The ethics of homosexuality.

The 2nd amendment secures my right to marriage! Take cover, right wing authoritarian! haha.

Seriously, though, we've looked into this, but found that it was unfeasible. We aren't so great at shooting straight, and when it come to grenades. . . well with exception of a few of the dykes, we tend to throw like girls.

Besides, when it comes to warplaning we tend to want to spend more time designing the uniforms than figuring out things like troop movements and supply lines.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To marry WHAT??!! ...and THAT is the issue, isn't it?

And if it's our "right" to marry any-damned-body and any-damned-thing, does that mean I can now marry my goat?!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, because a goat is not a human by law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Originally Posted by Mystech
The 2nd amendment secures my right to marriage! ”

I'll ask again: To marry WHAT??!! ...and THAT is the issue, isn't it?

This time, please answer the question.

Baron Max

 

Well, the US isn't the world. Homosexual marriages are legal in several countries.

 

So you now, after all this time, admit that the US Constitution does NOT afford you the "right" to marry a man????? ....why have we continued this discussion for so long?

See? It's simply that gays are a special interest group that wants to CHANGE our laws, our Constitution. Why should we, the majority, succumb to the wishes of a few? ...just because you want it? Should we do that for every special interest group? ...just give in to whatever they want, whenever they want it?

Yes, gay marriage is legal in "some" countries. But it's ILlegal in MOST countries of the world.

Baron Max

 

I wasn't discussing with you really. It is not my fault the US is a backward country in some respects.

edit: or the rest of the world.

 

What do you mean "this time"? I haven't posted since you asked me the question.

Anyhow, I'd say that the 2nd amendment secures your right to marry just about anyone or anything! You can do whatever you like when you've got a gun! It was a joke, max

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- laugh.

We want to change the laws back to the way they were prior to 2002 or so, when all those state constitutional amendments started getting passed, and repeal the 1996 DoMA, that's it. You seem to be a bit confused about who wants to change the constitution, because it isn't civil rights activists. It's Bush and his flock of Evangelicals that want to amend the constitution, you'd know that if you've been paying attention at all. The constitution is on our side.

 

This is a comical way for you to dodge the constitutonality issues we have been flinging at you. Someone brings up other countrys, so out of your ass you pull that its legal there but not here?

Do you know why they wanted to pass a anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment? Because the right knows that the constitution demands its legality!

 

Well, I want to change the laws and Constitutional amendments back to the way they were just prior to the Civil War ....should I be permitted to do that?

Baron Max

 

Nope, people don't respond very well to having their rights taken away, especially once granted. Besides, I'm sure that you'll find that in general most folks seem to be against totalitarian oppression, and generally oppose unnecessary measures which serve only to further that end. Kind of like bans on same-sex marriage!

 

You mean like how the southern cotton farmers responded when the mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals of the north took away their rights to slave ownership? Ahh, now I understand you dilemma! So, if you give us southern farmers BACK our rights, we'll grant you the right to marry another fag, is that a deal?

Baron Max

 

Unfortunately for southerners in favor of slave ownership, one's individual rights do not extend so far as to be able to deny the human rights of other individuals. That sort of situation would create a bit of a legal paradox, I'm afraid, or hadn't you noticed?

 

Well, it wasn't a legal paradox at the time. Most people of those times didn't consider blacks as human, remember? So they also didn't consider that they were denying them "human" rights. It was only the Civil War, a very bloody and deadly war, that it was then announced that blacks were, in fact, humans with the same "rights" as other men.

See how laws work in a society? Our society was perfectly happy for a hundred years or so denying the "rights" to slaves. Then, one day, someone said, "Gee, are those black slaves human?" ...and then the shit hit the fan! And after a major war, the north won, and forced the south to accept the liberal laws!

See? If the south had won, we'd still have blacks as slaves!

A society makes/create/writes laws as they see fit for the time in which they're society is operating. It's not a major contest in "right or wrong", but in how the society sees or determines things to be. And who writes the laws? Well, golly, the members of that society, of course!

And since we now have that same right, we're writting laws against homo marriage in the same way as we wrote laws before ....it's what society wants and needs at the time.

Baron Max

 

So you're justifying withholding the rights of homosexuals by saying that slavery was right and proper? What a beautiful world you're building, Max. The rest of us have long since decided that we’d like to live in a better one, though.

 

But you couldn't tell it by the news media or by looking around at the world we live it, could you? We're animals, at best, and we live in cages made of laws and rules and police and courts and jails!! We ain't nothing but animals in a zoo. Homos are just lower animals than the other in the zoo, that's all.

And I'm not withholding the "rights" of homos ....I've never given them those rights in the first place!

Baron Max

 

You're an extreemly twisted person, you know that?

 

...LOL! You're gay, you like to suck cocks ....and YOU call ME twisted?? ...LOL!! That's a good one, Mystech, a damned good one! (Can I use that for a quote???)

Baron Max

 

Slightly atypical non-harmful consensual sexual behavior vs. advocating of the complete destruction of every principal on which the United States was founded to further a hateful and divisive agenda. Which one seems worse to you?

 

Huh? Please explain that outburst!

And don't forget to use the words "complete destruction". ...LOL!

Baron Max