And ANOTHER State Inches Forward....

pensacola niceman

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,838
5,220
Pensacola, FL
tristanrobin said:
Yes, that is in the Bible.

However - again, as so often in the Bible, including the story of Lot - it isn't really about homosexual couples. It's about intimidation of strangers through gang rape...a common occurence during the stories' time. It was used to prove superiority over others, much as it's used in the penal system today.


Thanks for that. For the life of me I can't remember the prostitutes name. If you recall, she was spared when the city was attacked by hanging some sort of banner out of her window.



By the way, Joshua and Judges are the books to read if you really want some biblical bloody violence. I'm trying to find my bible study notes. I recall that in Judges, one bloke named Abimelech had his 70 brothers killed so he could be the next judge of Israel. I was a nasty time to be alive indeed.
 
Sep 2005
943
1
Gary, I would like to debate this topic with you. I had posted this on the first page of this thread, and I am still wondering what the answer is:



Jaxian said:
We are all aware of the physical characteristics of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. But how is this justification for treating same-sex couples in an inferior fashion to opposite-sex couples?
 
Feb 2007
34,677
17
Los Angeles
Jaxian said:
Gary, I would like to debate this topic with you. I had posted this on the first page of this thread, and I am still wondering what the answer is:


Originally Posted by Jaxian

We are all aware of the physical characteristics of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. But how is this justification for treating same-sex couples in an inferior fashion to opposite-sex couples?



Inferior? Or just different?



Your question makes a moot point. It's like asking why should we treat same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples when they are not the same?



All these euphemisms skirt around the main issue, which is that most people consider homosexuals to be

defective

dysfunctional

weird



pick your own word.



And they think that way for good reasons.



No matter how much you want to try and dictate how people should think, you can never change this.



Most people agree homosexuals should be able to carry on with their lifestyles regardless of how we think of them



However, sooner or later we reach a point where we have to draw the line.



THe redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals represents that line







 
Nov 2005
9,519
4,096
California
garysher said:
You really should read my quotes BEFORE you quote them!



Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

But love is not the only pre-requisite for marriage



Then perhaps you won't look like such a gormless buffoon!




Actually, if you would quote the quote I was ACTUALLY referring to and not what you LATER FLIP-FLOPPED on, that would be helpful.



You LATER changed your story to the above quote.

But of course, you're going to lie about that too, aren't you...
 
Nov 2005
9,519
4,096
California
garysher said:
Originally Posted by Jaxian

We are all aware of the physical characteristics of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. But how is this justification for treating same-sex couples in an inferior fashion to opposite-sex couples?



Inferior? Or just different?



Your question makes a moot point. It's like asking why should we treat same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples when they are not the same?


Are you still harping on that stupid argument?

Oh yeah. You DROPPED the argument last time I got to the same point where you couldn't make any further argument...



Just BEING different IS NOT justification for discrimination.

Remember our discussion on "legitimate state interest"?

I book-marked the post where you acknowledged its existence, in case you were thinking of changing your story.

Or in case you had completely forgotten what it means...





garysher said:
All these euphemisms skirt around the main issue, which is that most people consider homosexuals to be

defective

dysfunctional

weird
Most people consider you an ignorant buffoon.

That doesn't mean we also think you should have equal rights.



And with gays, despite how inaccurate your claim is, most people think that gays should have ALL THE SAME rights and privileges that straights have with only one exception. Gay marriage.



Ergo, your claim is both unproven and irrelevant.
 
Sep 2005
943
1
garysher said:
Inferior? Or just different?


Inferior. When you are denied the benefits and recognition granted to others, that is inferior treatment.



Your question makes a moot point. It's like asking why should we treat same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples when they are not the same?


No two people are the same. No two couples are the same. Every person is different from every other. Yet for the most part, we try to treat them the same. Blondes are treated the same as brunettes. Left-handed people are treated the same as right-handed people. Christians are treated the same as Buddhists.



But when it comes to same-sex marriage, you're telling me that gay people should be treated in an inferior fashion. I would like to know why.



All these euphemisms skirt around the main issue, which is that most people consider homosexuals to be

defective

dysfunctional

weird


So what?



Again, you could say that about a lot of things. People might say blind people are defective, dysfunctional and weird. People can think whatever they like.



But how does this make it okay to treat gay people inferior to straight people?



Most people agree homosexuals should be able to carry on with their lifestyles regardless of how we think of them


Sure, they can carry on, but they have to pay the price for it, right? They shouldn't expect the same special privledges granted to straight couples. That's what you're saying, right? That we should give gay couples less?



So how do you justify treating gay people as inferior?



However, sooner or later we reach a point where we have to draw the line.



THe redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals represents that line


Remember that we're only talking legal marriage here, not religious. So what you're basically saying is, "Our laws treat gay people as inferior, but changing a law to make gay people equal is going too far."



So what is the problem with changing a law? Laws are changed every day, and there is no better reason to change a law than to make an inferior group equal to everyone else.



So if you want to perpetuate a law which treats gay people as inferior, I would like to hear your justification for it.
 
Feb 2007
34,677
17
Los Angeles
Jaxian said:
Inferior. When you are denied the benefits and recognition granted to others, that is inferior treatment.


So if Texans can openly carry guns in their cars, whilst Californians cannot, which one is "inferior" to the other?



If voters in S Dakota get one Senator per 250,000 inhabitants, and voters in California get one Senator per 14 million inhabitants - does that make them inferior?



It appears you have contracted fondlit's weakness for whining at every turn without thinking first!
 
Feb 2007
34,677
17
Los Angeles
foundit66 said:
Actually, if you would quote the quote I was ACTUALLY referring to and not what you LATER FLIP-FLOPPED on, that would be helpful.



You LATER changed your story to the above quote.

But of course, you're going to lie about that too, aren't you...


I have no need to - the written record stands



Your lying ineptitude has been exposed again
 
Feb 2007
2,266
0
garysher said:
So if Texans can openly carry guns in their cars, whilst Californians cannot, which one is "inferior" to the other?



!




So can I file jointly with my gun? Bang bang shoot 'em up.
 
Nov 2005
9,519
4,096
California
garysher said:
I have no need to - the written record stands
The truth is that you DO NOT WANT to link to the original, because then you KNOW people could see the quote you made BEFORE that one which contradicts your claim.



Keep trying to cowardly cover up the truth.

Maybe you'll convince yourself that somebody believes you....