Labor party and gay marriage

Baron Max said:
Bells, your snide, personal attacks are a little annoying. Is it really necessary for you to do that, or is it some mental illness you have, or what?
Click to expand...

Snide? I was going for a more 'in your face' thing to be honest.

How can I put this Baron?.. I will stop treating you like a child when you stop acting like one. I guess my expectations of you as an individual are just too high and when you disappoint repeatedly, with your manner of discussion on this forum, my frustrations at your lack of common sense that I know you have and have seen you show on many occasions but choose to hide for argument's sake, bubbles to the surface. But that's alright. Where you are concerned, I am teaching myself to lower the bar with just what I should expect from you and now I know that you are unable to post in good faith.

It's alright *pats Baron on the head*. The problem was actually with me. I simply shouldn't expect you to be as intelligent as I thought you were or could be. I know that now and will treat you accordingly.

Oh, I understood, Bells, but you obviously didn't understand my point. You like the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against gays, so you use "illegal" to support the gay rights. Yet ....it's illegal for gays to marry in most states, yet you don't seem to recognize THAT law?!
Click to expand...
How exactly am I not recognising that law, Baron?

Can you please tell me how I am not recognising that homosexuals are not allowed to marry? Am I not recognising it by calling said laws discriminatory?

The only way you could actually say that I was not recognising said law and actually be correct would be if I was a homosexual and gotten married regardless of the law. My voicing discontent at the current marital laws when it comes to homosexuals is not me not recognising it. My voicing my disappointment at the discriminatory practices of the law actually is a recognition of the laws themselves, in that I recognise the laws in place, but find them to be discriminatory.

What is this, Bells, ....you like some laws but not others? And it's only your own personal likes and dislikes of laws that makes it good or bad?
Click to expand...
Again, I shall explain it to you in simple terms. Just for you.

I dislike laws that actively seek to discriminate against a group in society.

Tell me, Bells, if something is illegal, do you think people should be trying to do it all the time?
Click to expand...

Are homosexuals trying to marry? Are they sneaking to registry offices and trying to sneak that marriage through in the hope that no one notices? Or are they lobbying to have the marriage laws changed by using legal and peaceful protests, which they are well within their rights to do?

I told you before, ....I don't know what the hell it is, and I don't think anyone else does either. There are tons of speculations, but ....do any of us know?
Click to expand...
So you don't know or cannot understand why you are attracted to the opposite sex? You don't know if you are a heterosexual or if you were led to believe you were a heterosexual? Oh wait, this is yet another example of me expecting you to respond to me in good faith. To me you say you don't know, but to Orleander, you say you do know:

Like you, I never thought about it, I was just always attracted to girls/women, so there was never any issue.
Click to expand...

So you either know you are straight or you don't know and think it's a belief. Which is it Baron?

No, but a nation, a collection of people, a society, should be within it's rights of self-determination to deny the ACTIONS of those that they don't want ....like homosexual actions. Notice, Bells, it's ACTIONS, not the person!! A nation should be within it's rights to enact laws against homosexual acts ...in the same way as they deny any of hundreds of human acts.
Click to expand...
And laws against the "homosexual acts" are now deemed discriminatory and backwards.

So much so that it is now illegal to discriminate against someone because they are homosexual and have homosexual sex. So, what exactly is your point here?

Human acts that are denied to members of society, acts such as murder, rape, assault, etc, are denied because they cause harm to others and to society. Can you see now why you cannot compare laws that tell "humans" they are not allowed to do certain "acts" and consentual sex laws?

I think a nation should be within it's rights of self-determination to deny blacks, asians, hispanics or anyone else access to that nation's resources. How can you support individuaal rights of self-determination, yet deny a naton's rights to self-determination?
Click to expand...
But these nations have laws in place that prevent discrimination against others, Baron. Do you dislike those laws?

Tell me, how would you feel if Texas passed a law that stated that white males in Texas were no longer allowed to access tap water in the State? Would you abide by that law and agree with it immediately? Or would you argue against it and demand demand change by peaceful and legal means because it discriminated against you and other white males in the State?

First, the laws and rules of a nation should not be determined in such a personal way or method. Laws and rules should be as unbiased and unpersonal as humanly possible.
Click to expand...
Ah. A vital point. And an interesting one when it comes to this whole issue.

When homosexual marriage is discussed in the legal and political sphere, it is never unbiased and unpersonal. Do you know why? Because every single leader that has come to deal with this issue always answers the questions about gay marriage this way:

"I do not agree with gay marriage." Or, "I believe that marriage should be between a man and woman"..

Emphasis added to point out the obvious.

So when lawmakers make such personal statements about the law, it is not "unbiased and unpersonal". Quite the contrary, they make the decisions about the law on purely personal grounds and beliefs.

But you are right. Laws should be "unbiased and unpersonal" and lawmakers should never refer their own personal opinions when creating laws that govern the whole. But when it comes to homosexual marriage, they do.

However, if a law was enacted as you mentioned above, then I'd have to abide by it or else move to another nation. What right do I have to try to force a nation to abide by MY feelings on issues and laws and rules? If the nation made those laws legally, in accordance with the pertinent rules, then those laws should stand.
Click to expand...
But here's the kicker Baron. The anti-gay marriage laws go against just about every single nation's anti-discrimination laws. Do you know why? Because it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.

That is why there is such a big bruhaha about the whole thing.

And, Bells, if you respond to this post, please do so without the snide, personal comments and allegations, okay? It's completely un-necessary.
Click to expand...
Yep. So now I will be open with you about why I speak to you as I do. Honesty is always best. I explained everything above.:D
 
Mod Hat - This is ridiculous

Mod Hat — This is ridiculous

I received two utterly ridiculous and stupid complaints about the same post. Fine. That post has been edited.

An additional post has been edited in order to adhere to the same hypersensitive, idiotic standard demanded by the original complaints.

Five posts have been deleted as off-topic, though I will not go so far as one of my fellow moderators and threaten a member with suspension for posting the claim that he reported a post.

However, as a general note to members: If you dislike a situation so much as to report it, do not drag it out.

You know, people used to complain when I moderated posts for these sorts of "offenses". But, hey, times change, and so do people's standards.

As to the original offense: How dare you give your honest opinion that a troll is trolling!

Er ... um ... yeah. It really is that stupid. So I would appreciate it if people would do their best to get along, give each other warm fuzzies, hold hands, and sing about teaching the world to live in perfect harmony. Since, well, that's apparently what the troll wants.

Unless, of course, you're gay. In which case you need to simply fuck off.

(Yes, I'm allowed to make jokes about ridiculous situations.)

Now, carry on.
 
Baron Max said:
No, but a nation, a collection of people, a society, should be within it's rights of self-determination to deny the ACTIONS of those that they don't want ....like homosexual actions. Notice, Bells, it's ACTIONS, not the person!!
Click to expand...

This is a classic homophobic reaction.

For some reason, some men are fixated on the idea of anal sex, in particular. The fear of gays arises from the disturbed imagining that a gay person might hit on the heterosexual male and have anal sex with him before he can do anything about it.

Most likely, Max has nightmares about this. Hence the rabid homophobia.
 
James R said:
This is a classic homophobic reaction.

For some reason, some men are fixated on the idea of anal sex, in particular. The fear of gays arises from the disturbed imagining that a gay person might hit on the heterosexual male and have anal sex with him before he can do anything about it.

Most likely, Max has nightmares about this. Hence the rabid homophobia.
Click to expand...

Same must be true of the greater majority of voters in California, huh, James? And, James, California is touted to be the most progressive, liberal state in the whole USA! Don't say much for how people feel about gays, does it? ...LOL! (Very high "yuk" factor, huh? ...LOL!)

Gay marriage was voted down (twice I think?) in California. See? When it's put to a vote, gay marriage is out! Gay marriage has only been approved in states where the voters were NOT given any chance to vote about it.

I love how you invent "nightmares" about homosexual acts ...is that how you see those acts, James? If not, why would you call them nightmares?! :D

My views haven't changed, James, even with you and Bells attempting to ridicule and belittle me. Gays should not be permitted to marry, nor permitted to adopt children (among other things, too, I think). What they do in their own homes is fine, but just like hetero couples, they should leave it there.

Baron Max
 
I love how you invent "nightmares" about homosexual acts ...is that how you see those acts, James? If not, why would you call them nightmares?
Click to expand...

He's saying that's how you see them. You know that, troll.
 
Baron Max said:
Same must be true of the greater majority of voters in California, huh, James? And, James, California is touted to be the most progressive, liberal state in the whole USA! Don't say much for how people feel about gays, does it? ...LOL! (Very high "yuk" factor, huh? ...LOL!)
Click to expand...

Your loud and forced laughter suggests that I've hit the mark.
 
James R said:
Your loud and forced laughter suggests that I've hit the mark.
Click to expand...

Good, James! I'm so freakin' glad to have made you happy.

Ya' know, I wonder ....what would it be like to be a black man who is gay and a Muslim living in Texas? :D

Baron Max
 
I do thank y'all for payin' so much attention to me, personally. But the thread is about gay marriage, ain't it?

And I still think that gays should NOT be permitted to marry. And as long as I'm eligible to vote, I'll vote against it. It's my right to try to make my society in the way I would like it to be.

Baron Max
 
In Texas, it's defined in the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Norsefire said:
In Texas, it's defined in the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


LOL, yeah, so. Interracial marriage was illegal in TX til 1967, when they were told by the Supreme Court they could no longer make it illegal. They must be so proud of their backwardness in Texas. LOL
 
Orleander said:
LOL, yeah, so. Interracial marriage was illegal in TX til 1967, when they were told by the Supreme Court they could no longer make it illegal. They must be so proud of their backwardness in Texas. LOL
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of being forward or backwards; culturally, there is no such thing.

The problem is, how do you measure how "forward" a culture is? No matter what standards you use, it's arbitrary and groundless.
 
Orleander said:
Okay
Click to expand...

No, I'm right. I mean, why is one culture better than another? Objectively speaking, that is

Texans are just much more conservative, and have more of an emphasis on family values and the preservation of such values. I don't know about Illinois or Michigan or wherever you live.
 
Norsefire said:
No, I'm right. I mean, why is one culture better than another? Objectively speaking, that is

Texans are just much more conservative, and have more of an emphasis on family values and the preservation of such values. I don't know about Illinois or Michigan or wherever you live.
Click to expand...

What family values were they protecting keeping interracial marriage illegal?
 
Orleander said:
What family values were they protecting keeping interracial marriage illegal?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I wasn't alive in 1967. Probably "tradition"

And you know, in the '60's was when the civil rights movement was happening, anyway, so saying "1967" doesn't mean anything.
 
Baron Max said:
And I still think that gays should NOT be permitted to marry. And as long as I'm eligible to vote, I'll vote against it. It's my right to try to make my society in the way I would like it to be.
Click to expand...

Full of homophobes, you mean. Well, yes, it's your right to try to do that.

Orleander said:
LOL, yeah, so. Interracial marriage was illegal in TX til 1967, when they were told by the Supreme Court they could no longer make it illegal. They must be so proud of their backwardness in Texas. LOL
Click to expand...

I don't think Texas has ever been a beacon of progressiveness on anything. Has it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top