Page 4 of 11
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:55 am
by baldeagle
Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.
What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?
Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.
Wow. Stunning simply stunning.
Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?
Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.
I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.
Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:58 am
by Glockster
baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.
What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?
Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.
Wow. Stunning simply stunning.
Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?
Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.
I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.
Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.
Clearly I DID answer your question. But you didn't answer mine: are you claiming that anyone who is straight has made a choice to be so? And did YOU make that choice? And if so, when?
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:10 am
by baldeagle
Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.
What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?
Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.
Wow. Stunning simply stunning.
Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?
Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.
I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.
Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.
Clearly I DID answer your question. But you didn't answer mine: are you claiming that anyone who is straight has made a choice to be so? And did YOU make that choice? And if so, when?
You did not. You never said whether you believe bisexuality is something a person has no choice about.
No, I'm not claiming that being straight is a choice, but promiscuity certainly is a choice. It's a choice to live an immoral life, where your selfish desires trump those of others.
Do you deny that?
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:20 am
by Glockster
baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:baldeagle wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.
What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?
Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.
Wow. Stunning simply stunning.
Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?
Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.
I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.
Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.
Clearly I DID answer your question. But you didn't answer mine: are you claiming that anyone who is straight has made a choice to be so? And did YOU make that choice? And if so, when?
You did not. You never said whether you believe bisexuality is something a person has no choice about.
No, I'm not claiming that being straight is a choice, but promiscuity certainly is a choice. It's a choice to live an immoral life, where your selfish desires trump those of others.
Do you deny that?
Very sad the lens that you apparently view life through. If you can't read that I answered the question, feel free to re-read again (and again if necessary). You define that as promiscuity. But that is based on your personal beliefs, and your own sense of what you believe is a selfish desire.
I'm going to move along as having this discussion is clearly pointless.
I'm in full support of marriage equality - and as I have the legal ability to marry anyone in Texas who meets the legal requirements (including same sex couples), I'm more than happy to do so.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:27 am
by b322da
baldeagle wrote: Please point to the place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court was granted the power to overturn laws that are the province of the states and the people.
I would suggest that you ask a question which assumes the answer. That is, whether of not any particular law is or is not "the province of the states and the people" assumes that the issues before the Court in the case at hand
are in the province of the states and the people. The highest court in our land decided that those issues were, instead, in the province of our Constitution. Here one might again see a difference of opinion between the Tenth Amendment vs. the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court has decided explicitly that discrimination by a state as to gay marriage is prohibited by the 14th and, implicitly, that the 10th is unavailable to validate such discrimination.
Jim
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:51 am
by TXBO
b322da wrote:baldeagle wrote: Please point to the place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court was granted the power to overturn laws that are the province of the states and the people.
I would suggest that you ask a question which assumes the answer. That is, whether of not any particular law is or is not "the province of the states and the people" assumes that the issues before the Court in the case at hand
are in the province of the states and the people. The highest court in our land decided that those issues were, instead, in the province of our Constitution. Here one might again see a difference of opinion between the Tenth Amendment vs. the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court has decided explicitly that discrimination by a state as to gay marriage is prohibited by the 14th and, implicitly, that the 10th is unavailable to validate such discrimination.
Jim
That's exactly what the court did. The only way to make the 14th Amendment applicable, however, was to declare marriage a fundamental constitutional right. That is judicial activism at it's very finest.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:02 pm
by Abraham
What's next on the leftist agenda when it comes things once considered perversion?
Will NAMBLA gain traction?
Will biological siblings campaign to marry if they so choose?
Perhaps, my concerns are "way out there" and will never be an issue, (I hope) but as a kid of the fifties, I never thought such things as same sex marriage would come about either...
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:13 pm
by Jim Beaux
The SCOTUS decision has fealty to the constitution on par as the viability of homosexuality to natural law.
Though his words may be muted by squawking liberal rhetoric, the truth of Chief Justice John Roberts statement is thunderous:
"If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... o-with-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The debate continues as to the cause, but the simple and undeniable fact is homosexuality is an aberration.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:31 pm
by anygunanywhere
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Thomas Jefferson
This country is no longer a country that exists by rule of law.
There are no longer three branches of government.
I dare say that the government is no longer legitimate because it is no longer governing under the Constitution or Bill of Rights
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:36 pm
by mr1337
Beiruty wrote:Yeah, what I mean if gays can live married with no kids or even as you mentioned heterosexual couple do not want kids or could not afford kids. The whole society will suffer, so somehow, gay marriage may affect the whole society. It is all about acceptance of gays in the society and the legal ramification for kids and their rights.
Sorry I'm going back so far, but I wasn't online for the majority of the discussion here.
Beiruty, are you saying that because my wife and I don't want kids, that society will suffer?
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:45 pm
by carlson1
Glockster wrote:Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.
What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?
Turns to sodomy or chooses sodomy it is the same thing.
I am leaving this thread because it is obvious this isn't going to be an active thread very long.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:27 pm
by Dave2
mr1337 wrote:Beiruty, are you saying that because my wife and I don't want kids, that society will suffer?
Speaking for myself (NOT Beiruty), no, of course not. However, the smooth functioning and continuation of a society/culture/civilization depends, to a large degree, on certain behaviors (having kids, in this case) being "normal". If a few people here and there behave differently, it's not an issue. But, in this case, if enough people from the
current generation deviate from the "normal" of having children, there won't be enough people to form the
next generation (which, I, at least, view as a problem).
To be clear, this is in no way an attack on you & your wife. Also, I'm specifically talking about having or not having kids (ain't touching gay marriage with a 10-ft pole... seems like there's no way to discuss controversial issues these days without someone going off on you, even if you don't say anything offensive to anyone).
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:33 pm
by Jim Beaux
The siege continues.
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was- ... al-rights/
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:38 pm
by cheezit
mr1337 wrote:Beiruty wrote:Yeah, what I mean if gays can live married with no kids or even as you mentioned heterosexual couple do not want kids or could not afford kids. The whole society will suffer, so somehow, gay marriage may affect the whole society. It is all about acceptance of gays in the society and the legal ramification for kids and their rights.
Sorry I'm going back so far, but I wasn't online for the majority of the discussion here.
Beiruty, are you saying that because my wife and I don't want kids, that society will suffer?
Yup wife cant have kids, guess im right there with the lot that is a drain on society.
Re: to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:08 pm
by Winchster
"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
Chief Justice Roberts
We need to get Abbott to call a special session to do what Alabama is doing.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... -marriage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;