Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #90 : May 12, 2013, 08:09:35 PM »

"Simple question "

Sprung from a simple mind.

says a guy with no answer . .  .  :-[

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
« #91 : May 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM »

Note that I personally have said nothing about choices or lifestyles during this conversation. The reason being that regardless of my personal thoughts and feelings, it would waylay the conversation, as is happening now.
The crux of this issues comes down to one thing, is the push for Gay marriage to do with rights and tolerance, or it is all about acceptance?

1. you haven't typed that you think it is a choice but that is what you think based on your other comments
2. The crux of the issue is actually about whether one believes homosexuality is a choice because I presume people would not discriminate against a person who could not or did not control his/her fate.

I did indeed type in that I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice for some. They seek love, affection or attention that they fail to get elsewhere or because of some other deep reason. Child abuse for example. For example how many times has been written that child abusers were often themselves abused. But I also typed it in that this does not apply to everyone.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #92 : May 12, 2013, 08:39:40 PM »

Note that I personally have said nothing about choices or lifestyles during this conversation. The reason being that regardless of my personal thoughts and feelings, it would waylay the conversation, as is happening now.
The crux of this issues comes down to one thing, is the push for Gay marriage to do with rights and tolerance, or it is all about acceptance?

1. you haven't typed that you think it is a choice but that is what you think based on your other comments
2. The crux of the issue is actually about whether one believes homosexuality is a choice because I presume people would not discriminate against a person who could not or did not control his/her fate.

I did indeed type in that I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice for some. They seek love, affection or attention that they fail to get elsewhere or because of some other deep reason. Child abuse for example. For example how many times has been written that child abusers were often themselves abused. But I also typed it in that this does not apply to everyone.

so "some" people are born gay?



spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
« #93 : May 12, 2013, 09:02:29 PM »

Note that I personally have said nothing about choices or lifestyles during this conversation. The reason being that regardless of my personal thoughts and feelings, it would waylay the conversation, as is happening now.
The crux of this issues comes down to one thing, is the push for Gay marriage to do with rights and tolerance, or it is all about acceptance?

1. you haven't typed that you think it is a choice but that is what you think based on your other comments
2. The crux of the issue is actually about whether one believes homosexuality is a choice because I presume people would not discriminate against a person who could not or did not control his/her fate.

I did indeed type in that I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice for some. They seek love, affection or attention that they fail to get elsewhere or because of some other deep reason. Child abuse for example. For example how many times has been written that child abusers were often themselves abused. But I also typed it in that this does not apply to everyone.

so "some" people are born gay?

In the same way that some people are born with down syndrome, some are born blind and some are born deaf.

I am sure that will sound offensive to some, but the logic is if homosexuality is the true and natural order of things, they wouldn't last very long as a species would they?

Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
« #94 : May 12, 2013, 09:05:30 PM »

"Simple question "

Sprung from a simple mind.

says a guy with no answer . .  .  :-[

Let me help you out you **CENSORED**in' twit. No no chooses their sexuality. Okay you got that? Does it really need to be spelled out for you? Just how **CENSORED**ing needy are you for validation from me that you have to follow nearly every post I make seeking attention. Did your loser of a  Father never pay attention to you, son.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #95 : May 12, 2013, 09:08:08 PM »

Note that I personally have said nothing about choices or lifestyles during this conversation. The reason being that regardless of my personal thoughts and feelings, it would waylay the conversation, as is happening now.
The crux of this issues comes down to one thing, is the push for Gay marriage to do with rights and tolerance, or it is all about acceptance?

1. you haven't typed that you think it is a choice but that is what you think based on your other comments
2. The crux of the issue is actually about whether one believes homosexuality is a choice because I presume people would not discriminate against a person who could not or did not control his/her fate.

I did indeed type in that I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice for some. They seek love, affection or attention that they fail to get elsewhere or because of some other deep reason. Child abuse for example. For example how many times has been written that child abusers were often themselves abused. But I also typed it in that this does not apply to everyone.

so "some" people are born gay?

In the same way that some people are born with down syndrome, some are born blind and some are born deaf.

I am sure that will sound offensive to some, but the logic is if homosexuality is the true and natural order of things, they wouldn't last very long as a species would they?

well, I would let some others decide it that is offensive, my only point was that if you agree that a person is born a homosexual, meaning they dont have control over it, then how could the law sanction discriminating against such a person?

If you have Downs, are blind or deaf you cant get married . . .
« : May 12, 2013, 09:22:04 PM VinBucFan »

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
« #96 : May 12, 2013, 09:21:40 PM »


well, I would let some others decide it that is offensive, my only point was that if you agree that a person is born a homosexual, meaning they dont have control over it, then how could the law sanction discriminating against such a person?


In the same way that gay men are still not allowed into ladies locker rooms. It depends what the "discrimination" is and the situation in which it is applied. The law can be changed in a similar manner in which it has been applied to common law "husband and wife."

Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
« #97 : May 12, 2013, 09:22:20 PM »

Here's an overview on the sexual continuum.


The Kinsey Scale (also referred to as the Kinsey Sexuality Continuum) is a way of thinking about sexual orientation. Prior to the Kinsey Scale, the widely accepted scientific understanding of sexual orientation was that a person was definitely heterosexual or homosexual.

The Kinsey Scale, was developed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin in 1948, in order to account for research findings that showed people did not fit neatly and exclusively into the heterosexual or homosexual box. The team proposed that sexual orientation was not an either or but in fact a continuum, with people with people ranging in sexuality from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual.
The sexual continuum ranges from 0, for those who would identify themselves as exclusively heterosexual to 6, for those who would identify themselves as exclusively homosexual and 1-5 for those who would identify themselves with varying levels of desire or sexual activity with either sex. In most recent years, sexologists have incorporated a 7 to the scale to include those who identify themselves as asexual.

   •   0 – Exclusively heterosexual
   •   1 – Predominantly heterosexual
   •   2 – Mostly heterosexual
   •   3 – Bisexual, equally heterosexual and homosexual
   •   4 – Mostly homosexual
   •   5 – Predominantly homosexual
   •   6 – Exclusively homosexual
   •   7 or X – Asexual, Non-Sexual
In order to assess a person’s individual ranking on the sexuality continuum, Kinsey suggested that it is necessary to consider a variety of activities including but not limited too: fantasies, thoughts, dreams, emotional feelings, behaviors, social preferences, lifestyle and frequency of sexual activity.

Based on his findings, Kinsey believed that few people existed on either end of the continuum and many people would fall somewhere between numbers 0-3 because they occasionally think/dream/fantasize about sexual activities with members of the same sex and/or occasionally act on these feelings. Kinsey and his colleagues, made shock waves by publishing his research suggesting – for the first time in popular culture – that most humans, male and female, belonged somewhere in the middle; with sexual attraction to both men and women.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #98 : May 12, 2013, 09:23:20 PM »


well, I would let some others decide it that is offensive, my only point was that if you agree that a person is born a homosexual, meaning they dont have control over it, then how could the law sanction discriminating against such a person?


In the same way that gay men are still not allowed into ladies locker rooms. It depends what the "discrimination" is and the situation in which it is applied. The law can be changed in a similar manner in which it has been applied to common law "husband and wife."

a person with Downs can get married, blind people get married, deaf people get married. Again, those are your comparisons not mine but accepting them there's no reason to discriminate against someone because they are gay

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #99 : May 12, 2013, 09:31:58 PM »

credit to ufojoe for posting this in the other thread:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/choose-to-be-straight-video-_n_3247301.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice should watch this and ask themselves the same question: when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
« : May 12, 2013, 09:42:01 PM VinBucFan »

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
« #100 : May 12, 2013, 09:56:18 PM »


well, I would let some others decide it that is offensive, my only point was that if you agree that a person is born a homosexual, meaning they dont have control over it, then how could the law sanction discriminating against such a person?


In the same way that gay men are still not allowed into ladies locker rooms. It depends what the "discrimination" is and the situation in which it is applied. The law can be changed in a similar manner in which it has been applied to common law "husband and wife."

a person with Downs can get married, blind people get married, deaf people get married. Again, those are your comparisons not mine but accepting them there's no reason to discriminate against someone because they are gay

Did you miss the point or simply ignore it because you didn't like it?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #101 : May 12, 2013, 10:14:27 PM »


well, I would let some others decide it that is offensive, my only point was that if you agree that a person is born a homosexual, meaning they dont have control over it, then how could the law sanction discriminating against such a person?


In the same way that gay men are still not allowed into ladies locker rooms. It depends what the "discrimination" is and the situation in which it is applied. The law can be changed in a similar manner in which it has been applied to common law "husband and wife."

a person with Downs can get married, blind people get married, deaf people get married. Again, those are your comparisons not mine but accepting them there's no reason to discriminate against someone because they are gay

Did you miss the point or simply ignore it because you didn't like it?

I guess I missed it. The question is marriage, not access to locker rooms, but I guess I am missing your point as goes marriage

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #102 : May 13, 2013, 04:41:20 AM »

I live in a town with one of the largest homosexual communities in the US outside of San Francisco. I have met quite a few, probably more than the average person. IMO, I have met some individuals where homosexuality was a choice, and I've met some individuals where taking one look at them would suggest to you that it absolutely was not a choice. One of my good friends is a lesbian who you could tell was a lesbian even if you saw here in a freaking pink dress wearing high heels with a flower in her hair. She was born the way she is. I have no doubt about it in my mind.

At the end of the day, however, it shouldn't matter. Homosexuality is not akin to bestiality or pedophilia. Two consenting adults engaging in sex is not morally or legally on par with someone taking advantage of something or someone who lacks the mental capacity to understand what is happening to them. By suggesting it is, you are only revealing your prejudice and your ignorance, and religious freedom is just the cover you choose to use to justify it.

What One Truth and Spartan are suggesting is that by not being able to restrict someone else's liberties, their liberties are under duress. How in the world does that make even an iota of sense? Gay men and women marrying has no impact on your life whatsoever. It doesn't prevent you from doing a damn thing. It doesn't stop you from being able to worship your god in any way that you see fit. It does not restrict your freedom of religion, it merely restricts you from imposing it on the rest of the populace.

All allowing gays to marry really does is offend you, and because you find it offensive, you believe it is just to be able to restrict their liberties to save you from the inconvenience of being offended. The religious argument is woefully insufficient to justify your position. If you really wanted to save souls, then you would do so by making the case for your position that doesn't entail you forcing people to adhere to it, but rather to be gravitated to it willfully, as the scripture suggests you ought to. I guess that whole "free will" thing only exists in the bible and in the minds of non-Christians.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
« #103 : May 13, 2013, 07:30:49 AM »

"Simple question "

Sprung from a simple mind.

says a guy with no answer . .  .  :-[

Let me help you out you **CENSORED**in' twit. No no chooses their sexuality. Okay you got that? Does it really need to be spelled out for you? Just how **CENSORED**ing needy are you for validation from me that you have to follow nearly every post I make seeking attention. Did your loser of a  Father never pay attention to you, son.

you might be the least talented troll on these boards.  No wonder you stay down here.  Yikes.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31372
Online
« #104 : May 13, 2013, 09:02:20 AM »

"Simple question "

Sprung from a simple mind.

lolz

  Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools