|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 955
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 955 |
I have always believed that 'outlawing discrimination' was the biggest discrimination of all. I have seen numerous signs in restuarants that said 'no shoes,no shirt ,no service' I have always thought them to be legal. If they are ,why? If an auto shop refuses to work on my car is he in the right to refuse service. If he can, for what reasons. If marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman why not polygamy? Why not man marrying a dog ? Is there anything in the law that says the partners have to be the same species now? These are just questions that we all should know or want to know the answers.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
Is the legitimacy of gay marriage even in the top 10 of our concerns in today's upside down world? Gay marriage may or may not be among the top 10 even to me, but equal protection under the law is. Gay marriage aside, I firmly believe that the govt should treat everyone the same, without any regard to race, religion, sex, or a host of other characteristics. Therefore if the govt is going to extend certain privileges to a hetro couple they should extend the same opportunity to a homo couple. Are we or are we not equal before the law?
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860 |
Are we or are we not equal before the law?
No
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
Denton: "...gays should be granted protected class status on the basis of homosexual behavior. It appears that they have attained that in some countries. If Snotwad were to ask how I am damaged by that, then the answer is easy: My right to freely speak my mind would be severely curtailed."
I must disagree. In state A gay marriage is recognized. In stare B it is not. Your right to freely speak your mind is the same in both states. Therefore the statement, " My right to freely speak my mind would be severely curtailed." is wrong.
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
I hate to break it to you, but its not the proponents of natural marriage who picked a fight asking the government to intervene on their behalf. It's the proponents of sodomite marriage who have done that. Kapiche? (roll eyes) Are you telling us that when the Left wants to continue their long (and destructive) march through our culture, its our fault when we fight back? Sheeesh, you liberals are really something else. No. I'm telling you your eyes have been closed for generations. And it is going to take a dick in your proverbial ass to open your eyes. Everybody gave. Now .gov shall take. Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,905 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,905 Likes: 1 |
The Scripture states, "Woe unto those that exchange the natural function of the woman and lie with a man, man with man." Same for women. And, "Woe unto those who give hearty approval of those who do such things." And, "God hates homosexuality."
How much more clear does it have to be?
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a U.S. president would raise an army to invade his own country." Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
Is the legitimacy of gay marriage even in the top 10 of our concerns in today's upside down world? Gay marriage may or may not be among the top 10 even to me, but equal protection under the law is. Gay marriage aside, I firmly believe that the govt should treat everyone the same, without any regard to race, religion, sex, or a host of other characteristics. Therefore if the govt is going to extend certain privileges to a hetro couple they should extend the same opportunity to a homo couple. Are we or are we not equal before the law? The homosexual "marriage" movement has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. Its about destroying monogamous marriage altogether. That is their stated goal. Don't believe me? Here's a link. Some of them are even getting tired of lying about it. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...iage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/ Their goal is identical to that of all Marxists, who seek to replace the family (and human freedom) with the homogenous state. Theirs is simply the latest Marxist iteration. You have a very shallow and confused conception of equal protection. The notion of equality under the law, properly understood, is grounded in the distinction of species in the order of nature. (Read the Declaration of Independence some time). It doesn't mean that everything I (or someone else) wants they get. Nature has discriminated against homosexuals, as it discriminates against dogs and cats (and in favor of humans). As an example, homosexuals can't bear children (although they are hoping science can "cure" that problem and no doubt, they will expect us to pay for it) and marriage is primarily about securing the well-being of children. Nature also discriminates against people who live sexually promiscuous lives (they tend to get venereal disease). Thus nature seems to have an interest in that morality which is conducive to the family. In 1854, "equal justice" to the South (a synonym for equal rights) was said to require us not to object when a slave master took his slave into Nebraska. Abraham Lincoln said, that he agreed insofar as there was no difference between hogs and men. But Lincoln also said that nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox, or horse or a dog. And with the very same voice they also tell us that a man is not a woman. The distinction between maleness and femaleness in the order of nature is actually more fundamental than the distinction between the human and a non-human. Whatever calls into question the moral authority of nature and the law of nature can hardly be said to be conducive to achieving equality, properly understood. In short, the premises of the homosexual rights movement completely undermine the case for the natural right to "equal protection" properly understood. Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 01/11/14.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
Do those of you advocating the states need to intervene on behalf of the children also think the state should intervene against single-parents?
Let me check my Bible... Dave Homosexuality would be wrong, even if every religion in the world said otherwise. No schist Sherlock. Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
I hate to break it to you, but its not the proponents of natural marriage who picked a fight asking the government to intervene on their behalf. It's the proponents of sodomite marriage who have done that. Kapiche? (roll eyes) Are you telling us that when the Left wants to continue their long (and destructive) march through our culture, its our fault when we fight back? Sheeesh, you liberals are really something else. No. I'm telling you your eyes have been closed for generations. And it is going to take a dick in your proverbial ass to open your eyes. Everybody gave. Now .gov shall take. Travis Am I the only one here who finds it ironic (tragic, actually) that the "moderator" of a supposedly pro-gun forum is a defender of Marxism's latest attempt to destroy the family in the service of achieving the homogenous world state? Karl Marx sought the destruction of the family because he understood it to be a bulwark against his effort to place the State in loco parentis to every citizen---to make government their "true" parent. Not their parent according to nature, mind you but contra nature and the Declaration of Independence. The homosexual rights movement is Marxist to the core; its intellectual leaders are all Marxists and they have made it abundantly clear: their goal is to destroy monogamous marriage. This has been a core goal of Marxism and Communism since their inception. Stunningly, the Marxists now appear to have infiltrated this forum. Our own moderator is apparently a spokesman for a cause that seeks destruction of the natural family in the service of the implementation of the homogenous world state At least we finally have you out of the closet Travis. Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 01/11/14.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
Denton: "I don't think it is a tangent at all. A fundamental question to be asked and answered is, does the state have an overriding interest in specifying the form of marriage? If children who are reared in conventional heterosexual families do much better than those who are reared in homosexual families, then they might have such an interest. See the statement by the Supreme Court in the original post. What the Justice is doing is articulating the reason the government has such an interest. Absent that, the government did not have the right to disenfranchise polygamists."
It is a tangent, because the fact that if a couple is married or not is completely independent of the involvement of children. To wit: A same sex couple each having children by a previous relationship, are co-habituating. Those children ARE going to be raised by a same sex couple. That is just the reality of the situation. The issue at hand is do we allow that couple to marry and gain the same rights and privileges as a hetro couple. It has nothing to do with the children.
"...the government did not have the right to disenfranchise polygamists." Personally, I don't think they did. Those people should have been left alone to practice their religion as they see fit.
Last edited by Snotwad; 01/11/14.
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
Am I the only one here that finds it ironic that in no point in this thread have I defended homosexuality or a homosexual's right to marry?
I have only explained that the populous as a whole has allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage. And since the populous has allowed that, a homksexual's marriage will inevitably be recognized by the state.
So in short, you bunch a dumb [bleep] are crying "no" way too late.
Get it?
Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
As an aside, I do appreciate the recognition of my moderator status.
Thank you, God bless, and work a little harder at determining what freedom is.
Thanks, Dave
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
RobJordan: "Homosexuality would be wrong, even if every religion in the world said otherwise."
Hypothetical question: Would homosexuality be wrong, even if every person in the world (other than you) said otherwise?
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
Am I the only one here that finds it ironic that in no point in this thread have I defended homosexuality or a homosexual's right to marry?
I have only explained that the populous as a whole has allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage. And since the populous has allowed that, a homksexual's marriage will inevitably be recognized by the state.
So in short, you bunch a dumb [bleep] are crying "no" way too late.
Get it?
Travis Be nice if just once, you could respond without a fit of name calling. This isn't the third grade. The populace hasn't "allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage" nature has. But even conceding that the state had acted to defend natural marriage, what is wrong with that? Our history is shot through with an understanding of the importance to a free society of an intellectually and morally educated population. Concern for the well-being and defense of the family, like concern for the well-being and defense of "freedom" is the highest priority of the body politic. Jordan
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
RobJordan: "Homosexuality would be wrong, even if every religion in the world said otherwise."
Hypothetical question: Would homosexuality be wrong, even if every person in the world (other than you) said otherwise?
The only time a cock in the can is ok, is when it's my cock, and an adult female's can. Next. Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
Am I the only one here that finds it ironic that in no point in this thread have I defended homosexuality or a homosexual's right to marry?
I have only explained that the populous as a whole has allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in regards to all things marriage. And since the populous has allowed that, a homksexual's marriage will inevitably be recognized by the state.
So in short, you bunch a dumb [bleep] are crying "no" way too late.
Get it?
Travis Yes, I get it !!!
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
As an aside, I do appreciate the recognition of my moderator status.
Thank you, God bless, and work a little harder at determining what freedom is.
Thanks, Dave That's rich. An apologist for logical and moral positivism as well as for one of Marxisms core goals in the service of achieving the homogenous world state lecturing a defender of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence on the proper understanding of freedom. Unreal. We've entered some sort of alternate universe here where up is down and right is wrong. Un-frigging believable.
Last edited by RobJordan; 01/11/14.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
I have always believed that 'outlawing discrimination' was the biggest discrimination of all. I have seen numerous signs in restuarants that said 'no shoes,no shirt ,no service' I have always thought them to be legal. If they are ,why? If an auto shop refuses to work on my car is he in the right to refuse service. If he can, for what reasons. If marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman why not polygamy? Why not man marrying a dog ? Is there anything in the law that says the partners have to be the same species now? These are just questions that we all should know or want to know the answers. IMHO, polygamy and polyandry should be legal, even though I would decline to participate in either. As to the inter species question absolutely not. The reason is: When the couple gets divorced, and the goat gets possession of the single wide, he/she will be unable to pay the lot fees to the trailer park. :-)
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
I have always believed that 'outlawing discrimination' was the biggest discrimination of all. I have seen numerous signs in restuarants that said 'no shoes,no shirt ,no service' I have always thought them to be legal. If they are ,why? If an auto shop refuses to work on my car is he in the right to refuse service. If he can, for what reasons. If marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman why not polygamy? Why not man marrying a dog ? Is there anything in the law that says the partners have to be the same species now? These are just questions that we all should know or want to know the answers. IMHO, polygamy and polyandry should be legal, even though I would decline to participate in either. As to the inter species question absolutely not. The reason is: When the couple gets divorced, and the goat gets possession of the single wide, he/she will be unable to pay the lot fees to the trailer park. :-) Zimhunter. Good work. You've reduced Snotwad to spouting idiocy.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,010 |
Are we or are we not equal before the law?
No Position noted, I however, hold to the egalitarian principles of a true conservative and therefore have a diametrically opposed viewpoint.
Wake up, smell the politician, and re-elect nobody.
"Nee how,nega bin da" (Mandarin: "Hello,dumb a$$)
|
|
|
|
599 members (06hunter59, 1234, 1936M71, 007FJ, 160user, 1lessdog, 61 invisible),
2,383
guests, and
1,164
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,531
Posts18,491,186
Members73,972
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|