2016 Election
Quote: AZDuffmanI have yet to see a proposal for "doing away with SS." Any proposal I have ever seen wither makes it optional or privatizes it and grandfathers in pretty much anyone over 30. I am getting too old for a better system, but why not let people choose?
Senators cannot "do away" with gay marriage, it is a state issue. How would the Feds do this?
Making it optional has a very good chance of killing it and why would we make it optional. No other tax in the country, discounting use and excise taxes, is optional. I cannot declare that I don't want to fund parts of the military or corporate subsidies so why the hell would you let someone opt out of social security. Also plenty of candidates want to severely cripple it by lowering benefits or raising the age to be able to extract from it.
Also yes senators can do away with gay marriage. Doma was declared unconstitutional but theoretically if they got enough people they could make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage something many Republican senators have proposed.
Quote: TwirdmanMaking it optional has a very good chance of killing it and why would we make it optional. No other tax in the country, discounting use and excise taxes, is optional. I cannot declare that I don't want to fund parts of the military or corporate subsidies so why the hell would you let someone opt out of social security. Also plenty of candidates want to severely cripple it by lowering benefits or raising the age to be able to extract from it.
Because it is not supposed to be a "tax" it is supposed to be funding your retirement. Of course it is really the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. If you opted out you would just not be participating in the system. No benefits would be drawn. The real benefit would be if you invested into your own account you could leave the money to your heirs. That would be a huge road out of poverty for the underclass.
Quote:Also yes senators can do away with gay marriage. Doma was declared unconstitutional but theoretically if they got enough people they could make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage something many Republican senators have proposed.
Theoretically many things could be done. All any "ban" has proposed is to not force one state to recognize gay marriages issued by another state. States all the time do not recognize rights issued by other states. For example, you cannot claim your PA conceal carry permit in NY. All an amendment would do is let states keep the right to make their own laws.
Quote: AZDuffman
Theoretically many things could be done. All any "ban" has proposed is to not force one state to recognize gay marriages issued by another state. States all the time do not recognize rights issued by other states. For example, you cannot claim your PA conceal carry permit in NY. All an amendment would do is let states keep the right to make their own laws.
Are you sorely misinformed or being deliberately dishonest? The Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed as recently as February of this year. Ted Cruz has said he is in favor of it. Numerous candidates in the 2012 primary said they were in favor of it including the eventual nominee Mitt Romney. Many of the current prospective 2016 primary candidates have come out in favor of it. These Federal Marriage amendments have similar wording and are designed to do the same thing that DOMA did which was make it so the Federal government is not required to recognize same sex marriage.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause it is not supposed to be a "tax" it is supposed to be funding your retirement. Of course it is really the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. If you opted out you would just not be participating in the system. No benefits would be drawn. The real benefit would be if you invested into your own account you could leave the money to your heirs. That would be a huge road out of poverty for the underclass.
This makes way too much sense and would be mind blowing for too many people.
Quote:Theoretically many things could be done. All any "ban" has proposed is to not force one state to recognize gay marriages issued by another state. States all the time do not recognize rights issued by other states. For example, you cannot claim your PA conceal carry permit in NY. All an amendment would do is let states keep the right to make their own laws.
This is also very true. I am a huge proponent of homosexual rights. I would even argue, that anyone against them has no rational basis and is ingrained in religion. All that being said, this is very true, state rights vary as they should state by state. I would wish very hard that a conceal carry permit in Alaska is applicable in New Jersey, but unfortunately not many liberals will march with me on this. Liberals only want to overwhelm state rights when it is applicable to their agenda, which does not apply to gun control.
People carry weapons are the last bastion of freedom in the modern world. But, not many people can see this any more. Too many people see the simple equation gun=bad. Nobody is willing to look at actual evidence on the subject.
Quote: Gandler
This is also very true. I am a huge proponent of homosexual rights. I would even argue, that anyone against them has no rational basis and is ingrained in religion.
To say it is all religion is incorrect. I have many problems with the gay agenda. Gays in combat IMHO is a hugely bad idea because it causes problems with morale and unit cohesion. Two soldiers in a sexual relationship in any unit causes issues. In a combat unit it will get people killed. Gays should not be allowed to donate blood due to high AIDS risks. If a person does not want to provide their individual services such as photography at a gay wedding should be free to refuse the business.
So my thing is when gays say they want "gay rights" what they mean is they want extra rights for a lifestyle choice. Those extra rights cannot be allowed to trample on someone else's rights. And a person should not be driven from a job or have their business destroyed because they are not in favor of the gay agenda.
For these reasons, I am against them. It is for rational reasons and has nothing to do with religion.
Alaska is a different country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_AlaskaQuote: Gandler... I would wish very hard that a conceal carry permit in Alaska is applicable in New Jersey,
I think it is pretty well assumed by everyone, that everyone else is armed. The only reason for a "concealed carry" permit is to travel outside Ak. Still it is illegal to carry into bars, [too many got shot] and fed buildings or schools.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo say it is all religion is incorrect. I have many problems with the gay agenda. Gays in combat IMHO is a hugely bad idea because it causes problems with morale and unit cohesion. Two soldiers in a sexual relationship in any unit causes issues. In a combat unit it will get people killed.
Yes. It can cause problems. I am in a combat unit (we have females also, as part of an experiment). And, there is a policy. No sexual relations with anyone within the unit. Any sexual act or any sexual relationship with anyone of any gender is punishable (and strictly enforced).
So far there has been many infractions (I can't even keep track off the top of my head) by men and women together. Not a single homosexual infraction.
Quote:Gays should not be allowed to donate blood due to high AIDS risks.
This is irrelevant as all blood donations are tested individually for HIV and any other serious blood disease.
Quote:If a person does not want to provide their individual services such as photography at a gay wedding should be free to refuse the business.
I agree 100%
Quote:So my thing is when gays say they want "gay rights" what they mean is they want extra rights for a lifestyle choice. Those extra rights cannot be allowed to trample on someone else's rights. And a person should not be driven from a job or have their business destroyed because they are not in favor of the gay agenda.
For these reasons, I am against them. It is for rational reasons and has nothing to do with religion.
I am not sure of what "extra rights" you mean?
I do not think marriage should be a government enforced contract. But as long as it is, why should the government have a right to say 2 men cannot marry by their definition? I am an atheist so I don't care about any religions definition of marriage.
I also agree, businesses have (or should) have every right to deny service to anyone, including gay people or religious people who they are not comfortable with.
Quote: petroglyphAlaska is a different country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Alaska
I think it is pretty well assumed by everyone, that everyone else is armed. The only reason for a "concealed carry" permit is to travel outside Ak. Still it is illegal to carry into bars, [too many got shot] and fed buildings or schools.
Well I think every business has (or should have) the right to ban guns (or anything else).
However, there should be no blanket ban on all bars or buildings of a certain kind. The Feds banning all guns in all bars is wrong in my mind.
I watched one documentary that considered the Spartans were homosexual, and this :http://www.soldiers-of-misfortune.com/history/gay-warriors.htm Also king Richard the lionhearted, and Edward the II etc.Quote: AZDuffman... Gays in combat IMHO is a hugely bad idea because it causes problems with morale and unit cohesion.
The IDF has both genders in their military, I am sure some of them have sexual activities. No one doubts their ferocity, bravery or ability to fight.Quote:Two soldiers in a sexual relationship in any unit causes issues. In a combat unit it will get people killed.
Would your argument be the same if say some soldier on the battlefield was a "closet" gay, as in say having a wife and children at home but desiring those of the same sex? It is pretty well known about the popularity of masturbation in the military, how can one tell to what they are fantasizing about, and how does that matter? It is thought by many that alot of the navy are gay.
What about just checking the blood to see if it's infected? TTBOMK blood is checked, but organs and bone marrow were/are not. So, during a kidney transplant a patient may receive blood from a homosexual which has been tested, but a kidney from a "strait" person who has aids, which is worse?Quote:Gays should not be allowed to donate blood due to high AIDS risks.
Agreed, business owners should enforce their right to refuse service to anyone.Quote:If a person does not want to provide their individual services such as photography at a gay wedding should be free to refuse the business.
Sure, they are people like everyone else who wants more/better than the next person. The pendulum always swings past center.Quote:So my thing is when gays say they want "gay rights" what they mean is they want extra rights for a lifestyle choice.
I am speaking of the State of Alaska.Quote: GandlerWell I think every business has (or should have) the right to ban guns (or anything else).
However, there should be no blanket ban on all bars or buildings of a certain kind. The Feds banning all guns in all bars is wrong in my mind.
It used to be people carried sidearms, rifles whatever into bars in Alaska. Too many people got shot. Now they at least have to take it out to the parking lost where most people have a gun or two under their seats. It gives everyone a chance to get theirs "in hand". On a strictly "rights" issue I understand why you would think guns in bars shouldn't be banned, but on a practical point, it was tried. Boot Hill.
Arizona is about the same way. Concealed carry is a right here, pack 'em if you got 'em. No permit necessary, AFAIK?
I was in Chiloquin [sp] Oregon in about '81 when a local ordinance was passed that every adult over 18 would have a firearm. If one couldn't be afforded the police would provide residents with one. The locals shall I say, were "a little restless".
Quote: Gandler
So far there has been many infractions (I can't even keep track off the top of my head) by men and women together. Not a single homosexual infraction.
Matter of time on a homosexual infraction. I disagree with women in combat 100% for this and other reasons. People think the gay ban in the military was just because someone "hated gays." It was much more likely for practical reasons.
Quote:This is irrelevant as all blood donations are tested individually for HIV and any other serious blood disease.
Not irrelevant, it is common sense. You cannot donate blood for many high risk activities. Travel to certain countries, using a prostitute, etc. Homosexual activity is just another high risk activity, tests or no tests.
Quote:I am not sure of what "extra rights" you mean?
Donating blood for one. To be scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts for another. I do not like the idea of gay males being in tents with teenage boys. Same as I do not want female leaders in with them or straight males in with teenage girls. It defies common sense. yet the gay lobby has been vilifying the Scouts for 20+ years now for this policy. Even after Sandusky showed the dangers of it in just a gym.
Quote:I do not think marriage should be a government enforced contract. But as long as it is, why should the government have a right to say 2 men cannot marry by their definition? I am an atheist so I don't care about any religions definition of marriage.
Again, there is no reason to even bring religion into it. Marriage being one man/one woman is a natural thing, not a religious thing. Marriage of one form or another goes across many societies. Until the 1990s, where on earth was the institution extended to gays?
Quote: AZDuffmanMarriage being one man/one woman is a natural thing, not a religious thing. Marriage of one form or another goes across many societies. Until the 1990s, where on earth was the institution extended to gays?
Enslaving captured peoples may have been natural by the definition of it going on for who knows how many centuries. Possibly it's been going on beyond recorded history.
Quote: rxwineEnslaving captured peoples may have been natural by the definition of it going on for who knows how many centuries. Possibly it's been going on beyond recorded history.
Probably has. And it will probably go on forever. What does it have to do with the issue?
Quote: AZDuffmanProbably has. And it will probably go on forever. What does it have to do with the issue?
Just that, natural doesn't necessarily mean something should continue or is right. I would argue that evolution only approximates over a curve. Who's to say, even if there are more brown eyed people or right hand people they are the most natural compared to less represented people. (being left hand and other eye colors).
Same with all differentiation.
The thing that is most unnatural is a condition that kills you right off because it's so off the scale. Even then we often try to give people with massive disabilities a life, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing.
Quote: AZDuffmanMatter of time on a homosexual infraction. I disagree with women in combat 100% for this and other reasons. People think the gay ban in the military was just because someone "hated gays." It was much more likely for practical reasons.
I don't necessarily dispute this. Though I think much of it is misguided and completely unenforceable. I have met many straight people who have occasionally engaged in "gay" behavior who would likely be labelled gay if caught. Likewise the other way around.
The point is, banning gays is almost unenforceable and subject to huge amounts of speculation and profiling. And for what? After the repeal of DADT, there was not a raise in homosexual rapes or harassment or anything. In fact most (almost all in fact) "homosexual sexual harassment" (butt taps, inappropriate comments, inappropriate taps, etc...) come from "straight" people as per Army archives.
Quote:Not irrelevant, it is common sense. You cannot donate blood for many high risk activities. Travel to certain countries, using a prostitute, etc. Homosexual activity is just another high risk activity, tests or no tests.
Yes it is irrelevant because all blood is tested. So regardless of the background of the individual, the test will reveal how safe or unsafe it is on an individual basis. There is almost no point to profiling blood, other than for the sake of profiling.
Quote:Donating blood for one. To be scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts for another. I do not like the idea of gay males being in tents with teenage boys. Same as I do not want female leaders in with them or straight males in with teenage girls. It defies common sense. yet the gay lobby has been vilifying the Scouts for 20+ years now for this policy. Even after Sandusky showed the dangers of it in just a gym.
If an adult has sex with a young boy that is rape and pedophilia, if they are gay or not is irrelevant. In fact "straight" people are more likely to be pedophiles than gays.
I am an Eagle Scout. And, I respect the rights of the BSA to make their decision as a private organization. But I don't think there is a rational or statistical basis in this one.
I am a huge fan of the BSA, and I have never vilified them, in fact I defend them as often as I can and I think they do a lot to encourage leadership and teamwork, and selfless service into young men (and women in the case of Girl Scouts).
Also, Sandusky was "straight" by the way as I am sure his wife would confirm.....
If I am bleeding out, I will gladly take blood from anyone, I don't care about their sexuality, or politics.
Quote:Again, there is no reason to even bring religion into it. Marriage being one man/one woman is a natural thing, not a religious thing. Marriage of one form or another goes across many societies. Until the 1990s, where on earth was the institution extended to gays?
There is because some of the biggest opponents of equal rights are Islamists and extremists Christians. And, they often cite the "Blessed teachings of Mohammed" or the "Word of God in the bible" as their rationale.
I am sorry if your only basis to critize gay marriage is the Koran or Bible, then there is no substance to your argument.
And, I believe (could be remembering wrong), The Netherlands had gay marriage prior to 1990, and I am sure there are others if I looked it up. But, this is also irrelevant, because "historically" if you want to go all the way back, marriage should be based on who can offer you the most camels or goats for your daughter....
Quote: AZDuffmanIf a person does not want to provide their individual services such as photography at a gay wedding should be free to refuse the business.
This issue has long been decided. A restaurant CAN NOT hang a sign that says they will not serve blacks. The frequently used example of wedding photographer or bakery and gays clients is exactly the same thing. Just substitute restaurant for wedding photographer and blacks for gays.
If you are in favor of a wedding photographer being able to deny service to a gay couple, you have to be in favor of a white restauranteur being able to hang a "no blacks" sign. It's already been decided, we are NOT going backwards. If you want to have a business open to the public, it must be open to all the public.
Quote: Gandler
Yes it is irrelevant because all blood is tested. So regardless of the background of the individual, the test will reveal how safe or unsafe it is on an individual basis. There is almost no point to profiling blood, other than for the sake of profiling.
No, profiling is just smart business. Suppose the virus is not yet detectable in the blood. Suppose the test is faulty. Suppose the blood gets mixed up in the lab. All of this can easily happen. Profiling blood for risky behavior is just smart and that is why they do it. Too bad if some feelings are hurt. Man up and move on.
Quote:If an adult has sex with a young boy that is rape and pedophilia, if they are gay or not is irrelevant. In fact "straight" people are more likely to be pedophiles than gays.
Also, Sandusky was "straight" by the way as I am sure his wife would confirm.....
Sandusky was not straight, if he was he would not have been preying on males. Simple logic test. And this kind of statement is another reason I have no respect for the gay movement. If gays and gay supporters should just say Sandusky is an awful human being. But they have to defend the premise that gays can do no wrong. So they say he was not gay. Plenty of gay males had wives, Rock Hudson to name one famous one. When a guy engages in predatory gay behavior and you try to say he wasn't gay, sorry, but you lose all credibility in your argument.
Quote:If I am bleeding out, I will gladly take blood from anyone, I don't care about their sexuality, or politics.
If you have to take blood in the field you will have many problems. Luckily in most cases it is not like on TV where they hook you up directly to another person.
Quote:There is because some of the biggest opponents of equal rights are Islamists and extremists Christians. And, they often cite the "Blessed teachings of Mohammed" or the "Word of God in the bible" as their rationale.
I am sorry if your only basis to critize gay marriage is the Koran or Bible, then there is no substance to your argument.
And, I believe (could be remembering wrong), The Netherlands had gay marriage prior to 1990, and I am sure there are others if I looked it up. But, this is also irrelevant, because "historically" if you want to go all the way back, marriage should be based on who can offer you the most camels or goats for your daughter....
I am not using either in my argument. My argument is the gag reflex 99% of people will get at the idea shows something should be wrong, along with it being biologically incorrect.
As to goats for your daughter, in western cultures the father paid to have their daughters to be taken off there hands. Called a dowry. It is why it was customary for the bride's family to pay for the wedding, or at least most of it.
Quote: kewljThis issue has long been decided. A restaurant CAN NOT hang a sign that says they will not serve blacks. The frequently used example of wedding photographer or bakery and gays clients is exactly the same thing. Just substitute restaurant for wedding photographer and blacks for gays.
If you are in favor of a wedding photographer being able to deny service to a gay couple, you have to be in favor of a white restauranteur being able to hang a "no blacks" sign. It's already been decided, we are NOT going backwards. If you want to have a business open to the public, it must be open to all the public.
As far as I'm concerned, if you are a business and open to the general public, and I don't care who owns the property, then you should be forced to serve everyone that walks in the door no matter what without exception. If you don't, then become a private business with paid membership.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAs far as I'm concerned, if you are a business and open to the general public, and I don't care who owns the property, then you should be forced to serve everyone that walks in the door no matter what without exception. If you don't, then become a private business with paid membership.
Quote: kewljThis issue has long been decided. A restaurant CAN NOT hang a sign that says they will not serve blacks. The frequently used example of wedding photographer or bakery and gays clients is exactly the same thing. Just substitute restaurant for wedding photographer and blacks for gays.
If you are in favor of a wedding photographer being able to deny service to a gay couple, you have to be in favor of a white restauranteur being able to hang a "no blacks" sign. It's already been decided, we are NOT going backwards. If you want to have a business open to the public, it must be open to all the public.
No, you have a logic flaw here. A photographer is not a service open to all comers at a fixed price. It is a service that is bid on based on availability and price. The photographer bids on the job. They have the right to decline the service. Same with the bakery, they should be able to say, "sorry, it is a product I do not produce."
Based on the way you say it, a black photographer should be forced to photograph the induction of new KKK members at a local meeting since you are saying photographers cannot decline a request for service. Meanwhile, a black baker must make a cake with a noose on it. Are you saying that?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd this kind of statement is another reason I have no respect for the gay movement. If gays and gay supporters should just say Sandusky is an awful human being. But they have to defend the premise that gays can do no wrong. So they say he was not gay.
Bullsh*t! I am gay and I have never defended sleazbag Sandusky. He is an awful human being. just as Michael Jackson was and so many 'straight' pedophiles, like Woody Allen for example, or taking it out of the celebrity context, same as all the male teacher that have sex with female students. I see a case on the local news almost weekly. And you know what that includes the felmale teachers who have sex with teenage male students. This has been overlooked or minimized for way to long.
Pedophilia is pedophilia, no matter what the sex of the adult, nor sex of the underage person.
Your attempt to link pedophilia with homosexuality is bizarre, sad and weak, AZDuffman. Although we disagree on most things politically, I thought more of you than stooping to that level.
Quote: rudeboyoiEveryone has the right to conduct business with whomever they please. Everyone has the right to say "hey f#*$ this guy. He discriminates against (insert whatever group here). Don't conduct business with him." The government gets in the way and violates these rights.
That is all I am trying to say! In a free society business cannot be transacted unless both sides agree. When you force one side to transact you have left freedom and are living in tyranny.
Quote: kewljBullsh*t! I am gay and I have never defended sleazbag Sandusky. He is an awful human being. just as Michael Jackson was and so many 'straight' pedophiles, like Woody Allen for example, or taking it out of the celebrity context, same as all the male teacher that have sex with female students. I see a case on the local news almost weekly. And you know what that includes the felmale teachers who have sex with teenage male students. This has been overlooked or minimized for way to long.
Pedophilia is pedophilia, no matter what the sex of the adult, nor sex of the underage person.
Your attempt to link pedophilia with homosexuality is bizarre, sad and weak, AZDuffman. Although we disagree on most things politically, I thought more of you than stooping to that level.
I am not stooping to any level. I am stating a point of fact. Why are you calling them "straight" when they engage in homosexual acts? You are merely proving my point and firming my position. They engage in homosexual acts yet they are "straight?" How can this be? At the least they are bisexual.
You say you are not defending the guy, yet you call him "straight?" Do you see what I am getting at? By saying this *you* are equating pedophilia with straight behavior, when it is not at all. The only difference biologically between consensual gay behavior and Sandusky is an arbitrary age number. Same as statutory rape is in a hetero one. Yet when a guy has sex with a 17 year old girl you do not hear anyone saying, "he was not straight!"
Do you see my point?
Quote: AZDuffman
Based on the way you say it, a black photographer should be forced to photograph the induction of new KKK members at a local meeting since you are saying photographers cannot decline a request for service. Meanwhile, a black baker must make a cake with a noose on it. Are you saying that?
Yes, sir...that is the law. If you are open to the public, you cannot discriminate who you serve.
A Palestinian cab driver in NYC can not choose not to pick up a Jewish man. It's illegal.
A Dallas Cowboy fan cab driver in Dallas, can not decide not to pick up a fare dressed from head to toe in Philadelphia Eagles attire. It's illegal.
Quote: rudeboyoiEveryone has the right to conduct business with whomever they please. Everyone has the right to say "hey f#*$ this guy. He discriminates against (insert whatever group here). Don't conduct business with him." The government gets in the way and violates these rights.
IMO the government should be bound by these laws. You cannot have a government refusing to give let's say a Driver's license to someone because they are black or gay or white or whatever. However, IMO a private business, funded by private money can serve those or not serve those they deem fit for their business. That isn't to say there aren't consequences for bad PR moves or something like that. For instance, if you come out against homosexual marriage, you might have to deal with the negative PR the GBLT community would give you. Being in the car business myself, I can decide if a customer's offer on a brand new car is out of line and not accept it. I would also perhaps give someone a little more leeway if they seemed to be decent people. I have thrown jerks out of the store before and I will do it again. And there are other instance where I will take more of a blower deal on stuff, like I might lose money on a car if someone lives 5 minutes away because we may make it up in service, however I won't take a blower deal from someone 45 minutes away who is clearly price-whoring 25 different dealerships in the Chicago area. There are extenuating circumstances with everything. Just because I say no to you, it also doesn't mean I said no because you are gay, even though that may be your perception
Quote: AZDuffman
Sandusky was not straight, if he was he would not have been preying on males. Simple logic test. And this kind of statement is another reason I have no respect for the gay movement. If gays and gay supporters should just say Sandusky is an awful human being. But they have to defend the premise that gays can do no wrong. So they say he was not gay. Plenty of gay males had wives, Rock Hudson to name one famous one. When a guy engages in predatory gay behavior and you try to say he wasn't gay, sorry, but you lose all credibility in your argument.
That is an absurd thing to say. It was predatory pedophilia behavior. He was straight all of his life and was straight married. Calling him straight is more than appropriate.
I stand by what I said 100%, there is no statistical associations between child abuse or pedophilia and homosexuality. In fact quite the opposite, most pedophiles are in straight marriages or are otherwise labeled as "straight". You may call this a gay conspiracy, but there is little evidence to any of those claims...
Quote:If you have to take blood in the field you will have many problems. Luckily in most cases it is not like on TV where they hook you up directly to another person.
Yes, but its much better than dying. Again if it saves your lives who cares who the individual donors were.
Quote:I am not using either in my argument. My argument is the gag reflex 99% of people will get at the idea shows something should be wrong, along with it being biologically incorrect.
As to goats for your daughter, in western cultures the father paid to have their daughters to be taken off there hands. Called a dowry. It is why it was customary for the bride's family to pay for the wedding, or at least most of it.
Again, who cares what 99% of people feel. If a relationship is consensual and between adults, it is nobody else's business. I find a lot of things disgusting, I would never advocate for the power of the state to ban or outlaw them.
As for biological incorrect. You may have a point if your only basis for relationships is reproduction. But, sense in modern society, most relations are based on far more than reproductive potential, that argument is not very interesting to me.
Though, I will say (as a biological anthropology major and an Army medic), that homosexuality is not "normal", (statistically or evolutionary), but that does not make it wrong, immoral, or socially corrosive behavior. In fact, the population is expanding too fast, if anything I would argue, we could use far more gay people to slow reproduction a bit.
As long as a relation is consensual among mentally capable adults, there can be nothing wrong with it.
Quote: rudeboyoiEveryone has the right to conduct business with whomever they please. Everyone has the right to say "hey f#*$ this guy. He discriminates against (insert whatever group here). Don't conduct business with him." The government gets in the way and violates these rights.
So you would agree with ISIS when they discriminate against every non-Muslim?
Quote: GandlerThat is an absurd thing to say. It was predatory pedophilia behavior. He was straight all of his life and was straight married. Calling him straight is more than appropriate.
So Rock Hudson was straight! Got it!
Quote:Though, I will say (as a biological anthropology major and an Army medic), that homosexuality is not "normal", (statistically or evolutionary), but that does not make it wrong, immoral, or socially corrosive behavior. In fact, the population is expanding too fast, if anything I would argue, we could use far more gay people to slow reproduction a bit.
As long as a relation is consensual among mentally capable adults, there can be nothing wrong with it.
This does not mean we sanction or encourage it by changing the definition of an institution.
On the last part, so you would say there is nothing wrong with a guy marrying his sister?
Quote: AZDuffmanOn the last part, so you would say there is nothing wrong with a guy marrying his sister?
That's none of mine or anyone else's business.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo Rock Hudson was straight! Got it!
This does not mean we sanction or encourage it by changing the definition of an institution.
On the last part, so you would say there is nothing wrong with a guy marrying his sister?
I have no idea who Rick Hudson is, so I can't agree or disagree.
As for the definition, it has been changed countless times over the last thousands of years. As with any cultural construct it will continue to change as needed. Though again I don't think the Federal government should have a say on marriage one way or the other.
As for the cheap sibling sex point. There are laws forbidding sexual encounter with siblings and cousins , so no need to make a marriage specific law in regards to that. And, there is good reason for this, besides the potential emotional damage, reproducing with a sibling has been shown to greatly increase the risk of various disorders. None of these risks are applicable to gay relations...
Quote: rxwineSo you would agree with ISIS when they discriminate against every non-Muslim?
Governments don't have rights. Only individuals do. If a Muslim individual wants to discriminate against a non-muslim individual then absolutely.
Quote: AZDuffman
I am not using either in my argument. My argument is the gag reflex 99% of people will get at the idea shows something should be wrong, along with it being biologically incorrect.
Its icky is not a suitable moral or legal argument. Hell I'd argue 99% of people find the idea of their parents having sex gag inducing. Does that mean after their first child parents can no longer have sex that doesn't bode well for the survival of our species. 99% of people find old people having sex disgusting perhaps we should ban that will sadly make life a lot worse for old people but you know what screw them old people sex is icky. Also just like gay sex old people sex is most likely non reproductive so I mean really why are we letting old people have sex.
Quote: GandlerI have no idea who Rick Hudson is, so I can't agree or disagree.
Rock, not Rick. Actor who would have been considered "Hollywood Royalty" pre-1970s. Gay but married. So by what you are saying since he had a wife he wasn't gay even though he was. (IOW, I am trying to show absurdity by making an absurd statement.)
Quote:As for the cheap sibling sex point. There are laws forbidding sexual encounter with siblings and cousins , so no need to make a marriage specific law in regards to that. And, there is good reason for this, besides the potential emotional damage, reproducing with a sibling has been shown to greatly increase the risk of various disorders. None of these risks are applicable to gay relations...
The statement was that "as long as it is between consenting adults then there is nothing wrong with it" so I am just seeing if you are as libertarian as you say you are or are you just libertarian if it supports the gay issue. As to risks, male to male intercourse greatly increases the risk of AIDS, and by a factor of probably 100 times as it is next to impossible for a straight male to catch it unless he shares needles. I'm not saying, I'm just saying......
Quote: AZDuffmanRock, not Rick. Actor who would have been considered "Hollywood Royalty" pre-1970s. Gay but married. So by what you are saying since he had a wife he wasn't gay even though he was. (IOW, I am trying to show absurdity by making an absurd statement.)
Sure, some gay people, especially back then, may marry to cover. Luckily in America in the 21st century most don't have to anymore since most people don't target them for hatred.
Quote:The statement was that "as long as it is between consenting adults then there is nothing wrong with it" so I am just seeing if you are as libertarian as you say you are or are you just libertarian if it supports the gay issue. As to risks, male to male intercourse greatly increases the risk of AIDS, and by a factor of probably 100 times as it is next to impossible for a straight male to catch it unless he shares needles. I'm not saying, I'm just saying......
I am not a libertarian. I am a Secular Neoconservative. But, yes I support equal rights and I have no shame in that.
But, as for your male on male statement that is 100% true and no biological educated person would argue that. Males can send diseases easier than females so to speak.
So by that logic should females also be outlawed from having sex with males? Since that is far riskier for them than having sex with females (this is also verifiablely true).
The fact is, some sex is more dangerous than others. If you wear protection and take appropriate precautions (screening your partner, etc...) there is not much to worry about on any front. Irresponsible (often drug or alcohol induced) sex is what causes most problems.
Anyway, many gay men, have been married to women. Usually closet issues, but sometimes confusion or not being honest with one self or ready to come to terms with one self. My "partner" whom I am married to (I like "partner" better than spouse or husband or whatever) has an ex-wife and 3 adult sons.
Quote: AZDuffman
The statement was that "as long as it is between consenting adults then there is nothing wrong with it" so I am just seeing if you are as libertarian as you say you are or are you just libertarian if it supports the gay issue. As to risks, male to male intercourse greatly increases the risk of AIDS, and by a factor of probably 100 times as it is next to impossible for a straight male to catch it unless he shares needles. I'm not saying, I'm just saying......
I'll say I have no problem with incestual marriage as long as at least one of the two members is shown to be infertile and thus the potential cost to the state of caring for the offspring who are at increased risk of genetic problems is eliminated. Also it is not practically impossible for straight males to contact AIDS and in fact the transmission risk is quite high if they engage in anal sex something many straight males do. There's also the fact in Africa most cases of AIDs are transmitted by straight sex and in fact vaginal sex though this is due to vaginal lesions which are less prevalent in the US. Also in that regards we should only be getting blood from lesbian woman as they have greatly reduced chance of getting AIDS.
They must serve everybody. Gays pay taxes that contribute to roads, bridges, police , fire station ect.
If a business uses this infrastructure partly paid by gays and me, they must serve gays.
open a business not using any part of the infrastructure paid partly by gays, well then , that business can run it any way they want.
Quote: terapinedIf a business accepts the use of the infracture provided by everybody's tax dollars including gays.
They must serve everybody. Gays pay taxes that contribute to roads, bridges, police , fire station ect.
If a business uses this infrastructure partly paid by gays and me, they must serve gays.
open a business not using any part of the infrastructure paid partly by gays, well then , that business can run it any way they want.
http://www.flowerhorne.com/blog/2013/11/26/get-your-fake-conscience-objections-off-my-lawn this right here. It is perfectly possible to not have to ever make a wedding cake for a gay couple don't become a baker. Same with catering or any of those other services. You don't get to demand all the benefits of operating a business and accept none of the consequences. A condition of forming a business is you will respect all laws concerning business including laws about not discriminating against protected classes. Just like if you don't want to give a patient plan B there are plenty of non pharmacist jobs available. If you cannot do your job as prescribed by law and by your employer you don't get to be all butt hurt. If I decided to open a business I cannot refuse to service Christian people and if I did you know Fox news would run hour long segments about the war on religion yet business try and refuse service to gay people and there is magically no segment about the war on gay people.
Quote: rudeboyoiGovernments don't have rights. Only individuals do. If a Muslim individual wants to discriminate against a non-muslim individual then absolutely.
Sounds awful in practice or theory.
Quote: rxwineSounds awful in practice or theory.
But it's okay to hold a gun to someone's head forcing them to bake you a cake?
Quote: mcallister3200Duffman apparently is incapable of grasping the concept that there are bisexual people.
According to actual research and not just stuff that Duffman makes up the majority 51% of child molesters who molested boys reported being exclusively heterosexual when it came to adults. They were an 7 on the Kinsey scale reporting no attraction to adult males. So it is hardly fair to really categorize these people as gay or even bisexual since pedophilia is already a sexual orientation and outside of that scale these people tend to be heterosexual with only 8% reporting exclusive homosexuality and 70% reported either exclusive or predominant heterosexuality on the Kinsey scale http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf .
Also this study http://ac.els-cdn.com/000579678890071X/1-s2.0-000579678890071X-main.pdf?_tid=d26a27fa-eafc-11e4-8d45-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1429933411_d3a04252a52ad2646a6b516a0ad33710 shows that while the group they examined who did target male children tended to be more attracted to adult males overall then the overall population they did not show less attraction to women, hence bisexual as you said. However there were clearly two groups within the group of offenders they examined a heterosexual group and a homosexual group and the heterosexual group were only mildly more attracted to adult males then the control group of non offenders. This study used penile measurements to measure arousal and I realize there are some problems with these but it is the closest I could find. I realize that article may be hidden behind a pay wall I had to use my UF login credentials to get access to the article.
There are other studies showing that gays are no more likely to attack boys then are straight men. Duffman is simply decades out dated with his research and is more influenced by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE rather then actual research done on the topic.
Those laws, "specific" or not, are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in Windsor v. U.S. That decision, relying on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, is perfectly applicable to polygamy, polyandry and incest, all under the rubric of "consenting adults." So the point is quite distant from "cheap."Quote: GandlerAs for the cheap sibling sex point. There are laws forbidding sexual encounter with siblings and cousins , so no need to make a marriage specific law in regards to that.
Quote: rudeboyoiBut it's okay to hold a gun to someone's head forcing them to bake you a cake?
This argument is stupid. Going with this all laws are holding a gun to your head. If you want you are free to move to another country without these laws. Or even easier if you don't want to bake a cake for gay people don't become a baker. No gay people are going to bash down the door to your house and force you to bake a cake. You chose to form a business so you follow business laws.
Here's a thing I don't want to kill people or harm people if it can be prevented. For this reason I did not enlist in the military where I may be forced to do such a thing. This meant I lost out on a lot of the benefits of being in the military like great insurance plan, a pension after 20 years, and all things of that nature. This choice was the only logical choice because I am morally opposed to most of the modern wars. Quakers go even further and many find it morally reprehensible to monetarily support a war so they take jobs at a low enough pay that they pay no federal income taxes so none of their money goes to war. I am not willing to make this sacrifice but thankfully my morality does not require it of me. You notice I didn't demand to get a GI bill and combat pay while refusing to serve in the military just like the Quaker did not demand to not pay taxes after they earned a specific amount of money. This is because people with actual convictions are willing to make sacrifices not complain that they don't get to have their cake and eat it to. Also yes I know me not being in the military is not a real sacrifice but neither is not being able to be a baker. There are plenty of other companies where you will probably never be forced to do anything for a gay wedding if gay weddings are such an affront to your religion open one of those.
Quote: MoosetonTwirdman, are you purposely saying that it should be LGBTP now?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What does P stand for. That acronym actually means lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and pansexual though I doubt that's what you are referring to. P could be polygamy I guess though don't think I brought that up at all. I talked about incest but that's an I.
I'm going to assume polygamy and correct me if I'm wrong. I have no moral problem with polygamy as long as it can be shown that all people entering into the relationship are consenting adults entering with presence of mind and body. This is not how a lot of polygamist groups actually work, but lets work in the abstract for now. I think it is far more complex to enable polygamist marriage then gay marriage for a number of legal reasons.
To enable gay marriage no real change has to be made except for saying it can be between two members of the same gender similar to the change made when interracial marriage bans were overturned. Enabling polygamist marriage requires far more complex contract law. It is assumed in a marriage the spouse makes all medical decisions when you are rendered unable to make your own medical decisions. If you have two spouses who exactly is supposed to make these decisions. Same with property division if one person decides to leave a marriage. There are other similarly complex things that would have to be worked out. I mean it could be done and I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it is far more complex then legalizing gay marriage and is an unrelated issue.
The very definition of UNEQUAL treatment under the law. Someone has a problem with applying the 14th Amendment.Quote: TwirdmanI'm going to assume polygamy and correct me if I'm wrong. I have no moral problem with polygamy as long as it can be shown that all people entering into the relationship are consenting adults entering with presence of mind and body. This is not how a lot of polygamist groups actually work, but lets work in the abstract for now. I think it is far more complex to enable polygamist marriage then gay marriage for a number of legal reasons.
