Ye Olde Republican Safe House (5)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Slaves were ruled as persons when? Why not cite Leviticus to point out a fashion faux pas?

I don't know when and by whom. It doesn't change the fact that they always were.

But I see you ignored the question and your position objectifies womyn by removing their personhood and reducing them to being no different than some rotted wood and rusty nails on a plantation.
And your position reduces babies to nothing more than dried skin.


This is sooooooo stale and moldy. When blacks couldn't vote white racists made the exact same argument........think about that before being so purposefully obtuse. Marriage laws benefiting only heteros is inherent discrimination.

Please cite the law that prevents a gay man from marrying a consenting woman. The comparison to black voting is not apt.

The highway/tricycle example only helps reveal the hypocrisy of denying gays rights. Preventing you from riding a tricycle on the road is no where near the same thing because you are not being discriminated against at all. It is not your age, weight, sexual orientation, etc that prevents the tricycle. By your example you just showed heteros can ride the tricycle (given marriage rights) but gays cannot ride the same tricycle (denied marriage rights) simply because of gender.

Neither can ride the tricycle, and there's nothing preventing gays from driving a car, except they don't want to.

Lol. C'mon! How can you not choke on the obvious self contradictions?

They're not. You're just biased.

Stay out of our personal lives (but enforce MY MY MY AND MINE ONLY.....definition of marriage onto every one else!)

No, the church's definition. After all, the church invented marriage. If the methodists want to marry gays, fine.

Stay out of our personal lives (but I want the government to rape womyn with laws)
Or protect a human being, but since I want free reign to lynch black people because I don't believe they are "persons", I must agree with you to be consistent. see? Common ground.

By all means please state the "intrusion" caused by giving equal rights? All crap aside man, how do gay marriages "intrude" on your life?
They want to change the status quo, it's up to them to prove the change is necessary.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know when and by whom. It doesn't change the fact that they always were.


And your position reduces babies to nothing more than dried skin.




Please cite the law that prevents a gay man from marrying a consenting woman. The comparison to black voting is not apt.



Neither can ride the tricycle, and there's nothing preventing gays from driving a car, except they don't want to.



They're not. You're just biased.



No, the church's definition. After all, the church invented marriage. If the methodists want to marry gays, fine.


Or protect a human being, but since I want free reign to lynch black people because I don't believe they are "persons", I must agree with you to be consistent. see? Common ground.


They want to change the status quo, it's up to them to prove the change is necessary.


One more time. Please state the intrusion into your life by gay marriage. You dance around and ignore that every. Single. Time.

When womyn could not vote it was based on g
end.......nevermind. The only way to discuss this is one item at a time. I look forward to seeing what "intrusions" you have to endure due to gay marriage that justifies taking away their equal rights.
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't need to worry about intrusions, the burden is not on me. When someone wants to change what society has accepted for a very long time, they have the burden of showing the wrong. Gays haven't done that, they haven't done anything but whine about being persecuted. I'm not really sure there will be any effect to my personal life at all, but that's not the point. It's up to the gays who want the change to make their case.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I don't need to worry about intrusions, the burden is not on me. When someone wants to change what society has accepted for a very long time, they have the burden of showing the wrong. Gays haven't done that, they haven't done anything but whine about being persecuted. I'm not really sure there will be any effect to my personal life at all, but that's not the point. It's up to the gays who want the change to make their case.


Okay...so you retract the claim it would intrude on your life. Thank you.

But, your legal claim is absolutely backwards because the burden falls on those who wish to keep something illegal or make something illegal. Just like when you could order cocaine through a Sears catalog.....Sears did not have to show why it should be legal.....the opponents needed to provide compelling evidence it should be illegal.

This is why the anti equal rights camp constantly makes the false claim the burden is not on them. We all know why. It's because the anti equal rights camp cannot produce any argument that is compelling enough to justify discrimination based solely on gender.

When womyn were not allowed to vote it was based on gender. Were the voting laws equal at that time?
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You keep arguing discrimination, but there is none. You want to change the law. Your sears example is perfect because it was legal to sell cocaine. It stayed legal until compelling evidence was present to warrant a legal change and stop cocaine from being distributed. where is the compelling evidence that the marriage law should change?
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You keep arguing discrimination, but there is none. You want to change the law. Your sears example is perfect because it was legal to sell cocaine. It stayed legal until compelling evidence was present to warrant a legal change and stop cocaine from being distributed. where is the compelling evidence that the marriage law should change?

There's an old saying about arguments with certain types of people that have filled out the Customs Form ID Ten T, the form affirming that one is of sound mind.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Why was the simple question ignored?

When womyn were not allowed to vote it was based solely on gender. Where the voting laws equal?





You keep arguing discrimination, but there is none. You want to change the law. Your sears example is perfect because it was legal to sell cocaine. It stayed legal until compelling evidence was present to warrant a legal change and stop cocaine from being distributed. where is the compelling evidence that the marriage law should change?
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Geez...why insult gays like that? Has it been considered maybe....just maybe....those seeking equal rights don't view the commitment of marriage as lightly as you assume?





The fastest way to stop the entire debate about same sex marriage, is to make marriage itself less disposable. Its so corrupt now that anyone can divorce anyone for no reason, and be rewarded for it potentially. Its throwaway, not really much more than going steady with a class ring.

If marriage was harder to get out of, not impossible, just a bit harder, gays may like the idea of domestic partnerships and such. Marriage now is a trinket you can marry, divorce marry divorce, keep all the photos on the coffee table, oh that was so special.
If we Christians werent hypocrits about divorce, that'd be a start.

Nothing is as blatant as Christians ranting about same sex marriage (which impact, what...5% of the overall population), then later telling a friend who is divorcing to "follow their heart.

Lets get ourslelves sorted before we claim standing on marriage. right now, even if I oppose same sex marriage, I, as a Christian, lack standing.
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why was the simple question ignored?

When womyn were not allowed to vote it was based solely on gender. Where the voting laws equal?
Of course they were barred from doing an activity solely because of their gender. There's nothing right now stopping a gay man from getting married, except he doesn't want to. So there's no discrimination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rosenherman
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You are a very bright man. Why ignore the fact that it is gender discrimination to say the government will afford over 1,000 laws to two people who have different genders but deny two people of the same gender the same laws?

This is no different than when womyn were denied the right to vote based on gender. And. You. Know. It.






Of course they were barred from doing an activity solely because of their gender. There's nothing right now stopping a gay man from getting married, except he doesn't want to. So there's no discrimination.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Of course they were barred from doing an activity solely because of their gender.

And it wasn't just extremist lesbian feminists who were barred from voting. Women were barred from voting as well. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: DieHappy
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
That's exactly why I spell it like that. The desire to control womyn is so strong in some camps they cannot even let an alternate spelling go by without a complaint in some form.





And it wasn't just extremist lesbian feminists who were barred from voting. Women were barred from voting as well. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are a very bright man. Why ignore the fact that it is gender discrimination to say the government will afford over 1,000 laws to two people who have different genders but deny two people of the same gender the same laws?

This is no different than when womyn were denied the right to vote based on gender. And. You. Know. It.
I have no interest in the new Rob Zombie Halloween movie. Am I being discriminated against simply because it's in the theaters and others are enjoying it?

Say I have a good friend who is fat and diabetic and he loses his job. If I were to marry him, he'd automatically be enrolled in my health care plan covered fully. Are we being discriminated against because we can't do that?

What about the old lady who wants to leave everything to her cat? This kind of thing happens on a regular basis and it's always challenged and the cat always loses the case. If she were to marry her cat, then it would be an automatic transfer of estate to the cat and no challenge would survive. Is she, or the cat, being discriminated against because they can't marry to take advantage of estate law?

I'm not being obtuse. I suspect your hatred for the religious right is preventing you from seeing this subject objectively. I still like you, though!
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have no interest in the new Rob Zombie Halloween movie. Am I being discriminated against simply because it's in the theaters and others are enjoying it?

Say I have a good friend who is fat and diabetic and he loses his job. If I were to marry him, he'd automatically be enrolled in my health care plan covered fully. Are we being discriminated against because we can't do that?

What about the old lady who wants to leave everything to her cat? This kind of thing happens on a regular basis and it's always challenged and the cat always loses the case. If she were to marry her cat, then it would be an automatic transfer of estate to the cat and no challenge would survive. Is she, or the cat, being discriminated against because they can't marry to take advantage of estate law?

I'm not being obtuse. I suspect your hatred for the religious right is preventing you from seeing this subject objectively. I still like you, though!


I'm not seeing it objectively? How so? Bringing up R Zombie and cats suggests the need to grope in the dark to grab at anything. It is your subjectivity that is causing the darkness.

The voting analogy is valid and your only counter argument is based on the number of peeps involved. There are plenty of married gay couples....the problem is the State does not legally recognize those unions thus denying them Rights based solely on gender. This is no different than when there were womyn voters....they had a vote to cast but was denied that Right solely on gender.

Your only alternative move is to claim two people of the same gender do not fit the definition of "marriage." You have still ignored the fact marriage has NEVER held a universal definition. You will continue to ignore that because it makes your case even weaker.

There is something you're forgetting.....the State does not need a definition of marriage. All that matters is the State will give two people of opposite genders Rights that are denied to two people of the same gender. That is gender discrimination. Period.
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not seeing it objectively? How so? Bringing up R Zombie and cats suggests the need to grope in the dark to grab at anything. It is your subjectivity that is causing the darkness.

1) There is nothing preventing a gay man from marrying under the current law, except he doesn't want to.

2) There's nothing stopping me from seeing the Zombie movie, except I don't want to.

You'll have to explain the difference because saying I'm grasping doesn't actually help clear it up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
1) There is nothing preventing a gay man from marrying under the current law, except he doesn't want to.

2) There's nothing stopping me from seeing the Zombie movie, except I don't want to.

You'll have to explain the difference because saying I'm grasping doesn't actually help clear it up.


Your entire premise is outright dishonesty by virtue of ignoring the fact your definition of marriage is not universal. You. Keep. Ignoring. That.

I've also already stated there are many married gay couples in existence right now. The law does not recognize all of them because of gender discrimination. You can continue the charade that the laws are equal but when gender, and only gender, is the pivot point then it is discrimination.

You will not openly admit there is more than one definition of marriage because your entire argument rests on the premise there is and always has been one definition. By default in silence you imply your position is not tenable but that's one of the things about a message board....people can ignore what they want much easier than in a face to face.

Your R Zombie analogy, exactly like the tricycle one, reveals the discrimination. "Zombie" is the equivalent of State recognized marriage. You may see H2 without interference because the State does not punish you based on gender. A gay man may see Zombie, just like you, if he enters as you wish and by your definition of being qualified. But you would deny two gay men from seeing Zombie (State sanctioned Rights) if they fail the crotch check test. They may get married and have it recognized by the State (see the movie) ON THE CONDITION their genders are approved by your arbitrarily assigned definition of marriage. What gives you the right to define the most intimate personal commitment for all other Citizens? A Conservative never puts his shoes under another man's bed.
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your entire premise is outright dishonesty by virtue of ignoring the fact your definition of marriage is not universal. You. Keep. Ignoring. That.
There's only one legal definition. I don't think it's speeding until you hit triple digits. Iaccoca says you're not speeding until you're going faster than the car can handle. Something tells me neither of our definitions will hold up in court.

I can easily see how I'm being discriminated against when I want to go 95 but the law won't allow because it's biased rules and regulations disagree with what I want it to say, though! Maybe I've found my next defense in court.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
There's only one legal definition. I don't think it's speeding until you hit triple digits. Iaccoca says you're not speeding until you're going faster than the car can handle. Something tells me neither of our definitions will hold up in court.

I can easily see how I'm being discriminated against when I want to go 95 but the law won't allow because it's biased rules and regulations disagree with what I want it to say, though! Maybe I've found my next defense in court.


There are several legal definitions in the US and internationally. Why do you keep insulting my intelligence and ignoring that fact? Your speeding analogy, like the tricycle and R. Zombie movie attempts fails because you're repeatedly leaving out a necessary condition: gender. If the speed limit is 70 mph the gender of the driver driving at 75 mph is irrelevant.

The main difference in our positions is I want the law applied equally, truly blind to discrimination by gender. Your position wants to reward and punish people based on what is solely between their legs. It is a very liberal use of government to use it to strong arm other Citizens to follow your definition of marriage and it's pure extortion.
 
Upvote 0

Sojourner1

Following my Shepherd
Supporter
Jan 27, 2004
46,120
4,522
California
✟498,431.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mod Hat On



It's time to take this debate out into the forums. The safehouse is for fellowship and not debate.

* The safe house is for discussion and not for debate. Debate is defined as: "Engaging in argument by discussing opposing points."


Mod Hat Off
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.