is not the people lessoning the meaning of marriage, this is government working to prevent it.

jimnyc

11-11-2013, 09:52 AM

Funny, I engage with people that put forth silly concepts that don't link to what was actually being talked about. Like marriage vs poverty issues.

Is the problem that you don't like such things to be pointed out or that you simply have no rational response?

Maybe it's just what she said, that she doesn't want to engage people in debate who turn to mockery and shit slinging right off the first post to someone. You may have found others who like to go back and forth with you, tossing around the mockery, but Abbey doesn't care for it, nor has she ever done so to you in such a manner.

Arbo

11-11-2013, 09:55 AM

Maybe it's just what she said, that she doesn't want to engage people in debate who turn to mockery and shit slinging right off the first post to someone. You may have found others who like to go back and forth with you, tossing around the mockery, but Abbey doesn't care for it, nor has she ever done so to you in such a manner.

If one doesn't want to be mocked, the best method of avoidance is to not put forth flawed ideas. No amount of complaining about being mocked makes her unrelated ideas less flawed.

jimnyc

11-11-2013, 10:04 AM

If one doesn't want to be mocked, the best method of avoidance is to not put forth flawed ideas. No amount of complaining about being mocked makes her unrelated ideas less flawed.

Whether flawed or not, there is no reason for you to mock someone who hasn't tried to do so to you. Just let it go please, and in the future try and reserve your mocking for those who do so to you or are in some way deserving. The admin of the board, and a woman, need not deal with that when she didn't nothing wrong at all. /let it go and move on now.

red states rule

11-11-2013, 11:08 AM

Arbo

11-11-2013, 11:39 AM

Whether flawed or not, there is no reason for you to mock someone who hasn't tried to do so to you. Just let it go please, and in the future try and reserve your mocking for those who do so to you or are in some way deserving. The admin of the board, and a woman, need not deal with that when she didn't nothing wrong at all. /let it go and move on now.

My position stands. The attempt to correlate unwed mothers and horrible government systems that promote such things to gay marriage is a huge stretch to put together two things that do not relate.

I would hope for further explanation on how anyone can try to mesh these two things together.

jimnyc

11-11-2013, 12:06 PM

My position stands. The attempt to correlate unwed mothers and horrible government systems that promote such things to gay marriage is a huge stretch to put together two things that do not relate.

I would hope for further explanation on how anyone can try to mesh these two things together.

Your position, or at least part of it, was to be mockingly towards Abbey, who did no such thing towards you. These stupid little snipes by you, AND OTHERS, is what sets off threads to be ruined. I don't see a reason to mock people or instigate harsh feelings unless they are doing so to you. Anyway, I hope that's the end of it. And I'll repeat now as we let this drop - /let it go and move on now.

Abbey Marie

11-11-2013, 02:14 PM

Jim, I was hoping to set an example of how to deal with those who cannot debate without turning to unprovoked personal jabs, insults, or mockery. As you so often tell us, it takes two to tango. Thanks for making the point so clearly in this thread.
I knew that it would not be a lesson learned by everyone.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/beer.gif

Trigg

11-11-2013, 02:49 PM

They are not hung up on a word, they are hung up on having the ability to do, with a loved one they want to spend their life with, what other couples are allowed to do. It is those that stand against them that are hung up on a word and worried about it's 'definition'.

If they weren't hung up on the word, they would be satisfied with legal partner ships with all the benefits. But they aren't, because they WANT THE WORD AND IT'S MEANING TO CHANGE.

Do those that marry so another can get healthcare or so they can get more benefits effect the sanctity of marriage? I saw a lot of people that did this when in the military, and some outside of the military. Do those that do not take marriage seriously and divorce at the first sign of problems effect the sanctity of marriage?

IMHO yes, it affects the sanctity of marriage. People jump in and out of marriages today with no or little thought to how it will affect the children involved.

red states rule

11-11-2013, 02:57 PM

If they weren't hung up on the word, they would be satisfied with legal partner ships with all the benefits. But they aren't, because they WANT THE WORD AND IT'S MEANING TO CHANGE.

IMHO yes, it affects the sanctity of marriage. People jump in and out of marriages today with no or little thought to how it will affect the children involved.

I have known people Trigg that change partners as often as they change their socks. They do not seem to care how it impacts them or their family members (and as you started the children as well)

Arbo

11-11-2013, 03:05 PM

If they weren't hung up on the word, they would be satisfied with legal partner ships with all the benefits. But they aren't, because they WANT THE WORD AND IT'S MEANING TO CHANGE.

You have it backwards. It is those that stand against the Constitution and freedom and equality that are worried about the definition. I

IMHO yes, it affects the sanctity of marriage.

My opinion differs. As I have stated before, what others do or do not do has no effect on my marriage or my thoughts about my marriage. Far too many seem to let outside issues effect theirs.

People jump in and out of marriages today with no or little thought to how it will affect the children involved.

I agree. But if the concern is the 'definition' of marriage, shouldn't those that want to protect it be pushing for legislation to prevent people from getting divorced?

tailfins

11-11-2013, 09:19 PM

Trigg

11-13-2013, 02:17 PM

You have it backwards. It is those that stand against the Constitution and freedom and equality that are worried about the definition. I

My opinion differs. As I have stated before, what others do or do not do has no effect on my marriage or my thoughts about my marriage. Far too many seem to let outside issues effect theirs.

I agree. But if the concern is the 'definition' of marriage, shouldn't those that want to protect it be pushing for legislation to prevent people from getting divorced?

if gays simply wanted the same rights as married people they would fight for legal partnerships. They aren't doing that, they are fighting for a WORD. They want to fundamentally change the definition of marriage.

Arbo

11-13-2013, 02:42 PM

if gays simply wanted the same rights as married people they would fight for legal partnerships. They aren't doing that, they are fighting for a WORD. They want to fundamentally change the definition of marriage.

In order to have the same 'rights', they must be able to be 'married', as the legal rights of those that are married (at the federal level of rights and benefits) is defined by the word marriage. So either COMPLETELY erase 'marriage' from the federal level, or let them use the word. Again, it is those that stand against equality that are fighting for the word, and quite honestly, they are being ignorant. It is that sort of thinking that has left much of islam in the stone ages, why would we want to be like that?

Nukeman

11-13-2013, 03:31 PM

In order to have the same 'rights', they must be able to be 'married', as the legal rights of those that are married (at the federal level of rights and benefits) is defined by the word marriage. So either COMPLETELY erase 'marriage' from the federal level, or let them use the word. Again, it is those that stand against equality that are fighting for the word, and quite honestly, they are being ignorant. It is that sort of thinking that has left much of islam in the stone ages, why would we want to be like that?
So tell me how is it against equality?? How does being against gay "marriage" equate to being against equality????

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-13-2013, 03:38 PM

The gays fight for the right to take the word. To legitimize their relationship morally by taking the word. If it was just for legal rights and government benefits that can be given by law in gay legal partnerships. Its more about trying to gain moral legitimacy IMHO. And likely some even want the marriage institution to be remade to their world view. -Tyr

Arbo

11-13-2013, 04:28 PM

How does being against gay "marriage" equate to being against equality????

Not allowing two consenting adults to have the same legal status is treating people equally? Peculiar.

The gays fight for the right to take the word. To legitimize their relationship morally by taking the word.

I'm sure the last thing that any gay person cares about is what bigots think is moral. Had the world not moved on from the same sort of bigots, even mix race marriage would still be against the law. I'm sure such people are still against such things, even more when they consider if they had their way the current president would never have been born.

Nukeman

11-13-2013, 05:05 PM

Not allowing two consenting adults to have the same legal status is treating people equally? Peculiar.
.
Actually they have the EXACT same rights as hetero people do today. Show me where they have differing right!!! The gays want SPECIAL rights not the same rights, they already have that!!!!!!!!!!

fj1200

11-13-2013, 05:12 PM

Arbo

11-13-2013, 06:27 PM

Actually they have the EXACT same rights as hetero people do today. Show me where they have differing right!!! The gays want SPECIAL rights not the same rights, they already have that!!!!!!!!!!

You are putting forth a typical and failed argument. Yes, we've seen it a million times before, 'but they have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else!' No, they do not have the exact same rights, if they did, non of this would be an issue. Those who keep playing such silly games with equality do not stand for the Constitution as far as I am concerned, and are no better than the constitution trampling Obama, or the intolerant extremist muslims. Two peas in the same pod.

logroller

11-13-2013, 10:17 PM

Actually they have the EXACT same rights as hetero people do today. Show me where they have differing right!!! The gays want SPECIAL rights not the same rights, they already have that!!!!!!!!!!

Ok.

Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal Residence

Under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal principal residence from taxable income. Married couples filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home. Lesbian and gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to similarly situated married couples.

just one example, theres more at the link
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Its marriage thats given special rights. Show me one special right that gays are asking for to which married hetero couples don't already enjoy?

Nukeman

11-14-2013, 07:26 AM

They want to marry their partner. They do not have access to that same privilege and the state benefits provided by that "right."They have the same right to marry a partner of the opposite sex JUST LIKE HETERO COUPLES

You are putting forth a typical and failed argument. Yes, we've seen it a million times before, 'but they have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else!' No, they do not have the exact same rights, if they did, non of this would be an issue. Those who keep playing such silly games with equality do not stand for the Constitution as far as I am concerned, and are no better than the constitution trampling Obama, or the intolerant extremist muslims. Two peas in the same pod.How is it a failed argument? Hetero individuals do not have a "special" right to marry someone of the same sex!!! It is NOT a failed argument just because it doesn't fit with YOUR argument. So because I stand for MY beliefs of marriage being between a man and a woman I am "no better than intolerant extremist". Wow talk about a stretch!!!!! I don't go around calling names or relating others to extremist because they don't agree with my beliefs, however other on here are "in your face" with trying to cram something down others throat, all because they don't agree with them. I could say the same for you and your militant support of this issue! Could you point to me in the "constitution" where they spell out marriage by the way!?!?!?

Ok.

just one example, theres more at the link
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Its marriage thats given special rights. Show me one special right that gays are asking for to which married hetero couples don't already enjoy?and 2 hetero (of the same sex) individuals get slammed with the same tax. guess what life isn't fair, I learned that lesson a long time ago and move on when things don't go my way!!!!!!

logroller

11-14-2013, 07:46 AM

and 2 hetero (of the same sex) individuals get slammed with the same tax. guess what life isn't fair, I learned that lesson a long time ago and move on when things don't go my way!!!!!!
im not talking about life being fair, im talking about the law being fair. Imagine if there was a law tha granted someone two votes if they gave up any firearms they owned-- would you chock it up as just one of life's inequities and move on?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2013, 08:49 AM

im not talking about life being fair, im talking about the law being fair. Imagine if there was a law tha granted someone two votes if they gave up any firearms they owned-- would you chock it up as just one of life's inequities and move on?

, im talking about the law being fair. . I myself know of no law ever written by government to be fair to all its subjects. This attempt to be fair to every single person has never in man's history been achieved. Its impossible and in this attempt to "be fair" government will give preference for one group over another. Now since gay is not normal the preference should be with the straight couples and marriage as its already established. One can put only so many different kinds of meats and vegetables in a stew and trying to put them all in ruins it every time. Trust me on that I make the best stew in the world. Ricky Nelson sang a verse in his song titled Garden party. Went -- "you can't please everybody so its best to just please yourself." This "please everybody crap" is what has this nation in such a sad state that it's in now IMHO.-TYR

fj1200

11-14-2013, 09:11 AM

They have the same right to marry a partner of the opposite sex JUST LIKE HETERO COUPLES

That's a weak argument that presumes that they must adhere to your societal norm and then falls apart completely once one state recognizes their relationship as marriage via equal protection at the Federal level.

fj1200

11-14-2013, 09:14 AM

Arbo

11-14-2013, 09:36 AM

They have the same right to marry a partner of the opposite sex JUST LIKE HETERO COUPLES

:laugh: Boy did I call that massive amount of lame or what.

How is it a failed argument? Hetero individuals do not have a "special" right to marry someone of the same sex!!!

It is pretty sad that you don't see how or why it is a failed argument. This sort of thing is exactly why the right has been loosing elections and letting the left win and screw over the country even further. Perhaps one day those on the far, bible toting, right will realize this, but I think by then it will be too late.

Spin and twist all you like, 'marriage' confers onto a couple many special things, from tax breaks, to hospital visitation, to community property among the two, and so so much more. Nothing BUT marriage give those special things to people. Either all 'marriage' needs to be converted to 'civil union', or all marriage needs to be recognized by the feds.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2013, 10:03 AM

And all of that presumes that you can show the states compelling interest in "straight" marriage. Just because we can't be "fair" in everything is no reason to ignore a law that defies equal protection and that just happens to comport with your opinion of which group the state should favor over another. ABSOLUTE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY AND BIASES OF MAN. No government ever existed that attained that. The law must err in the side of greater interests of the governed body and not sacrifice the interests of the majority to coddle the interests of a tiny minority. Of course minority rights are to be protected but since when has a sexual act been a right? Some people love to have sex with animals, should we pass a law insuring that--"right"?? Laws can not solve every problem that mankind has. You could write and pass a billion laws and things would only be worse IMHO.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx Key Points

Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.

*Results based on telephone interviews with 489 (for those estimating percentages of lesbian women) and 518 (for those estimating percentages of gay men) conducted May 6-9, 2002. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5%.

Arbo

11-14-2013, 10:31 AM

The law must err in the side of greater interests of the governed body and not sacrifice the interests of the majority to coddle the interests of a tiny minority.

Man, that sounds like it comes right out of the pages of a DNC pamphlet. Exactly what interest of the majority is being sacrificed by allowing gays to get married?

Of course minority rights are to be protected but since when has a sexual act been a right?

I don't recall ANYONE saying a sexual act was a right. The attempt to throw everything into the pot doesn't work. It's not about sex, it is about two adults that love each other having the same legal status as any other two adults that love each other and commit to each other for life.

Romans 2:1 - "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

You gotta love when those who are religious also say that marriage is a religious/biblical thing, and has always been this way. For if those people actually read what was in the bible they would know that in those times when a man married a woman, she and all she had, became his property. Nothing more than livestock to do as he desired. And men could have multiple wives and prostitutes on the side, such as Issac and Abraham did. Heck, if a husband died before he had children, it was his brothers duty to marry his spouse. The 'definition' of marriage has change continually since biblical times, those that think it has remained constant have neither read their bible or studied those times.

jimnyc

11-14-2013, 10:38 AM

It's not about sex, it is about two adults that love each other having the same legal status as any other two adults that love each other and commit to each other for life.

With the law being changed to include gay people - will that now be the end of redefining for the law, or will we one day down the road be entertaining new relationships and perhaps redefining law again? When the whole gay marriage thing started, some were quick to bring up the "give an inch..." argument, or slippery slope if you will. What seems nonsense and incredulous today, might someday be told to us that it is normal, and anyone involved in the incredulous activity deserves the same rights, and they'll say that gay marriage arguments apply to them too. I won't bring up crap from 3rd world countries, but some of it has started already.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2013, 10:58 AM

With the law being changed to include gay people - will that now be the end of redefining for the law, or will we one day down the road be entertaining new relationships and perhaps redefining law again? When the whole gay marriage thing started, some were quick to bring up the "give an inch..." argument, or slippery slope if you will. What seems nonsense and incredulous today, might someday be told to us that it is normal, and anyone involved in the incredulous activity deserves the same rights, and they'll say that gay marriage arguments apply to them too. I won't bring up crap from 3rd world countries, but some of it has started already. Exactly right. Soooooooon it will be a man loves two or three or four women we must grant that "right" to marry them all. A man loves his horse ,dog and cat we must grant that "right" to marry them all. A man loves his own sister we must insure that "right" for him to marry her. Our society has moral norms as does every society on earth. What this is about is turning moral norms upside down or doing away with all such moral judgments. Moral and ethical judgments are not all Christian based as the gay supporters like to toss in the mix. I know a helluva lot of non-Christians that are solidly against legalizing gay "marriage" so those spouting that crap should know that dog just don't hunt. One of my departed friends was an avowed atheist and he was 100% against gays and gay marriage for he recognized it was a sexual perversion not much different than bestiality or any other sexual perversion . And yes gay marriage is about their perversion not just their so-called right". I ask again when did government legalizing and sanctioning sodomy become a --"right"????? YOU SEE- GIVE AN INCH AND THEY WANT TO TAKE A MILE IS CORRECT. The government by way of SCOTUS STOPPED ALL LAWS AGAINST SODOMY IN REGARDS TO ADULTS. Now those sodomy experts demand the mile-- the right to legally marry and thus sanction it as a normal activity. I call bullshat on that and anybody that supports it... WE THAT ARE NORMAL HAVE RIGHTS TOO . The right to keep a civilized society and not one that embraces sexual perversions which will influence young children as they grow up. -Tyr

Arbo

11-14-2013, 10:58 AM

Arbo

11-14-2013, 10:59 AM

A man loves his horse ,dog and cat we must grant that "right" to marry them all. A man loves his own sister we must insure that "right" for him to marry her.

Such a horrible argument.

Trigg

11-14-2013, 11:11 AM

so fight for a civil partnership with all the benefits.

Gays don't want that though. THEY WANT THE WORD AND IT'S MEANING CHANGED.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. If gays want have a partnership I COULD NOT CARE LESS.

Nukeman

11-14-2013, 11:22 AM

:laugh: Boy did I call that massive amount of lame or what.

It is pretty sad that you don't see how or why it is a failed argument. This sort of thing is exactly why the right has been loosing elections and letting the left win and screw over the country even further. Perhaps one day those on the far, bible toting, right will realize this, but I think by then it will be too late.

Spin and twist all you like, 'marriage' confers onto a couple many special things, from tax breaks, to hospital visitation, to community property among the two, and so so much more. Nothing BUT marriage give those special things to people. Either all 'marriage' needs to be converted to 'civil union', or all marriage needs to be recognized by the feds.

That's a weak argument that presumes that they must adhere to your societal norm and then falls apart completely once one state recognizes their relationship as marriage via equal protection at the Federal level.

im not talking about life being fair, im talking about the law being fair. Imagine if there was a law tha granted someone two votes if they gave up any firearms they owned-- would you chock it up as just one of life's inequities and move on?

You guys do understand that the reason for the "tax" breaks is due to the FACT that most hetero couples procreate!!!!!! Without which you would not have any NEW tax payers (think of it as an incentive which it is). IF a couple of the same sex cannot have children than they should not receive the "benefits" of those that do, it was to be sure that people are able to care for their families..

jimnyc

11-14-2013, 11:36 AM

Relationships with children and animals are already against the law. No so with relationships between two consenting adults. I believe polygamy is also illegal, but may well not be. But make a new Constitutional amendment banning polygamist marriages, children, animals.. it would be easy as it would have overwhelming support. Thus ensuring it would be very difficult for anyone to head down that slope.

Homosexuality was against the law in some places, and not recognized at all pretty much everywhere. People wanted amendments to stop gay marriage. They wanted laws passed. There was plenty of support. Everything you just wrote is similar to what transpired for gays, from deeply hidden in the closet to now being mainstream and legal to get married. While I personally agree with what you wrote above, I also see that it's eerily similar to what I thought 20 years ago about homosexuality in general, certain levels of acceptance and gay marriage being the largest hurdle. I assure you, polygamists will be next. The arguments used for gay marriage almost fit perfectly for them, they can just cite the prior. I don't think we'll ever see age restrictions lowered (at least I seriously hope that's not ever even entertained).

If somehow they could lay down a law to protect the things you stated, I'm all for it, and would certainly vote in favor. But I will remind you of DOMA - so how much weight would even enacting law have?

logroller

11-14-2013, 11:38 AM

I myself know of no law ever written by government to be fair to all its subjects. This attempt to be fair to every single person has never in man's history been achieved. Its impossible and in this attempt to "be fair" government will give preference for one group over another. Now since gay is not normal the preference should be with the straight couples and marriage as its already established. One can put only so many different kinds of meats and vegetables in a stew and trying to put them all in ruins it every time. Trust me on that I make the best stew in the world. Ricky Nelson sang a verse in his song titled Garden party. Went -- "you can't please everybody so its best to just please yourself." This "please everybody crap" is what has this nation in such a sad state that it's in now IMHO.-TYR

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EqualJusticeUnderLaw.jpg
Fairness in application is not the same as fairness in outcome.
Im quite sure our founding fathers received quite a lot of blowback for what was, and arguably still is an audacious endeavor to find balance between factional interests and that of the majority. Th despite the perils of tyranny, mob rule is no lesser an evil. Indeed if we look to history, it is tyranny which is more prevalent; the demise of each instance wrested in the fairness (or perception there of) felt by the subjects.

No doubt certain aspects of fairness and equality were tabled in the interest of what was generally acceptable (ie slavery)-- slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, why? Because it was seen as fair--- given time some inequalities become insufferable. We cant believe that progression towards equality in law is a wasted endeavor because absolute equality cannot be achieved.

Arbo

11-14-2013, 12:00 PM

so fight for a civil partnership with all the benefits.

Gays don't want that though.

If such a thing were to occur, it would have to go all the way up to the fed, and all laws that refer to 'marriage' would need to be amended to include 'civil unions'. Do you support that?

The federal government should have ZERO to do with marriage, if those that supported the 'tradition' of marriage were honest in their 'fight', they'd be pushing to have everything that was done outside of a church classified as a 'civil union', no matter the orientation of those involved.

You guys do understand that the reason for the "tax" breaks is due to the FACT that most hetero couples procreate!!!!!! Without which you would not have any NEW tax payers (think of it as an incentive which it is). IF a couple of the same sex cannot have children than they should not receive the "benefits" of those that do, it was to be sure that people are able to care for their families..

What legislation are you backing to remove 'marriage' from those that can not procreate or choose not to? :laugh:

BTW, the whole 'can procreate' line is about as lame as the 'they can marry straight people!' stuff. There are LOADS of kids out there that can be adopted, and of course there is artificial insemination and women that will have a kid for men. Of course, the general 'concern' for people having kids is bogus, as these are the sort of people that some (like you) would prefer do not have children, if you were honest about it.

And of course the whole lack of consistency shows through, as those that use the procreation argument do not back (or would not back) legislation to remove 'marriage' from those that do not procreate, or remove it from those now too old to do so.

Homosexuality was against the law in some places,

And eventually the level of ignorance about it faded, much like it did about enslaving other humans.

If somehow they could lay down a law to protect the things you stated, I'm all for it, and would certainly vote in favor. But I will remind you of DOMA - so how much weight would even enacting law have?

If there is a president that doesn't do his job and enforce laws (like the current one), then that is a possibility. But if the citizenship ever starts holding government accountable, it will never happen.

jimnyc

11-14-2013, 12:44 PM

And eventually the level of ignorance about it faded, much like it did about enslaving other humans.

It's possible that someday we will be accused of being ignorant in not accepting other people we disagree with. I can absolutely say 100% that I think we'll see polygamy legalized within our lifetimes. I don't know how they'll handle benefits towards them, if any at all, but I do think it'll eventually be legal for them to be "married" or have some sort of legal partnership. If they are all consenting adults, then I think all of the arguments given in the gay marriage argument will ultimately apply to their partnerships.

If there is a president that doesn't do his job and enforce laws (like the current one), then that is a possibility. But if the citizenship ever starts holding government accountable, it will never happen.

Hell, the easiest way is for the people to vote out the idiots. It's so easy that we have nitwits who have been in politics for their entire lives!! It's the easiest and quickest way to change, but rarely happens. That's because our nation is divided like never before. And I hate to sound like a sheep, and anyone who knows me knows I am far from it, but the division has like tripled since Obama took office.

Arbo

11-14-2013, 12:51 PM

I can absolutely say 100% that I think we'll see polygamy legalized within our lifetimes.

I doubt it. But I am coming from the point of view that one wife is far more than enough, what sort of moron would want more than one??

And I hate to sound like a sheep, and anyone who knows me knows I am far from it, but the division has like tripled since Obama took office.

I think this is an easy thing to say, but a study of the history of our nation shows it's not the case. Today is nothing like some of the violence we have perpetrated upon our fellow citizens over the decades. One must remember that the vast majority of people living in the colonies didn't want to separate from Britain. From that point on there has been loads of division among the people, even during the first time of the first few presidents we had.

fj1200

11-14-2013, 12:57 PM

ABSOLUTE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY AND BIASES OF MAN. No government ever existed that attained that. The law must err in the side of greater interests of the governed body and not sacrifice the interests of the majority to coddle the interests of a tiny minority. Of course minority rights are to be protected but since when has a sexual act been a right? Some people love to have sex with animals, should we pass a law insuring that--"right"?? Laws can not solve every problem that mankind has. You could write and pass a billion laws and things would only be worse IMHO.

Just because "ABSOLUTE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS IMPOSSIBLE" doesn't mean that laws should be maintained which clearly violate the equal protection clause. That's all part of the "more perfect union" bit which to me means that there is a goal being worked toward.

And who is claiming anything about sex being a right? The state definition of marriage is two individuals becoming one household whereby the government bestows certain privileges; nothing more unless you want to get into the religious aspect but those are two separate arguments IMO.

jimnyc

11-14-2013, 01:06 PM

I doubt it. But I am coming from the point of view that one wife is far more than enough, what sort of moron would want more than one??

That's what a married person would say - who the hell would want multiple spouses! LOL I know of at least 3 people who are all for multiple marriages. I won't bring religion into the discussion, even though it does play a part. But there are a lot of places around the world where having multiple wives is of the norm. But while you and I see it as stupidity, others take it very seriously and see absolutely nothing wrong with having multiple wives. And as we know, it's already here in the US. Part of me says that no way this gets legalized around the country, we're not dumb enough to make a mockery of marriage to the likes never seen here before. But we said that in the past 30 years about gay marriage. I hope it never happens, but at the same time I can see the arguments being made. Hell, I've HAD arguments on various boards over the years, and there were some takers that already think it should be legalized.

I think this is an easy thing to say, but a study of the history of our nation shows it's not the case. Today is nothing like some of the violence we have perpetrated upon our fellow citizens over the decades. One must remember that the vast majority of people living in the colonies didn't want to separate from Britain. From that point on there has been loads of division among the people, even during the first time of the first few presidents we had.

I suppose I was speaking of the modern age. We have become more modernized/civilized, and I would have thought we were beyond the days of violence. The current division in our country tells me that we could be closer to any violence than I would have believed. And while GWB was widely hated by many, and our country was divided - the discussion of a civil war, and the hatred for our government, and the hatred for Congress, they have hit all time lows.

fj1200

11-14-2013, 01:16 PM

You guys do understand that the reason for the "tax" breaks is due to the FACT that most hetero couples procreate!!!!!! Without which you would not have any NEW tax payers (think of it as an incentive which it is). IF a couple of the same sex cannot have children than they should not receive the "benefits" of those that do, it was to be sure that people are able to care for their families..

By that logic your argument for denying marriage to childless straight couples and granting it to gay couples with kids. Noted. :) Of course we could also remove the state sanctioning of marriage and its benefits and grant any breaks to parents.

Jeff

11-14-2013, 07:39 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2013, 08:44 PM

Wasn't sodomy against the law as well ? Sure was once ---AS IN STATE LAWS. Was struck down by ----SCOTUS. SO THE STATES LOST STATES RIGHTS AGAIN. THERE IS NO SOLID STANDARD(law) THAT WILL PREVENT FURTHER EROSION , THE LEMMINGS SPEW THAT CRAP EVERYTIME THIS SUBJECT IS DISCUSSED ! Just mention it leading to further erosion and they always cite existing laws as if they too are immune from being struck down . When Sodomy was struck down people argued gay marriage would be called for next by these perverts but these same weasels cried--- no existing law will prevent that,. now yet again they cry for gay marriage citing that any further erosion will be prevented by existing law! Lying weasels will always lie. Best to just tell such asshats to shut the hell up we've heard that damn lie before IMHO..-Tyr

Arbo

11-14-2013, 08:47 PM

Wasn't sodomy against the law as well ?

Wasn't marrying 11-13 year olds acceptable at one time? Like biblical times, meaning that is the 'tradition' of marriage. But I see everybody skipped by that whole biblical meaning of marriage vs modern day. Funny how when what was actually the 'tradition' is pointed out people quit talking about how those horrible gays are trying to destroy tradition.

But you are correct, at one point those with religious tendencies did all they could to outlaw homosexuality in any manner they could, the 'illegalization' of sodomy was one of those paths taken. Not quite up to par with Islam, but no doubt many wanted to get there.

I wonder how many of the people that are 'revolted' by gays, have rubbed one out to two girls going at it. Yeah, most likely, many of them. :laugh::laugh:

logroller

11-14-2013, 08:49 PM

Wasn't sodomy against the law as well ?
Those laws were found unconstitutional in lawrence v texas (1986)

A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2013, 08:57 PM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EqualJusticeUnderLaw.jpg
Fairness in application is not the same as fairness in outcome.
Im quite sure our founding fathers received quite a lot of blowback for what was, and arguably still is an audacious endeavor to find balance between factional interests and that of the majority. Th despite the perils of tyranny, mob rule is no lesser an evil. Indeed if we look to history, it is tyranny which is more prevalent; the demise of each instance wrested in the fairness (or perception there of) felt by the subjects.

No doubt certain aspects of fairness and equality were tabled in the interest of what was generally acceptable (ie slavery)-- slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, why? Because it was seen as fair--- given time some inequalities become insufferable. We cant believe that progression towards equality in law is a wasted endeavor because absolute equality cannot be achieved. I disagree , what we have to weigh is the balance between destroying the tranquility and rights of the majority against the wishes of a small minority. All the government benefits can be passed to gays in a law on gay domestic partnerships without the gays taking over and destroying the reputation and meaning of the word marriage! The gays had to have the word--the word (marriage)-- to try to give an air of legitimacy to their sexual perversion. They seek that their way is considered to be a normal part of life. That kids will grow up knowing marriage is fine and normal for two people of the same sex and destroying the old definition and institution of marriage is part of that goal. All this fancy talking about -"rights" is partly to cover their real goal. FF-THAT , FF THEM... I'LL NEVER RECOGNISE AND EMBRACE SUCH PERVERTED PEOPLE AS NORMAL. My dad didn't raise me to be a fool or a coward..-Tyr

Arbo

11-14-2013, 09:51 PM

I disagree , what we have to weigh is the balance between destroying the tranquility and rights of the majority against the wishes of a small minority.

I'm sure many thought the same about those 'black' people at one point. BTW, what tranquility and rights of yours is destroyed by two adults being married that you simply find disgusting and wish were merely repressed?

the reputation and meaning of the word marriage!

See my post as to the original definition and tradition of marriage as the bible puts forth. :laugh: We are nowhere NEAR that reputation or definition, yet you whine about it being changed?

to try to give an air of legitimacy to their sexual perversion.

Ah, and back to mixing up love and commitment between two adults and sex. Trying to equate the two will always fail. But of course, as you are do disgusted, certainly never, EVER, in your life did you get a rise out of to ladies 'getting it on', right? Because that would mean you are ok with what suits you, and merely 'disgusted' by the rest… there is a term for that.

I'LL NEVER RECOGNISE AND EMBRACE SUCH PERVERTED PEOPLE AS NORMAL.

Never fear, those that are not bigots will never recognize or embrace those who are bigots.

fj1200

11-15-2013, 08:09 AM

I'm sure many thought the same about those 'black' people at one point. BTW, what tranquility and rights of yours is destroyed by two adults being married that you simply find disgusting and wish were merely repressed?

Since you're on the ignore list. :poke:

I disagree , what we have to weigh is the balance between destroying the tranquility and rights of the majority against the wishes of a small minority. All the government benefits can be passed to gays in a law on gay domestic partnerships without the gays taking over and destroying the reputation and meaning of the word marriage! The gays had to have the word--the word (marriage)...

How is your "tranquility" being destroyed and what rights of yours are being destroyed. And on the other point it's "the word" that determines how benefits are doled out by government fiat. I'm also not surprised that gays don't want their relationship being reduced to the level of a business partnership.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-15-2013, 08:24 AM

Since you're on the ignore list. :poke:. I do believe that my replies were to Jeff and Logroller addressing their comments on this subject. I've not made a single reply to any person on my ignore list since they were placed there. Those on my ignore list will not get a single word reply from me about any crap they post. Not sure were your statement comes from on that... unless it was aimed at other members. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-15-2013, 08:32 AM

How is your "tranquility" being destroyed and what rights of yours are being destroyed. And on the other point it's "the word" that determines how benefits are doled out by government fiat. I'm also not surprised that gays don't want their relationship being reduced to the level of a business partnership. You are mixing up what people --WANT- with rights. They do not need to have the --word-- if the benefits bestowed by government are their "rights" that are being denied. The government can give those benefits without having the word included. They demand the --word-- to gain legitimacy , just as I've pointed out before. So stop trying to use this denied rights bit. Its utter crap IMHO. THEY CAN PASS A DAMN BILL RIGHT NOW SAYING ALL QUEERS GET ALL RIGHTS OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STRAIGHT COUPLES. Marriage doesn't have to be a part of it. That's our point and I give the reason they demand taking the word -marriage- you just refuse to accept reality on this IMHO.-Tyr

fj1200

11-15-2013, 08:43 AM

... unless it was aimed at other members. -Tyr

Yup, that part was aimed at someone else.

You are mixing up what people --WANT- with rights. They do not need to have the --word-- if the benefits bestowed by government are their "rights" that are being denied. The government can give those benefits without having the word included. They demand the --word-- to gain legitimacy , just as I've pointed out before. So stop trying to use this denied rights bit. Its utter crap IMHO. THEY CAN PASS A DAMN BILL RIGHT NOW SAYING ALL QUEERS GET ALL RIGHTS OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STRAIGHT COUPLES. Marriage doesn't have to be a part of it. That's our point and I give the reason they demand taking the word -marriage- you just refuse to accept reality on this IMHO.-Tyr

I'm pretty sure I haven't couched my argument on "rights" because it's a bogus argument IMO... on both sides. And BTW I'm not mixing up rights, I know what a right is vs benefits granted by government. Those benefits are being denied and they are being denied based on the word. You and I can start a march on DC to have the word stripped from the Federal Register, and the benefits too, and leave the definition to states or ideally a church. Even then you're still going to have gays get the word because there are churches that will marry them.

Jeff

11-15-2013, 08:45 AM

Wasn't marrying 11-13 year olds acceptable at one time? Like biblical times, meaning that is the 'tradition' of marriage. But I see everybody skipped by that whole biblical meaning of marriage vs modern day. Funny how when what was actually the 'tradition' is pointed out people quit talking about how those horrible gays are trying to destroy tradition.

But you are correct, at one point those with religious tendencies did all they could to outlaw homosexuality in any manner they could, the 'illegalization' of sodomy was one of those paths taken. Not quite up to par with Islam, but no doubt many wanted to get there.

I wonder how many of the people that are 'revolted' by gays, have rubbed one out to two girls going at it. Yeah, most likely, many of them. :laugh::laugh:

Arbo you type marrying 11 to 13 year old as though it is wrong but yet you protect the very people that due it as a norm ? :eek: As for your question on Lesbians well it all depends on whether they look the Butch type or the model type :laugh: seriously I agree with ya here .

Arbo

11-15-2013, 09:33 AM

Arbo you type marrying 11 to 13 year old as though it is wrong but yet you protect the very people that due it as a norm ?

Marrying someone 11-13 years old is not wrong? Huh?

Who is being protected? Unsure if you are suggesting gays marry children or something else. And I am protecting nobody, so that too is a bit confusing.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 09:34 AM

You are mixing up

No, he is not. It is noted you didn't even come close to answering his question. It really was a simple question.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-15-2013, 09:36 AM

Yup, that part was aimed at someone else.

I'm pretty sure I haven't couched my argument on "rights" because it's a bogus argument IMO... on both sides. And BTW I'm not mixing up rights, I know what a right is vs benefits granted by government. Those benefits are being denied and they are being denied based on the word. You and I can start a march on DC to have the word stripped from the Federal Register, and the benefits too, and leave the definition to states or ideally a church. Even then you're still going to have gays get the word because there are churches that will marry them. And those churches that do will suffer. Any true Christian will not remain in such a church. I'd welcome that as it exposes false churches led by lying jackals. On this topic dealing with Christian churches and gays the bible is clear. No true Christian church can embrace and condone this perversion and way of life. All that do are NOT worth spit IMHO. I GO ALONG WITH GOVERNMENT RETURNING MARRAIGE TO CHURCHES ONLY. Do not have a problem with that. -Tyr

Jeff

11-15-2013, 09:44 AM

Wasn't marrying 11-13 year olds acceptable at one time? Like biblical times, meaning that is the 'tradition' of marriage. But I see everybody skipped by that whole biblical meaning of marriage vs modern day. Funny how when what was actually the 'tradition' is pointed out people quit talking about how those horrible gays are trying to destroy tradition.

Marrying someone 11-13 years old is not wrong? Huh?
AAA you brought the children into it not me all I did was state the obvious
Who is being protected? Unsure if you are suggesting gays marry children or something else. And I am protecting nobody, so that too is a bit confusing.
I am not suggesting anything again it was you that brought this into the thread as for you not protecting anyone you may better check your actions because I as well as others see different .

.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 09:50 AM

Any true Christian

So a true christian doesn't tolerate homosexuals? Sort of like a true muslim?

AAA you brought the children into it not me all I did was state the obvious

Yes, people have mentioned the 'tradition' of marriage and how it will be 'destroyed'. So I mentioned (among other things) that part of the original tradition was marrying CHILDREN. Are those that are worried about the 'tradition' upset that at some point someone destroyed that biblical tradition? That someone dared redefine marriage?

I am not suggesting anything again it was you that brought this into the thread as for you not protecting anyone you may better check your actions because I as well as others see different .

Can you just say what you mean rather than bouncing around the edges?

Jeff

11-15-2013, 10:03 AM

So a true christian doesn't tolerate homosexuals? Sort of like a true muslim?

Yes, people have mentioned the 'tradition' of marriage and how it will be 'destroyed'. So I mentioned (among other things) that part of the original tradition was marrying CHILDREN. Are those that are worried about the 'tradition' upset that at some point someone destroyed that biblical tradition? That someone dared redefine marriage?

Can you just say what you mean rather than bouncing around the edges?

I said exactly what I meant in the first post it is you that is trying to get stupid with this, you brought it up on the side of it being a law that was wrong and I simply pointed out how funny it is that you think it was wrong there but yet protect those that think it is the norm , period end of story , seems simple enough to me , no need to go 3 more post a simple yes no or ignore was all that was needed but no you wanted to play games .

fj1200

11-15-2013, 10:04 AM

And those churches that do will suffer. Any true Christian will not remain in such a church.

I disagree but that is separate from what we want the government to do.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 10:25 AM

I said exactly what I meant in the first post it is you that is trying to get stupid with this, you brought it up on the side of it being a law that was wrong and I simply pointed out how funny it is that you think it was wrong there but yet protect those that think it is the norm , period end of story , seems simple enough to me , no need to go 3 more post a simple yes no or ignore was all that was needed but no you wanted to play games .

If you said what you meant, you didn't do so very clearly. As to protecting 'someone', you are incorrect. The only thing I am protecting or supporting is the Constitution.

No games on this end, I have been speaking (typing) clearly, you went off into some strange tangent of not directly saying what you are thinking.

Jeff

11-15-2013, 10:29 AM

Arbo you type marrying 11 to 13 year old as though it is wrong but yet you protect the very people that due it as a norm ? :eek: As for your question on Lesbians well it all depends on whether they look the Butch type or the model type :laugh: seriously I agree with ya here .

If you said what you meant, you didn't do so very clearly. As to protecting 'someone', you are incorrect. The only thing I am protecting or supporting is the Constitution.

No games on this end, I have been speaking (typing) clearly, you went off into some strange tangent of not directly saying what you are thinking.

Looks pretty straight forward to me :dunno:

Arbo

11-15-2013, 10:41 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-15-2013, 10:50 AM

I disagree but that is separate from what we want the government to do. Sure its separate but it solves the marriage debate if its based upon the government benefits not being given them. Government can by law bestow those benefits outside of marriage. The word marriage has been claimed by the gays to gain greater acceptance and legitimacy. They want to join in to establish their perversion as a norm. They do this by getting government to sanction it by allowing marriage to cover what they are and their living together to engage in their perversion. Government does this and it just sanction their lifestyle as a norm in marriage. We that want our children to be protected from that damn falsehood demand government not do this. We are the freaking majority demanding that a sexual perversion not be made legitimate by its inclusion into government controlled/sanctioned marriage. So simple yet so often denied and castigated as hate and bias. -Tyr

fj1200

11-15-2013, 11:11 AM

Sure its separate but it solves the marriage debate if its based upon the government benefits not being given them. Government can by law bestow those benefits outside of marriage. The word marriage has been claimed by the gays to gain greater acceptance and legitimacy. They want to join in to establish their perversion as a norm. They do this by getting government to sanction it by allowing marriage to cover what they are and their living together to engage in their perversion. Government does this and it just sanction their lifestyle as a norm in marriage. We that want our children to be protected from that damn falsehood demand government not do this. We are the freaking majority demanding that a sexual perversion not be made legitimate by its inclusion into government controlled/sanctioned marriage. So simple yet so often denied and castigated as hate and bias. -Tyr

That last part clearly is bias because we all have our own built in biases.

And if I understand your first statement properly the only way that it solves the marriage debate is if government removes itself from granting marriage based benefits??? I agree with that.

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 11:51 AM

I wonder how many of the people that are 'revolted' by gays, have rubbed one out to two girls going at it. Yeah, most likely, many of them. :laugh::laugh:

A man enjoying 2 hot naked women together doesn't mean they accept homosexuality. Mostly it means they like to see those women naked and wishing they were the oreo to their cookies. And while I'll admit to liking to see them naked, it doesn't do THAT much for me. And while one can enjoy their bodies, that doesn't mean that at the end of the day they agree with their lifestyles.

I completely disagree with the lifestyle of porn stars. I could NEVER be with someone like that. BUT, I sure don't mind taking a peek here and there!

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 11:53 AM

Those laws were found unconstitutional in lawrence v texas (1986)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Can still be upheld within the military in certain cases though. Just sayin' :)

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 11:55 AM

And those churches that do will suffer. Any true Christian will not remain in such a church. I'd welcome that as it exposes false churches led by lying jackals. On this topic dealing with Christian churches and gays the bible is clear. No true Christian church can embrace and condone this perversion and way of life. All that do are NOT worth spit IMHO. I GO ALONG WITH GOVERNMENT RETURNING MARRAIGE TO CHURCHES ONLY. Do not have a problem with that. -Tyr

If my church started marrying gay folk, I would cease going there immediately and find myself another church. I also agree that marriage being left to the churches, and out of the governments hands, would be a great idea.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 01:24 PM

A man enjoying 2 hot naked women together doesn't mean they accept homosexuality.

It just shows the hypocrisy of the 'what gays do is disgusting' argument.

Jeff

11-15-2013, 04:21 PM

"Arbo you type marrying 11 to 13 year old as though it is wrong but yet you protect the very people that due it as a norm ?"

Of course marrying children is wrong, do you think it is not? WHO does it 'as a norm'?

Silly question Arbo , you trying to be clever again :laugh: you know dam well who practices it on the Norm and you have been defending them for at least a month now .

aboutime

11-15-2013, 04:25 PM

Silly question Arbo , you trying to be clever again :laugh: you know dam well who practices it on the Norm and you have been defending them for at least a month now .

Jeff. It appears someone you were addressing has some SKIN in the Game. Being so clever, and defensive about the topic. And we're expected to just look the other way??

Arbo

11-15-2013, 04:46 PM

Silly question Arbo , you trying to be clever again :laugh: you know dam well who practices it on the Norm and you have been defending them for at least a month now .

No, I have no idea what or who you are talking about. But a reasonable adult would have just come out and said it by now. If you want to keep playing games, do it without me. Or you can simply say who normally marries kids that age that I have defended, and show where this is the case.

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 05:01 PM

No, I have no idea what or who you are talking about. But a reasonable adult would have just come out and said it by now. If you want to keep playing games, do it without me. Or you can simply say who normally marries kids that age that I have defended, and show where this is the case.

I'm assuming he is pointing out your defense of Muslims, or offense against those you think condemn it too much. There are far too many Muslim areas that still marry off their children at young ages.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 05:06 PM

I'm assuming he is pointing out your defense of Muslims, or offense against those you think condemn it too much. There are far too many Muslim areas that still marry off their children at young ages.

If that's what he meant, why not say it? Of course, I haven't defended muslims, other than to say that with the billions of them out there, they can't all be bad or we'd all be dead or conquered by now. And what do muslims have to do with this thread?

The only 'religion' brought into it was christianity/catholicism via the Bible and what 'traditional' marriage meant. Considering that is where most that speak of 'tradition' get their belief, it seems appropriate to point out how much the definition has changed from the original tradition already.

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 05:10 PM

It just shows the hypocrisy of the 'what gays do is disgusting' argument.

It doesn't make the homosexual acts any less disgusting as a whole, nor make one a hypocrite. It simply means that men will enjoy watching beautiful women and the dream that they can somehow get involved. Them enjoying a naked woman, even with another woman, is not an endorsement for the gay lifestyle. Maybe it should be reworded, that "what gays do is disgusting 99.9999% of the time, but much more appealing in the dream world when the .00001% of 2 model type lesbians get together".

Jeff

11-15-2013, 05:14 PM

Looks pretty straight forward to me :dunno:

"Arbo you type marrying 11 to 13 year old as though it is wrong but yet you protect the very people that due it as a norm ?"

Of course marrying children is wrong, do you think it is not? WHO does it 'as a norm'?

No, I have no idea what or who you are talking about. But a reasonable adult would have just come out and said it by now. If you want to keep playing games, do it without me. Or you can simply say who normally marries kids that age that I have defended, and show where this is the case.

I'm assuming he is pointing out your defense of Muslims, or offense against those you think condemn it too much. There are far too many Muslim areas that still marry off their children at young ages.

Jim he has been acting the fool all day long, or trying to be clever ( not real sure :eek:) but as you can see it is rather self explanatory but yet I am unreasonable one :laugh: looks like if someone decided they where going to be the great white hope for all Muslims then they would understand this easily , Now Arbo your next post will be for me to prove it :laugh: well lets me help ya hear just look at the cage or pretty much any other one of your post and you will see it but then again if you where just trying to argue with certain members on here I guess you would forget about all the pro Muslim post and the fact that if there is more than one post about Muslims you and the other two musketeers go to whining . Difference is one of the 3 knows what time it is and is just looking for a good debate and the other is believing everything he says ( and I respect that , no not believe it but respect it ) as for you just wanting to stir the pot , naaa not to much respect for that so yes I have to wonder once more why a man that protects a religion where so many believe child molestation is OK would ever post it isn't .

jimnyc

11-15-2013, 05:15 PM

And what do muslims have to do with this thread?

Simple. You pointed out that marriage between an 11-13 year olds would be a bad thing. I assume those that have criticized this early marriage within Islam haven't seen you do the same. Jeff's comparison is what brought Islam to this thread I assume. Hell, and you were speaking of history while the other is current times.

Anyway, I only gave my 2 cents here to clear up the lack of communication here. I have no intent on debating the whole Islam thing. All "I" would say on the matter is that early age marriages like that are bad no matter who does it, and they should be equally condemned.

aboutime

11-15-2013, 05:16 PM

It doesn't make the homosexual acts any less disgusting as a whole, nor make one a hypocrite. It simply means that men will enjoy watching beautiful women and the dream that they can somehow get involved. Them enjoying a naked woman, even with another woman, is not an endorsement for the gay lifestyle. Maybe it should be reworded, that "what gays do is disgusting 99.9999% of the time, but much more appealing in the dream world when the .00001% of 2 model type lesbians get together".

Jim. As we have been shown today. Defending what gays do, and trying to convince others their acts are anything but....disgusting. Seems to re-enforce the hypocrisy they are trying to disguise. And, as I see it. Doing so..in defending the actions of gays. That is another method being used, much like accusing someone of being a racist...for daring to speak about it. So, likewise. When any of us announce our disgust of gay actions. We become the anti-homosexual/racists. And the conversation is instantly ENDED.

Jeff

11-15-2013, 05:25 PM

Simple. You pointed out that marriage between an 11-13 year olds would be a bad thing. I assume those that have criticized this early marriage within Islam haven't seen you do the same. Jeff's comparison is what brought Islam to this thread I assume. Hell, and you were speaking of history while the other is current times.

Anyway, I only gave my 2 cents here to clear up the lack of communication here. I have no intent on debating the whole Islam thing. All "I" would say on the matter is that early age marriages like that are bad no matter who does it, and they should be equally condemned.

Jim the third Amigo is trying to reel ya into his nitwit game :laugh: Well I will give him the benefit of the doubt maybe Arbo isn't as smart as he think because everyone else caught on right away :laugh: so we are down to either he is playing nit wit games or isn't very bright either way it says ton's for his holier than thou attitude to say the least.

Arbo

11-15-2013, 05:33 PM

Simple. You pointed out that marriage between an 11-13 year olds would be a bad thing. I assume those that have criticized this early marriage within Islam haven't seen you do the same

Yeah, as I said, I pointed that out due to the line of 'they are going to destroy the tradition of marriage' BS. Also pointed out that if a husband died before having children it was his brothers job to marry his widow so she would bare children. These are items that have been 'redefined' out of marriage. So for people to whine about a 'redefinition' is quite silly, and for them to claim they believe in 'traditional' marriage is to show ignorance of history.

I have never ever said that marrying a kid is a good thing or acceptable, religion doesn't matter, so if that is what he was trying to put forth, it was a failure. I condemn it at all times. I think he is just trying to yet again divert from the uncomfortable reality of what has been pointed out.

All "I" would say on the matter is that early age marriages like that are bad no matter who does it, and they should be equally condemned.

Agreed 110%.

Jeff

11-15-2013, 05:49 PM

I have never ever said that marrying a kid is a good thing or acceptable, religion doesn't matter, so if that is what he was trying to put forth, it was a failure. I condemn it at all times. I think he is just trying to yet again divert from the uncomfortable reality of what has been pointed out.

To all those that Arbo likes to attack no matter here or the cage remember this when he tells us how good the Muslims are and how wrong we are , he now confesses he don't agree with child molestation ( personally I figured you wouldn't be to hip with it you seem much brighter than that Arbo) but with you rushing to argue anything a certain few post and always taking the side of the Muslims ( even when it is a post of one of them hooking up with a baby ) You remember how proud y'all where when in the one post the baby that was raped wasn't killed just raped and y'all where so excited , that kind of thing makes one wonder . But I am glad we got that straight , so I assuming you don't like them bombing and killing innocents and ya don't like them raping babies , I am going to jump out on the limb here and guess the be headings are out as well ? Well your post over the last month just went out the door, guess you will have to find another band wagon to jump on .

Arbo

11-15-2013, 07:28 PM

Jeff, let me know when you have something of substance to post, rather than the trolling assumptions and claims.

Jeff

11-16-2013, 05:42 AM

Jeff, let me know when you have something of substance to post, rather than the trolling assumptions and claims.

Seems yesterday someone had to step in and explain to you what a troll is, I understand you think you are so much smarter than anyone else but all I see is a scared little twit hiding behind a key board ( yes you showed your true manhood when ya told us how scared life makes ya ) Arbo there have been many that came and went with a attitude just like yours , so as I said play the game , think you are clever but if you have anyone even reading your post any longer they see you for who you are. As for me having anything to say to you , honestly I don't think I would piss on ya if you where on fire ( Sorry man I try to get along with all but people that believe they are better than others , naaa I don't have much use for trash like y'all ) So as for anything of substance don't hold your breath.

Arbo

11-16-2013, 08:45 AM

Seems yesterday someone had to step in and explain to you what a troll is, I understand you think you are so much smarter than anyone else but all I see is a scared little twit hiding behind a key board ( yes you showed your true manhood when ya told us how scared life makes ya ) Arbo there have been many that came and went with a attitude just like yours , so as I said play the game , think you are clever but if you have anyone even reading your post any longer they see you for who you are. As for me having anything to say to you , honestly I don't think I would piss on ya if you where on fire ( Sorry man I try to get along with all but people that believe they are better than others , naaa I don't have much use for trash like y'all ) So as for anything of substance don't hold your breath.

As I have said before, I will ignore your trolling. It is obvious you are just doing it to pick a fight for some reason. I get lectures for such things… no doubt you have seen them. Have a great day, please let me know when you quit making things up and have something to add to the topic we were discussing before you decided to jack up the thread.

Jeff

11-16-2013, 09:10 AM

As I have said before, I will ignore your trolling. It is obvious you are just doing it to pick a fight for some reason. I get lectures for such things… no doubt you have seen them. Have a great day, please let me know when you quit making things up and have something to add to the topic we were discussing before you decided to jack up the thread.

Ignoring with a explanation :laugh: no matter who or how many try to teach ya you still do it, Ignoring means not responding as for trolling I will let you try and look for the definition you where giving yesterday as for making stuff up not at all , all one has to do is reread threads to see I am exactly right !!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-16-2013, 01:27 PM

If my church started marrying gay folk, I would cease going there immediately and find myself another church. I also agree that marriage being left to the churches, and out of the governments hands, would be a great idea. Whenever I've been invited by anybody to attend the service at a new church I always ask about the type of church it is. And in the questioning I always bring up the subject of gays in church and are there any practicing gays allowed in that church. When they say yes and we welcome them I reply this, So your church welcomes in that which the Bible soundly condemns and you want me to visit that place. Not on your life brother and I suggest that you reevaluate your attendance there while doing a little research on Sodom and Gomorrah. And kindly never invite me to embrace such a perversion ever again. Those that cry about me citing why I so strongly oppose homosexuality can go jump in a damn lake. Our Bible teaches that two entire cities were wiped from the face of the earth for having embraced that abomination! If I could not cite my reasons for my views on any subject I address I wouldn't be here or at any other forum. I suspect many here feel that way as well. Luckily the ever present complainers attempting to censor their opponent's post and instruct their opponents on how they should reply have no authority here. Another reason this forum rates far and above the other political discussion forums, its design, moderating and amount of free speech allowed. --Tyr

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19
Genesis 19

New International Version (NIV)
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords,[b] please! 19 Your[c] servant has found favor in your[d] eyes, and you[e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”

21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.[f])

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived

logroller

11-16-2013, 09:41 PM

Whenever I've been invited by anybody to attend the service at a new church I always ask about the type of church it is. And in the questioning I always bring up the subject of gays in church and are there any practicing gays allowed in that church. When they say yes and we welcome them I reply this, So your church welcomes in that which the Bible soundly condemns and you want me to visit that place. Not on your life brother and I suggest that you reevaluate your attendance there while doing a little research on Sodom and Gomorrah. And kindly never invite me to embrace such a perversion ever again. Those that cry about me citing why I so strongly oppose homosexuality can go jump in a damn lake. Our Bible teaches that two entire cities were wiped from the face of the earth for having embraced that abomination! If I could not cite my reasons for my views on any subject I address I wouldn't be here or at any other forum. I suspect many here feel that way as well. Luckily the ever present complainers attempting to censor their opponent's post and instruct their opponents on how they should reply have no authority here. Another reason this forum rates far and above the other political discussion forums, its design, moderating and amount of free speech allowed. --Tyr

One can embrace the sinner and reject the sinning. I've never been to a church that didnt welcome sinners. A pastor once explained it as this, just as a hospital is a place of physical healing, a church is a place for spiritual healing-- are you ever too sick to go to the hospital?

tailfins

11-16-2013, 09:54 PM

If my church started marrying gay folk, I would cease going there immediately and find myself another church. I also agree that marriage being left to the churches, and out of the governments hands, would be a great idea.

Let me save you some trouble. You can rest assured none of these Churches will tolerate the homosexual lifestyle:

http://bbfi.org/

I don't think I have EVER seen a King-James-Only Baptist Church even come close to condoning homosexuality.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-16-2013, 11:08 PM

One can embrace the sinner and reject the sinning. I've never been to a church that didnt welcome sinners. A pastor once explained it as this, just as a hospital is a place of physical healing, a church is a place for spiritual healing-- are you ever too sick to go to the hospital? There is a reason the word---practicing--- is in that comment.
And in the questioning I always bring up the subject of gays in church and are there any practicing gays allowed in that church.
http://www.gospelway.com/teaching/church_discipline.php Part I: God's View of the Need for Discipline/Chastisement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. God Sets an Example of Using Discipline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some say that punishing sin contradicts God’s nature. But just the opposite is true. God is love, but God is also just and righteous [Psalms 89:14]. He wishes His people to be saved, yet He cannot ignore sin. His nature requires sin to be punished. His may be longsuffering and delay punishment, but erring children who do not repent will eventually be punished [2 Peter 3:9].

A. Statements that God Believes in Discipline/Chastisement

Proverbs 3:11,12 — Don’t despise God’s chastening and reproof. He reproves those whom He loves, just as a father does his children. Such acts are not contrary to love, but are an expression of love because they are done for man’s good.

Hebrews 12:5-11 — God chastens those whom He loves like earthly fathers chasten their children. This is for our profit, that we might partake of His holiness (v10), and might yield fruits of righteousness (v11). It also causes us to respect the one who chastises us (v9). (NASB and NIV use “discipline” instead of “chasten.”)

Revelation 3:19 — Jesus warned the church of Laodicea that He reproves and chastens those whom He loves. “Chasten” means “discipline” (NASB, NIV, NKJV footnote). It is defined: “to chasten by the infliction of evils and calamities” (Grimm-Wilke-Thayer); “discipline with punishment” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich), “to inflict suffering upon for purposes of moral improvement” (Random House College Dictionary).

Romans 11:22 — Behold the goodness and severity of God: severity to those who fall, goodness to those who continue in His goodness.

God loves His people, but this does not mean He will not punish us for sin. His love requires Him to work to motivate our repentance, but His justice and righteousness still require Him to punish those who sin.

[See also Deuteronomy 8:5; 28:15-68; Psalms 94:10-12; 119:75; 118:18; Leviticus 26:14-45; 1 Corinthians 11:32; John 15:1-6.]
Any church that takes in homosexual couples that are engaged in that activity are not following Christ. Neither the bible nor Jesus taught to embrace sin and permit an active sinner to remain in church . Would they permit an active rapist to be a member or an active murderer or a active child molester? Churches are charged with maintaining a place of worship not a boarding house. If a church invites in a gay couple then allows that couple to become members and doesn't require the gay activity to cease then it's not a Christian church. No different than if a man molesting kids should be allowed to stay while doing so ... Christian churches do not get the authority to declare sins no longer sins ! To be politically correct and negate responsibility for opposing systematic sins engaged in by "certain special members" in the membership. Churches do not have the authority to refute the teachings of the bible.--Tyr

fj1200

11-18-2013, 02:13 PM

aboutime

11-18-2013, 02:16 PM

Do you then ask if there are any practicing fornicators allowed in that church?

fj. No need to ask about you being allowed in the church. Unless...you claim to be the Immaculate Miss-conception...like Obama.

Maybe you'd like to tell us HOW you managed to get here, being born...that is, if nobody you know fornicated.?

logroller

11-18-2013, 02:30 PM

fj. No need to ask about you being allowed in the church. Unless...you claim to be the Immaculate Miss-conception...like Obama.

Maybe you'd like to tell us HOW you managed to get here, being born...that is, if nobody you know fornicated.?
Fornication generally refers to unwed partners.

aboutime

11-18-2013, 02:39 PM

Fornication generally refers to unwed partners.

Really? Okay logroller. Would you care to explain to us HOW your parents managed to create you?

Were they unwed?

logroller

11-18-2013, 05:28 PM

Really? Okay logroller. Would you care to explain to us HOW your parents managed to create you?

Were they unwed?
Not that its any of your business but I was conceived in wedlock; I, like most decent folk don't probe into other people's sex lives, let alone that of their parents. If at your age you're still asking how babies are made i suspect you'd be better served focusing on which shoe goes on which foot.

Bottom line-- Sex between a husband and wife is not fornication.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-18-2013, 05:40 PM

Not that its any of your business but I was conceived in wedlock; I, like most decent folk don't probe into other people's sex lives, let alone that of their parents. If at your age you're still asking how babies are made i suspect you'd be better served focusing on which shoe goes on which foot.

Bottom line-- Sex between a husband and wife is not fornication.

Bottom line-- Sex between a husband and wife is not fornication. Dead on the money there logroller. I was born to a man and wife and my parents had no children out of wedlock. On another note, in answer to fj's question-- many churches will require a couple living together to be married if they choose to become members of that church. Those churches can and will tolerate attendance at the church for such a couple for a certain amount of time but eventually that couple is approached about either joining as a married couple or not attending. I've seen it happen before and knew the people it happened to. True Christian churches can not allow a current state of sin to exist and not eventually be opposed. To do so would be sanctioning it as correct behavior and not a sin! These new churches that are assuming authority to refute sin the bible clearly indicates are all false churches. I wouldn't step foot inside one of them ever. I pity the people that do.--Tyr

fj1200

11-18-2013, 06:14 PM

Not that its any of your business ...

Isn't there some rule about family members? :confused:

aboutime

11-18-2013, 06:15 PM

fj1200

11-18-2013, 06:22 PM

... in answer to fj's question-- many churches will require a couple living together to be married if they choose to become members of that church.

So those churches allow sin and you don't go?

logroller

11-18-2013, 09:21 PM

If you say so. Now, for your own pleasure. Will you kindly explain what fornication is for the rest of us at my age?
it appears the shoe is on the other foot.

... Do you ever bother to check anything out before you post it?

Read the link: ...

Fornication typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other.
www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=fornication

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-18-2013, 09:52 PM

it appears the shoe is on the other foot.
www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=fornication I firmly believe that my answer to you and comment about your reply should have settled any questions. If others would just read it perhaps some questions will have been answered already. I am no great wordsmith but I do have a firm grasp on some few things . I'll happily tell anybody that asks that my mother and father were married when all their 13 children were born but certainly will not appreciate being asked. As its kinda rude and I believe that nobody here has a right to ask. Such a one ofer shouldn't be continued if the questioned party answers and then drops it. I myself have made a mistake that is too late to recall before(haven't we al at one time or another) but you can bet your last penny I saw it and did not continue. A snark is never improved by compounding the original error IMHO. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-18-2013, 09:59 PM

So those churches allow sin and you don't go? Churches have to allow sinners in! They do not have to and are charged not to allow a continued state of sin to dwell in their midst. For doing such sanctions it as not a sin. Churches are to strive to be as pure as was the Saviour with the sure and certain knowledge while here in the flesh man always falls short but in the spirit of Christ a saved soul has the blessing of forgiveness and salvation. Certainly I would never attend a church that chose to declare as not a sin that which the bible so clearly declares to be so! To allow a continued state of sin in the church and sanction it by inaction clearly reveals something extremely amiss in that church's leadership. Why go to a church that has chosen to walk down a wrong path? Others may do so to their peril but I was taught to not follow the sheep off of the high cliff. Tis' why God put that gray matter between my ears. ;)--Tyr

Arbo

11-18-2013, 10:02 PM

Are people actually expecting others to believe they didn't know 'fornicator!' is a word meant for those having sex that are not married? Seriously? How can one claim to follow any religion and NOT know that? It is either brazen ignorance or an outright lie that they didn't know that.

logroller

11-19-2013, 12:57 AM

I firmly believe that my answer to you and comment about your reply should have settled any questions. If others would just read it perhaps some questions will have been answered already. I am no great wordsmith but I do have a firm grasp on some few things . I'll happily tell anybody that asks that my mother and father were married when all their 13 children were born but certainly will not appreciate being asked. As its kinda rude and I believe that nobody here has a right to ask. Such a one ofer shouldn't be continued if the questioned party answers and then drops it. I myself have made a mistake that is too late to recall before(haven't we al at one time or another) but you can bet your last penny I saw it and did not continue. A snark is never improved by compounding the original error IMHO. -Tyr
I firmly believe my previous comment regarding fornication stood on its own, not leaving any dispute to then be settled; but thanks for your support.

Btw, as this is the second thread in the past month that AT has made inference to my parentage, i don't see it as a 'one ofer'. Before (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43650-Obama-wants-Marines-to-wear-%91girly%92-hats&p=671393#post671393), I cautioned him that it was a mistake to do so; yet here in this thread, again he commits such folly-- so I'm not inclined to leniency in my repost.

fj1200

11-19-2013, 08:20 AM

Churches have to allow sinners in! They do not have to and are charged not to allow a continued state of sin to dwell in their midst. For doing such sanctions it as not a sin. Churches are to strive to be as pure as was the Saviour with the sure and certain knowledge while here in the flesh man always falls short but in the spirit of Christ a saved soul has the blessing of forgiveness and salvation. Certainly I would never attend a church that chose to declare as not a sin that which the bible so clearly declares to be so! To allow a continued state of sin in the church and sanction it by inaction clearly reveals something extremely amiss in that church's leadership. Why go to a church that has chosen to walk down a wrong path? Others may do so to their peril but I was taught to not follow the sheep off of the high cliff. Tis' why God put that gray matter between my ears. ;)--Tyr

So you don't go to a church unless fornicators are told to not come back until married or the fornication has ceased?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-19-2013, 10:38 AM

So you don't go to a church unless fornicators are told to not come back until married or the fornication has ceased? Stop being so clever . I do not attend churches that allow unmarried cohabitating couples to be members which certainly includes gays. Of course what people do in private can not be known in church unless they tell of it but gays and unmarried straight couples living together are usually easier to be known and thus that continued sin would have to be addressed. I in my time lived with 7 different women I was not married too but never tried to take any of them to church. I have been a member of a church as a single man and as a married man. Only attended with a lady if that lady was my wife. Its called respect and understanding ........errrrr look it up. ;) Would anybody(decent person) take a hooker(paid escort) to a family member's birthday party? Respect says they would not.. --Tyr

Larrymc

11-19-2013, 11:05 AM

You might be able to make an argument for people being outraged over something like this when it perhaps isn't something worthy of being outraged over. With that said, save the "homophobia" term meant to vilify those against homosexuality. I don't know of anyone myself that has any type of fear over homosexuality or gay marriage. There is no fear here, only disgust, disagreement and differences. Twisting a term like this to suit ones own agenda was wrong and transparent on day one and remains so today.

You can call me "anti gay marriage" maybe. Or one who disagrees with homosexuality. But you would be wrong if you stated or implied that there was any type of fear at all involved. Using terms like that is like when liberals refer to those in the tea party as "teabaggers". It's a label only meant to degrade the opponent or person who disagrees.Jim There's nothing ligament our traditional about Homosexuality, that's why they have to make up phobias and names for their Opposition old enough to know the Deviance of their behavior and try to indoctrinate the younger generation. Making it plan that they know this, other wise there would be, no reason to fight so hard for ligament recognition, as it would already be accepted by society, like protection from violence and abuse, no one has a problem with that.

Arbo

11-19-2013, 11:30 AM

I in my time lived with 7 different women I was not married too but never tried to take any of them to church. I have been a member of a church as a single man and as a married man. Only attended with a lady if that lady was my wife. Its called respect and understanding ........

So someone can live with someone and be a 'sinner', and it's ok for them to go to church as long as they don't bring the person they 'sinned' with? That seems a bit odd.

jimnyc

11-19-2013, 12:13 PM

I firmly believe my previous comment regarding fornication stood on its own, not leaving any dispute to then be settled; but thanks for your support.

Btw, as this is the second thread in the past month that AT has made inference to my parentage, i don't see it as a 'one ofer'. Before (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43650-Obama-wants-Marines-to-wear-%91girly%92-hats&p=671393#post671393), I cautioned him that it was a mistake to do so; yet here in this thread, again he commits such folly-- so I'm not inclined to leniency in my repost.0

Well said. I'd hate to think at this point that any staff member, or any regular member, would need to deal with references to their parents, or anything similar. Log is man enough to handle his own and what he expects and how much he'll handle. I'll say my part - that better be the end of it. Let's just move forward and not even discuss it again after my post. All friends and all is good. :)

fj1200

11-19-2013, 12:56 PM

Stop being so clever . I do not attend churches that allow unmarried cohabitating couples to be members which certainly includes gays. Of course what people do in private can not be known in church unless they tell of it but gays and unmarried straight couples living together are usually easier to be known and thus that continued sin would have to be addressed. I in my time lived with 7 different women I was not married too but never tried to take any of them to church. I have been a member of a church as a single man and as a married man. Only attended with a lady if that lady was my wife. Its called respect and understanding ........errrrr look it up. ;) Would anybody(decent person) take a hooker(paid escort) to a family member's birthday party? Respect says they would not.. --Tyr

It's not a matter of clever, it's a matter of being consistent. Sin is sin right? I'm also not sure the logic of cohabiting, and presumably fornicating, but not taking them to church. :confused: I think there's a word for that too ....... ;) BTW, you're suggesting that a decent person can engage the services of a paid escort but just shouldn't take them to a family member's birthday party. :eek:

Nevertheless I'm disagreeing with the whole sin aspect anyway.

Jeff

11-19-2013, 02:53 PM

Stop being so clever . I do not attend churches that allow unmarried cohabitating couples to be members which certainly includes gays. Of course what people do in private can not be known in church unless they tell of it but gays and unmarried straight couples living together are usually easier to be known and thus that continued sin would have to be addressed. I in my time lived with 7 different women I was not married too but never tried to take any of them to church. I have been a member of a church as a single man and as a married man. Only attended with a lady if that lady was my wife. Its called respect and understanding ........errrrr look it up. ;) Would anybody(decent person) take a hooker(paid escort) to a family member's birthday party? Respect says they would not.. --Tyr

Tyr Liberals do think they are very clever but no they don't have any respect or understanding :laugh::laugh:

fj1200

11-19-2013, 02:58 PM

:dunno:

Jeff

11-19-2013, 03:08 PM

:dunno:

I was kidding FJ do to the recent board chat , I was going to explain it but thought you would know I was kidding

fj1200

11-19-2013, 05:13 PM

I was kidding FJ do to the recent board chat , I was going to explain it but thought you would know I was kidding

:whew: :laugh:

Jeff

11-19-2013, 05:15 PM

:whew: :laugh:

Although ??? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

fj1200

11-19-2013, 05:19 PM

Although ??? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

This reminds me of an inside joke with a friend of mine in MI. One day years ago we were watching the Frugal Gourmet with Jeff Smith and he had Elmo, yes from Sesame Street, on as a guest cook and Elmo would repeatedly say, "reaaaallllly Mr. Jeff," to which I paraphrased to, "You're F*ing with me Mr. Jeff."

I think the phrase works again here. :laugh:

Larrymc

11-19-2013, 06:11 PM

Not only are children more tolerant than you, they are more intelligent. How civil of you to suggest todays youth are not 'decent' human beings. Real classy. Thankfully ignorant dinosaurs like yourself won't be around much longer.

The world won't miss such people when gone.

You serious are part of the problem in this world… you are just like Islamists and Communists that stand against gay's. Not a bit of difference. Yes, you are just like those you hate. I irony is indeed sweet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJxnYgP6D8 Indoctrination at work, does anyone at this age expect them to realize the sexual aspects of a Gay relationship,Of course its ok to be friends with same sex, and even love them, but im sure the point is that they have planted a seed,

Arbo

11-19-2013, 07:38 PM

Indoctrination at work, does anyone at this age expect them to realize the sexual aspects of a Gay relationship,Of course its ok to be friends with same sex, and even love them, but im sure the point is that they have planted a seed,

Except it would have to be a choice for a seed to grow…. of course, it's not. Though some that are ignorant of biology keep putting forth that myth.

Larrymc

11-19-2013, 07:47 PM

Except it would have to be a choice for a seed to grow…. of course, it's not. Though some that are ignorant of biology keep putting forth that myth.Really so Biology has dispelled the Myth do tell, im sure the would is waiting.

logroller

11-20-2013, 02:58 AM

Really so Biology has dispelled the Myth do tell, im sure the would is waiting.
Sexual preference to a given sex isn't a choice any more than preferring blondes to brunettes. Were you sitting there at puberty thinking, hmmmm, do i find girls more attractive than guys or did you just realize it without thinking?

I could name you a dozen beautiful young women that reinforced my preferences growing up but my predilection towards certain traits is as much a part of who I am as sleeping on my left side on the right side of the bed. I just do; thats what i prefer. There's no conscious control over that. I've tried sleeping on my back and i can do it but i still prefer to sleep on my side. I don't know if its biological or not; whether theres a side-sleeper gene or some such; but i know i don't choose to based upon that which I've been exposed.

tailfins

11-20-2013, 06:37 AM

So you don't go to a church unless fornicators are told to not come back until married or the fornication has ceased?

The churches I have been part of welcomes such people as attendees, but they would never hold any official position in the church. Fundamental KJV-Only Baptist churches don't allow even divorced people to be a deacon nor a pastor.

fj1200

11-20-2013, 07:53 AM

The churches I have been part of welcomes such people as attendees, but they would never hold any official position in the church. Fundamental KJV-Only Baptist churches don't allow even divorced people to be a deacon nor a pastor.

A friend in Sunday School this past week was asked where he was 50 years ago on November whatever and he said he remembered specifically because his fundamentalist Baptist preacher yelled "hallelujah" when he heard the Catholic President had been shot. I'm sure that's what Jesus had in mind. :rolleyes:

BTW did Jesus and the early Christians speak in the King's English?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-20-2013, 07:59 AM

Larrymc

11-20-2013, 08:40 AM

Sexual preference to a given sex isn't a choice any more than preferring blondes to brunettes. Were you sitting there at puberty thinking, hmmmm, do i find girls more attractive than guys or did you just realize it without thinking?

I could name you a dozen beautiful young women that reinforced my preferences growing up but my predilection towards certain traits is as much a part of who I am as sleeping on my left side on the right side of the bed. I just do; that's what i prefer. There's no conscious control over that. I've tried sleeping on my back and i can do it but i still prefer to sleep on my side. I don't know if its biological or not; whether theres a side-sleeper gene or some such; but i know i don't choose to based upon that which I've been exposed.Sorry Log, I just don't accept that its as natural as hair color, we live in such a sexual society that it quickly becomes boring, and even Heterosexual sodomy is popular, but never the less wrong, Same sex attraction has been around sense Biblical times so we know that man can be tempted by such Deviant behavior but its still a perversion, no different from Pedophilia, Incest, Bestiality, Its like Infidelity, when we marry we're not suppose to have sex with others, but of course we can still be tempted to do it. I don't claim to not by a sinner in fact i have my struggles with sin, and have thought i wish i could dismiss the Bible and God, it would make life so easy, but i can't deny what i know. but if you have no such vice, or limitations, and no intentions of changing it, then by all means enjoy life, on this side of eternity, Because the Christian life is not easy. I don't Judge a homosexual any more than i judge someone who cheats on there spouse, but if one wants to argue as to weather its right or wrong, than i would tell them what i believe and why, after that its on them, to decide whats right for them, Now this is my opinion based on Biblical teaching, but if you have no concerns for Biblical teaching, or belief in God, then im sure it will come across as none sense.

fj1200

11-20-2013, 09:44 AM

... its still a perversion, no different from Pedophilia, Incest, Bestiality, Its like Infidelity, when we marry we're not suppose to have sex with others...

No, it's really nothing like those.

logroller

11-20-2013, 11:03 AM

The churches I have been part of welcomes such people as attendees, but they would never hold any official position in the church. Fundamental KJV-Only Baptist churches don't allow even divorced people to be a deacon nor a pastor.
Im an NIV guy myself but I find it odd that Moses would be precluded from an official position in such a church.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 11:08 AM

Sexual preference to a given sex likely isn't a choice any more than preferring blondes to brunettes. Were you sitting there at puberty thinking, hmmmm, do i find girls more attractive than guys or did you just realize it without thinking?

Being that there is no evidence, I added a word to your sentence to make it currently more correct.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 11:16 AM

Moved the off topic posts that occurred in the last 2-3 pages, including my own. Please go to the cage if you wish to fight/argue, and lets get back on topic in here.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 03:49 PM

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 05:43 PM

Well said and 100% spot on.

Maybe less than 100%, as neither one of you can show anything whatsoever to prove that homosexuality is in anyway genetic. Just as others cannot prove it's a choice. Feel free to pony up these genetics or other science, otherwise your 100% agreement is nothing more than opinion, which is the same as others offer.

I find it funny though, as many still believe that if it's proven that they are "born this way", that this somehow would magically make their behavior acceptable or normal. The only thing at all that it would prove is that it wasn't a choice. People are also born with a propensity towards violence and addictions, neither of which should be looked at as normal or acceptable just because someone was born that way.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 05:58 PM

Maybe less than 100%,

I understand those with bigoted views believe such things. Doesn't change the fact that every one of the bigots is un-American as they do not support the ideals of the Constitution.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 06:03 PM

I understand those with bigoted views believe such things. Doesn't change the fact that every one of the bigots is un-American as they do not support the ideals of the Constitution.

I'm bigoted because I don't believe in something that can't be shown or proven in anyway at all, both medically and scientifically? How do you figure?

I suppose anyone that doesn't believe in God is bigoted according to your definition. Someone not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is equally bigoted then.

How about you just deal in facts? Can you do that? So how about posting medical or scientific evidence that people are in anyway born gay. Short of that, you're GUESSING. And I'm bigoted because I don't go along with your guess? :laugh2:

Arbo

11-20-2013, 06:09 PM

I'm bigoted because I don't believe in something that can't be shown or proven in anyway at all

No, that isn't what a bigot is. Someone who has intolerance for some group of people, that has no acceptance of them. And I see it as pure unadulterated ignorance to think anyone would chose to have so many others stand against them.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 06:15 PM

No, that isn't what a bigot is. Someone who has intolerance for some group of people, that has no acceptance of them. And I see it as pure unadulterated ignorance to think anyone would chose to have so many others stand against them.

So, as to the points/questions you quietly cut out of your reply (while telling others they don't address your points)... Care to provide the medical or scientific information I asked about? I hardly think someone is a bigot if they don't believe a person is born gay. It's simply a difference in how one believes they got from point A to point B. It doesn't even address acceptance and/or intolerance. One can believe the behavior is learned and still accept.

Anyway, without this information, again, you are only assuming or guessing that gays are "born that way". And someone believing otherwise is hardly a bigot for thinking otherwise or not believing this without further proof.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 06:24 PM

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 06:30 PM

Being a bigot has nothing to do with how people are born or not. It has to do with the attitude of unacceptance of a group of people. Many here have expressed a lack of acceptance of a certain group of people, some go as far to say it would be the same if they had a kid in that group. That is a bigot…

That I would agree with, but not going there as of yet. As towards our replies as of today, I thought the discussion was around whether or not someone 'chose' that route. Logroller made his reply, which you agreed with 100%, and I simply pointed out that the opinion wasn't fact without the proof, of which there is none. Until then, we are ALL making educated opinions on the matter. Without the proof I ask for, it can't be stated with certainty that these folks are born with an attraction to the same sex. No more than others are providing "proof" that it's a learned behavior and a choice. While some may see the other persons view as asinine, neither side is providing proof. What sounds reasonable to one might not to another. These are not opinions that make someone a bigot, or even dumb. Without proof and actual science to backup our arguments, we have just that, arguments.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 06:36 PM

As towards our replies as of today, I thought the discussion was around whether or not someone 'chose' that route.

Nobody choses such a life. It is merely that simple. You and others believe otherwise, and I feel that is born out of various items that add up to denial and ignorance. So there really isn't anything to discuss.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 06:48 PM

Nobody choses such a life. It is merely that simple. You and others believe otherwise, and I feel that is born out of various items that add up to denial and ignorance. So there really isn't anything to discuss.

So that's it, you believe something and therefore it's that simple and that's the way it is? Not exactly overwhelming with the medical and science here. The only reason you want to drop the discussion is because you know you cannot produce anything that would allow you to say your opinion is any better than anothers, or somehow "fact". Saying "it is merely that simple" is EASILY the worst attempt at a debate I have ever seen.

Imagine if I sat back and stated that "Nobody has ever shown anything that proves they are born that way. It's a learned behavior. It is merely that simple."

But I'm not going to pretend that I have any science or proof behind my opinion, no matter how much I may believe it. My opinion also doesn't eliminate anything you have to offer. It's just that I am honest enough to admit that NEITHER side at this point can say with 100% certainty that they are born that way, or that it's a choice. What I am saying is the ONLY thing that can be stated factually thus far - that neither side can say for sure they are correct.

Calling me ignorant or claiming I am in denial does NOTHING to add what I have asked for to your argument. You can't simply dismiss one argument, say you are right, and then say their isn't anything to discuss. Well, maybe agree to disagree, that I can go for. But that's about as far.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 07:06 PM

So that's it, you believe something and therefore it's that simple and that's the way it is?

It is amusing that it is ok for those that believe people make a choice to be discriminated against, attacked and beaten, and generally thought of as deviant humans, but it's not ok for someone to believe they are simply born that way.

Saying "it is merely that simple" is EASILY the worst attempt at a debate I have ever seen.

See response above, it applies here as well.

But I'm not going to pretend that I have any science or proof behind my opinion

Where exactly did I ever say I did?

You can't simply dismiss one argument, say you are right, and then say their isn't anything to discuss.

See first response as it applies to this one as well.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 07:15 PM

It is amusing that it is ok for those that believe people make a choice to be discriminated against, attacked and beaten, and generally thought of as deviant humans, but it's not ok for someone to believe they are simply born that way.

Never said that. I said from my very first post to Log that it's just not 100% definite in EITHER direction. That was it, didn't say either side was not OK to believe. You chose to disagree when I stated that neither side can say anything with 100% certainty. And it's a FACT what I'm saying, as neither side can, that's what makes this so silly.

And just fwiw, many people choose to do things all the time that are negative to their images, their well being and obviously leaves them discriminated against. But even if... It still doesn't dismiss either argument nor does it prove anything with any degree of certainty. All you wrote just shows that it wouldn't be a wise choice for one to make, considering the way society looks and treats such things today, but in no way addresses the "born that way" argument. You simply added things into the argument as to why you believe it wouldn't be a choice.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 07:27 PM

Never said that.

Not in so many words, but in actions.

You chose to disagree when I stated that neither side can say anything with 100% certainty.

No, I never disagreed or agreed with your argument. I don't believe I ever commented on it or about it.

jimnyc

11-20-2013, 07:31 PM

Not in so many words, but in actions.

No, I never disagreed or agreed with your argument. I don't believe I ever commented on it or about it.

Too many comments/arguments now about arguments and less about the subject. Like I said earlier, I'll just agree to disagree.

Larrymc

11-20-2013, 08:03 PM

I understand those with bigoted views believe such things. Doesn't change the fact that every one of the bigots is un-American as they do not support the ideals of the Constitution.Funny i just read a pro-abortion post that mentioned the constitution, sorry i don't think the Founders had open sodomy and murdering baby's in mind when they wrote it, these are fabricated rights, and social issues, that the founders could not even fathom that people would seek.

Arbo

11-20-2013, 08:14 PM

these are fabricated rights,

Equality is the eyes of the law is not a fabricated right.

Larrymc

11-20-2013, 08:26 PM

Equality is the eyes of the law is not a fabricated right.Well that's your opinion, you have mine.

logroller

11-20-2013, 09:42 PM

Maybe less than 100%, as neither one of you can show anything whatsoever to prove that homosexuality is in anyway genetic. Just as others cannot prove it's a choice. Feel free to pony up these genetics or other science, otherwise your 100% agreement is nothing more than opinion, which is the same as others offer.

I find it funny though, as many still believe that if it's proven that they are "born this way", that this somehow would magically make their behavior acceptable or normal. The only thing at all that it would prove is that it wasn't a choice. People are also born with a propensity towards violence and addictions, neither of which should be looked at as normal or acceptable just because someone was born that way.
I didnt say it was genetic; i said one's sexual preference isnt a choice. How one acts upon that preference is a choice, whether it be fostered or suppressed, but the kernal of preference is not a conscious decision--its instinctive. For example, when you see some cleavage on a girl you may choose to stare but the appeal is instinctive-- just b/c you may have different instincts than me doesnt mean we chose to be that way. Perhaps soe day theyll be genetic markers discvered but the sum of reason and experience fail to justify believing preferences are conscious decisions.

fj1200

11-21-2013, 07:30 AM

... these are fabricated rights, and social issues...

Freedom from government intrusion is not a fabricated right and equality in the eyes of the law is a Constitutional right.

Jeff

11-21-2013, 08:14 AM

So, as to the points/questions you quietly cut out of your reply (while telling others they don't address your points)... Care to provide the medical or scientific information I asked about? I hardly think someone is a bigot if they don't believe a person is born gay. It's simply a difference in how one believes they got from point A to point B. It doesn't even address acceptance and/or intolerance. One can believe the behavior is learned and still accept.
All part of the Game !!
Anyway, without this information, again, you are only assuming or guessing that gays are "born that way". And someone believing otherwise is hardly a bigot for thinking otherwise or not believing this without further proof.If Gays are born that way wouldn't that suggest Murders are also born that way and why not pedophiles, so if we don't believe in these things we are Bigots :laugh: then I will be a bigot . .

Jeff

11-21-2013, 08:20 AM

Nobody choses such a life. It is merely that simple. You and others believe otherwise, and I feel that is born out of various items that add up to denial and ignorance. So there really isn't anything to discuss.

Jim Arby says you are ignorant case closed :laugh:

Seriously you have to wonder about a person that feels all others are ignorant if they don't believe in something that can't be proved , when someone feels they are so above everyone else that if ya don't believe in my opinion you are ignorant there is no debating with someone like that , Kind of makes ya wonder what a person like that life must be like , I mean you would have to surround yourself with people that felt you were God Like , OOO BOY WHAT FUN :laugh:

fj1200

11-21-2013, 09:04 AM

Born... Learned... What does it matter?

jimnyc

11-21-2013, 09:12 AM

Born... Learned... What does it matter?

I don't think it does. IMO, this all started with the gay movement and the "born that way" thing, with the community and supporters thinking that it made a difference, that we should be more accepting and tolerant of someone because they were born that way. Not to spur another argument from what I just wrote, just pointing out how we got here! :)

Larrymc

11-21-2013, 09:29 AM

Freedom from government intrusion is not a fabricated right and equality in the eyes of the law is a Constitutional right.Being in America they are free to be Gay, even that was illegal until recent time, but when they start fighting to Fabricate a New Class Of People is where there's a problem, we have laws to protect against discrimination based on Ethnicity, Race, Gender and Religion, and now we're supposed to make a whole new set of laws and Traditions to suit a Deviant Sexual Behavior that for most of our History was illegal, and still unaccepted by the Majority, All under the guise of Progression and Modernization, when in truth we are going backward, as this is not new, other Society's in History have embraced Sexual Deviants, of course they are in History not one has lasted. and as we progress, the Pedophiles have started their fight, embolden by the Homosexual movement they now form groups without fear, and have began to insist that children can make such decisions as weather they are attracted to adults, and why not they are mature enough to decide they are attracted to same sex, all that is needed is to abolish this silly notion that kids are immature and don't know what type of sex they like. This is common sense to most who can see where this is going, the ones you and Arbo claim or ignorant, but your persistent defense of such behavior, IMO makes clear who is truly ignorant.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-21-2013, 09:59 AM

That I would agree with, but not going there as of yet. As towards our replies as of today, I thought the discussion was around whether or not someone 'chose' that route. Logroller made his reply, which you agreed with 100%, and I simply pointed out that the opinion wasn't fact without the proof, of which there is none. Until then, we are ALL making educated opinions on the matter. Without the proof I ask for, it can't be stated with certainty that these folks are born with an attraction to the same sex. No more than others are providing "proof" that it's a learned behavior and a choice. While some may see the other persons view as asinine, neither side is providing proof. What sounds reasonable to one might not to another. These are not opinions that make someone a bigot, or even dumb. Without proof and actual science to backup our arguments, we have just that, arguments. The solid proof we have is that gay lifestyle (sex acts ) is a sick perversion that breeds disease like a rabbit does baby rabbits. Chalk that reality up against somebody's opinion that well it is genetic. Who give a shat if it is? It is genetic for a hungry tiger to eat your ass but how does that justify allowing it to happen or even promoting it as ok? My bias is based upon fact , logic and common sense , haven't a clue what the bias those that promote gay crap is unless its sexual fantasy , liberal stupidity and just more PC crap run amok. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to go about butt banging other guys and I for one am damn tired of reading dumbass presentations attempting to justify its legality and fairness on Constitutional grounds!! --Tyr

Arbo

11-21-2013, 10:25 AM

Jeff

11-21-2013, 10:37 AM

Like I said, bigots and un-American. If being gay is a choice, I challenge every one of you to simply change from straight to gay. I mean, if it is a choice, then clearly you can simply change right here and now, right?

Why would we want to ? And I challenge you to show me proof that you are born that way, I mean if ya are born that way, then clearly you can show us Proof , Right ?

Larrymc

11-21-2013, 10:41 AM

Like I said, bigots and un-American. If being gay is a choice, I challenge every one of you to simply change from straight to gay. I mean, if it is a choice, then clearly you can simply change right here and now, right? I have consistently conceded that it is a Deviant Behavior that for what ever reason some have a weakness for, nothing more nothing less, but your desperation to normalize it, leads me to believe that you are not an idiot, but Gay, that's ok, you'll find your still welcome here but stop expecting your sexual preference to be justified here.

Jeff

11-21-2013, 10:44 AM

I have consistently conceded that it is a Deviant Behavior that for what ever reason some have a weakness for, nothing more nothing less, but your desperation to normalize it, leads me to believe that you are not an idiot, but Gay, that's ok, you'll find your still welcome here but stop expecting your sexual preference to be justified here.

:laugh::laugh::salute::laugh::laugh:

jimnyc

11-21-2013, 11:04 AM

Like I said, bigots and un-American. If being gay is a choice, I challenge every one of you to simply change from straight to gay. I mean, if it is a choice, then clearly you can simply change right here and now, right?

So now when someone doesn't agree with your POV, that makes us un-American and bigots? The bigot I understand and will proudly wear the moniker. If I'm a bigot because I disagree with homosexuality or gay marriage, so be it, I won't lose a single wink of sleep. And as per voting, I guess about half of the nation in un-American right now, if not more, lots more in certain areas. I won't lose sleep over that lame moniker either. Both lame and only serving to name call once again instead of addressing the topic. Didn't you just condemn AT in the cage for not directly addressing topics? Hypocrite.

I challenge you to FINALLY respond and provide documentation to support ANY of your opinions, that in any way shape or form that gays are born that way. Because until such time, your OPINION weighs NO MORE than anyone else here, as you've provided NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO in the department of proof. And the more you are asked to understand this, or to provide this, the more you talk of bigotry and other names, and cutting out these questions when you reply.

If it's not a choice, can you give direct proof of this? Either you can, or you can't, it's merely that simple. Can you? I personally would rather be called names for standing up for what I believe in, and my honesty, as opposed to being labeled as someone who dodges posts and facts, rather than admitting they have NOTHING. But go ahead, fall back on name calling and claiming the discussion is over, all in the name of avoiding facts.

jimnyc

11-21-2013, 11:07 AM

Why would we want to ? And I challenge you to show me proof that you are born that way, I mean if ya are born that way, then clearly you can show us Proof , Right ?

I immediately conceded from the beginning that my stance is solely my opinion. I stated I had no hard proof, and further stated that neither side could state their take with 100% certainty at this point. I feel strongly about my opinion, but I'm man enough to admit when I don't have enough to overcome another argument. I suppose I could go into attack mode and just label anyone with names, instead of being realistic and honest within a debate, but some can't overcome their need to always be right, get in the last word or make it known that their opinion is always superior to those who may disagree.

Arbo

11-21-2013, 11:10 AM

Why would we want to ?

To prove that it is a choice.

So now when someone doesn't agree with your POV, that makes us un-American and bigots?

Didn't we go over this yesterday? No, it has nothing to do with POV. Man you and a few others love to keep twisting.

If it's not a choice, can you give direct proof of this?

Of course, choose to be gay. Go for it. Show us all how it is a choice. Prove it to be so.

jimnyc

11-21-2013, 12:33 PM

For anyone thinking posts were hidden, or deleted, or put in a place to get less attention - not the case. The same as the past 10 years, posts that are OT, fighting, or back and forth which kill threads, will be moved to the cage, even if they are my posts too! Anyway, go here for the rest:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44049-11-21-crap

/continue crap there, or continue good discussion right here.

fj1200

11-21-2013, 06:21 PM

Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to go about butt banging other guys and I for one am damn tired of reading dumbass presentations attempting to justify its legality and fairness on Constitutional grounds!! --Tyr

Is liberty unconstitutional?

Arbo

11-21-2013, 06:26 PM

Is liberty unconstitutional?

I don't even see that as the point. It appears what many keep sticking to is the topic of sex, rather than marriage. Hence the 'butt banging' stuff.

fj1200

11-22-2013, 06:41 AM

Being in America they are free to be Gay, even that was illegal until recent time, but when they start fighting to Fabricate a New Class Of People is where there's a problem, we have laws to protect against discrimination based on Ethnicity, Race, Gender and Religion, and now we're supposed to make a whole new set of laws and Traditions to suit a Deviant Sexual Behavior that for most of our History was illegal, and still unaccepted by the Majority, All under the guise of Progression and Modernization, when in truth we are going backward, as this is not new, other Society's in History have embraced Sexual Deviants, of course they are in History not one has lasted. and as we progress, the Pedophiles have started their fight, embolden by the Homosexual movement they now form groups without fear, and have began to insist that children can make such decisions as weather they are attracted to adults, and why not they are mature enough to decide they are attracted to same sex, all that is needed is to abolish this silly notion that kids are immature and don't know what type of sex they like. This is common sense to most who can see where this is going, the ones you and Arbo claim or ignorant, but your persistent defense of such behavior, IMO makes clear who is truly ignorant.

I think you need to discern a bit more between "fabricated rights," i.e. government benefits or privileges, and actual Constitutional rights. Of the latter there aren't too many. If you accept the DoI as law then we have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but if you don't then at least life, liberty, and property are mentioned in the Constitution along with the others codified in the BoR... which I probably don't need to list. ;) I'll agree with you that discrimination laws are taken too far and are never really looked at to see if they are a good idea or if they were actually effective in what they were trying to do but when you have some who fight tooth and nail to affirm privileges granted to them, via the current definition of marriage in most states, you shouldn't be too surprised when gays fight tooth and nail for privileges to same. I was discussing ENDA with a friend on another forum and his support came down to, my paraphrase, that "it's the nice thing to do and if even one is discriminated against then it's bad" with no willingness to truly measure the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act and Title VII.

One can't, IMO, square their support for the Constitution AND their support for laws that codify discrimination and unequal protection. You can be against the gay lifestyle but still acknowledge that the government is not a vehicle for mandating morality on the basis of "majority acceptance." Personally I think that all of the hysteria against gays is ultimately counterproductive, declare that they are deviant and that they won't be accepted by churches and religion in general and don't be surprised when someone acts as a deviant and rejects church and religion.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-22-2013, 07:01 AM

Is liberty unconstitutional? If butt banging other guys is liberty so is having as many wives as you want, masturbating in public , having sex with an animal, etc. Complete Liberty always results in complete chaos and a free for all that allows for no organized society and no true civilization. Yes, its just that simple. How about my liberty to not pay taxes? To not pay traffic tickets, etc.. I think you and I each have a far different definition of liberty. Care to tell me yours?--Tyr

Larrymc

11-22-2013, 07:43 AM

I think you need to discern a bit more between "fabricated rights," i.e. government benefits or privileges, and actual Constitutional rights. Of the latter there aren't too many. If you accept the DoI as law then we have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but if you don't then at least life, liberty, and property are mentioned in the Constitution along with the others codified in the BoR... which I probably don't need to list. ;) I'll agree with you that discrimination laws are taken too far and are never really looked at to see if they are a good idea or if they were actually effective in what they were trying to do but when you have some who fight tooth and nail to affirm privileges granted to them, via the current definition of marriage in most states, you shouldn't be too surprised when gays fight tooth and nail for privileges to same. I was discussing ENDA with a friend on another forum and his support came down to, my paraphrase, that "it's the nice thing to do and if even one is discriminated against then it's bad" with no willingness to truly measure the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act and Title VII.

One can't, IMO, square their support for the Constitution AND their support for laws that codify discrimination and unequal protection. You can be against the gay lifestyle but still acknowledge that the government is not a vehicle for mandating morality on the basis of "majority acceptance." Personally I think that all of the hysteria against gays is ultimately counterproductive, declare that they are deviant and that they won't be accepted by churches and religion in general and don't be surprised when someone acts as a deviant and rejects church and religion.Don't know if you seen this, another post, sorry for the copy paste but we've beat this horse to death,
Being in America they are free to be Gay, even that was illegal until recent time, but when they start fighting to Fabricate a New Class Of People is where there's a problem, we have laws to protect against discrimination based on Ethnicity, Race, Gender and Religion, and now we're supposed to make a whole new set of laws and Traditions to suit a Deviant Sexual Behavior that for most of our History was illegal, and still unaccepted by the Majority, All under the guise of Progression and Modernization, when in truth we are going backward, as this is not new, other Society's in History have embraced Sexual Deviants, of course they are in History not one has lasted. and as we progress, the Pedophiles have started their fight, embolden by the Homosexual movement they now form groups without fear, and have began to insist that children can make such decisions as weather they are attracted to adults, and why not they are mature enough to decide they are attracted to same sex, all that is needed is to abolish this silly notion that kids are immature and don't know what type of sex they like. This is common sense to most who can see where this is going, the ones you and Arbo claim or ignorant, but your persistent defense of such behavior, IMO makes clear who is truly ignorant.

logroller

11-22-2013, 08:17 AM

If butt banging other guys is liberty so is having as many wives as you want, masturbating in public , having sex with an animal, etc. Complete Liberty always results in complete chaos and a free for all that allows for no organized society and no true civilization. Yes, its just that simple. How about my liberty to not pay taxes? To not pay traffic tickets, etc.. I think you and I each have a far different definition of liberty. Care to tell me yours?--Tyr
How many wives have you had? dont get me wrong, I trust you made the right decision for yourself but how rapidly your hyperbolic example leaves you on shaky ground.

But yes, you have the liberty to do all those things...alas there are consequences. Such is the natural state in which we exist between order and chaos-- never is it all one or the other, even in a vacuum. Such a pure state is illusory. We invent it to make ourselves feel better because the knowledge of good and evil is a bitter fruit.

The thing I wonder, what if there is no good nor evil, things just are perceived as better or worse, and we take comfort in assuaging our shortcomings by perceiving others' actions being worse than our own ("they're evil") and, conversely manifesting our own ego as better ("I'm good") ???

IMO, liberty: a state in which action can be freely taken by an agent.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-22-2013, 08:28 AM

How many wives have you had? dont get me wrong, I trust you made the right decision for yourself but how rapidly your hyperbolic example leaves you on shaky ground.

But yes, you have the liberty to do all those things...alas there are consequences. Such is the natural state in which we exist between order and chaos-- never is it all one or the other, even in a vacuum. Such a pure state is illusory. We invent it to make ourselves feel better because the knowledge of good and evil is a bitter fruit.

The thing I wonder, what if there is no good nor evil, things just are perceived as better or worse, and we take comfort in assuaging our shortcomings by perceiving others' actions being worse than our own ("they're evil") and, conversely manifesting our own ego as better ("I'm good") ???

IMO, liberty: a state in which action can be freely taken by an agent. Yet the gays want the consequences removed by the State. And to do that the State must force us to tolerate their behavior and alter out traditions--example= marriage being between a male and a female. We that say the agent--(The State) is not free to destroy our beliefs by force of law or any other way. That was exactly what the Founders based this nation upon and why they fought for Independence. It damn sure wasn't so two guys could go about butt banging and promoting their deviant lifestyle. --Tyr

Larrymc

11-22-2013, 08:46 AM

fj1200

11-22-2013, 10:10 AM

Don't know if you seen this, another post, sorry for the copy paste but we've beat this horse to death,
...

Uh, yeah. That's the exact post to which I replied. :slap: Don't want to get in the way of your "horse" beating though. :rolleyes:

I fell the same way Tyr, I see the Homosexual Agenda the same as Islam, as an American you are free to worship who and how you please, but don't start trying changing 200 years of our Traditions and Laws to suit you.

So screw the Constitution and huzzah for using government to reinforce my preference at the expense of others. Sweet!

fj1200

11-22-2013, 10:16 AM

If butt banging other guys is liberty so is having as many wives as you want, masturbating in public , having sex with an animal, etc. Complete Liberty always results in complete chaos and a free for all that allows for no organized society and no true civilization. Yes, its just that simple. How about my liberty to not pay taxes? To not pay traffic tickets, etc.. I think you and I each have a far different definition of liberty. Care to tell me yours?--Tyr

Um, no. It looks like you dropped the necrophilia meme... unless that one was wrapped up in "etc." My definition of liberty is freedom from someone else using government to further their agenda. Besides, there is never "complete liberty" so I reject your strawman.

Yet the gays want the consequences removed by the State. And to do that the State must force us to tolerate their behavior and alter out traditions--example= marriage being between a male and a female. We that say the agent--(The State) is not free to destroy our beliefs by force of law or any other way. That was exactly what the Founders based this nation upon and why they fought for Independence. It damn sure wasn't so two guys could go about butt banging and promoting their deviant lifestyle. --Tyr

What consequences do they want removed? And right, the State is not free to destroy your beliefs.

Larrymc

11-22-2013, 10:50 AM

Uh, yeah. That's the exact post to which I replied. :slap: Don't want to get in the way of your "horse" beating though. :rolleyes:

So screw the Constitution and huzzah for using government to reinforce my preference at the expense of others. Sweet!Your right I pasted the wrong one Sorry. there is another one i intended, but it doesn't matter, your simple Liberal Mind Can not Comprehend Common sense, or the idea there is a right and a wrong, and there for can't fathom, that something you desire could possibly be wrong.so like others here, I see your desperation to normalize Homosexuality, which lead me to believe you are Gay, its OK, but please stop trying to justify your sexual preference, don't worry you self about impeding my horse beating im done, but if you would like to enlighten your self with more of my wisdom fell free to back search this thread,

Arbo

11-22-2013, 10:55 AM

I saw that two of the members here made it on TV with Russell Brand. Which users are these? Stand up and claim yourself.

;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBA6qlHW8po

logroller

11-22-2013, 11:12 AM

Yet the gays want the consequences removed by the State. And to do that the State must force us to tolerate their behavior and alter out traditions--example= marriage being between a male and a female. We that say the agent--(The State) is not free to destroy our beliefs by force of law or any other way. That was exactly what the Founders based this nation upon and why they fought for Independence. It damn sure wasn't so two guys could go about butt banging and promoting their deviant lifestyle. --Tyr
You're an agent too; I'm an agent; even gays are agents. I'm still unsure what you mean by removal of consequences. Your example sounds like you think marriage is a private club that government is obligated to protect as man/wife marrieds.

Traditionally, marriage is between man/wife. It's tradition that it is until death do you part. Its also traditional that a wife submits to her husband and it wasn't that long ago that a husband couldn't be charged for raping his wife. Not but a decade delayed over this same period, while still proscribing homosexual sodomy, sodomy between husband and wife was allowed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas.
What's to make of all this? Hyperbolically I'd argue that:

It's the government's fault since a man can't rape his wife he's forced to stray into sin. Those darned progressives really messed things up with their liberal ideas of gender equality. First women attain suffrage, then they get a say over birth control, even getting to deny their husband dominion over their bodies. All this breaking down traditional gender roles so its no wonder these gays think they can get married too. Classic slippery slope. Before we know it there'll be sodomizing going on in the streets; beastiality too. And if you stick to traditional marriage the government will take your guns and round you up into camps-- we're already marked with bands!