[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Using this logic, is it your position that couples who do not intend to, or simply cannot reproduce, should not be allowed to marry?

I figured this would be asked. My point is to outline the rational for why it is not natural. Plain and simple it's not no matter how you want to look at it. You can say people are born that way or use any other reason for it, but the fact is that homosexuals are the minority. If they were not then we would have an ever decreasing population. God as the creator did not intend for man and man or woman and woman to marry. If you don't agree with that by all means that's your choice, and you should have the right to follow that decision. That's free will, and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

I figured this would be asked. My point is to outline the rational for why it is not natural. Plain and simple it's not no matter how you want to look at it. You can say people are born that way or use any other reason for it, but the fact is that homosexuals are the minority. If they were not then we would have an ever decreasing population. God as the creator did not intend for man and man or woman and woman to marry. If you don't agree with that by all means that's your choice, and you should have the right to follow that decision. That's free will, and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

I'm not following your line of reasoning at all. Are you now contending that being minority makes it unnatural?

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

I'm not following your line of reasoning at all. Are you now contending that being minority makes it unnatural?

I think I spelled it out pretty clearly. Read what I said in the context of what was written. I believe you understood what was said, but you don't agree with it. That's perfectly suitable, and we can disagree without getting into nit picking a single sentence out of a paragraph and turning the statement into something else.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

You can say people are born that way or use any other reason for it, but the fact is that homosexuals are the minority.

So the majority can marry who they chose, but the minority cannot?

In what other situations would you have the majority deny a right to the minority?

-ArtificialGrape

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

So the majority can marry who they chose, but the minority cannot?

In what other situations would you have the majority deny a right to the minority?

-ArtificialGrape

It has nothing to do with minority/majority, but has everything to do with what was said within the context of the paragraph. Again, if homosexuals were the majority we would face an ever decreasing population. God did not create man and man or woman and woman to have children. It simply goes against science, nature, and our survival. What's not to understand?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

I think I spelled it out pretty clearly. Read what I said in the context of what was written. I believe you understood what was said, but you don't agree with it. That's perfectly suitable, and we can disagree without getting into nit picking a single sentence out of a paragraph and turning the statement into something else.

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else here, but it's just subjective opinion without external objective justification and as such should not be a factor when considering legality in an environment intended to promote individual liberty. The only relevant factor in such a system when considering whether a behavior should be prohibited is if there is a direct and unavoidable victim to such behavior. There is not in the case of homosexual marriage. I'm sure some will try to generalize here and attempt to characterize homosexual marriage as a toxic family environment, but this is also unsupportable in an objective fashion.

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

I think I spelled it out pretty clearly. Read what I said in the context of what was written. I believe you understood what was said, but you don't agree with it. That's perfectly suitable, and we can disagree without getting into nit picking a single sentence out of a paragraph and turning the statement into something else.

Think what you like, I do not follow your line of reasoning.

Paranoid much?

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

It has nothing to do with minority/majority, but has everything to do with what was said within the context of the paragraph. Again, if homosexuals were the majority we would face an ever decreasing population. God did not create man and man or woman and woman to have children. It simply goes against science, nature, and our survival. What's not to understand?

So explain how allowing them to be legally married would result in a decrease of the population. Starting with 7 billion people, how would that happen? You do realize that gay people still have working reproductive systems and they do reproduce often when they so desire and that their offspring have the same chance of turning out straight or gay as the offspring of hetero couples right?

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Geko45

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else here, but it's just subjective opinion without external objective justification and as such should not be a factor when considering legality in an environment intended to promote individual liberty. The only relevant factor in such a system when considering the whether a behavior should be prohibited is if there is a direct and unavoidable victim to such behavior. There is not in the case of homosexual marriage. I'm sure some will try to generalize here and attempt to characterize homosexual marriage as a toxic family environment, but this is also unsupportable in an objective fashion.

Cool we can agree to disagree.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

I think I spelled it out pretty clearly.

No, you didn't. There are now 3 of us asking for clarification.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

It has nothing to do with minority/majority, but has everything to do with what was said within the context of the paragraph. Again, if homosexuals were the majority we would face an ever decreasing population. God did not create man and man or woman and woman to have children. It simply goes against science, nature, and our survival. What's not to understand?

Homosexual behavior is found in nature and is very well documented in mammals and birds. That would be a pretty standard definition of natural, unless you would argue that all those animals had mommy issues. As already pointed out, there is no risk of the population going extinct due to homosexuality. Even at 100% homosexual, I'm pretty sure that gay men and gay women could figure out how to keep the species going.

Face it, heterosexuals haven't done a great job with marriage to be determining what others should be able to do.

I imagine you cherish the person that you married. Fortunately for you that person was of the opposite sex. You want to deny that chance at happiness to others. Not everybody does.

-ArtificialGrape

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

Cool we can agree to disagree.

Sure. You want to limit the freedom of others based on your bible and I disagree. I imagine you would feel the same if I had an old book, possibly written by George Orwell, that I wanted the government to use to limit your freedom.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

Cool we can agree to disagree.

Only if you agree that your opinion is not a factor when considering whether homosexual marriage should be legalized.

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Sure. You want to limit the freedom of others based on your bible and I disagree. I imagine you would feel the same if I had an old book, possibly written by George Orwell, that I wanted the government to use to limit your freedom.

I did not make reference to the Bible in my position, but regardless of my beliefs your argument would be the same. If we remove the aspect of a creator my argument would not change either. Adam and Steve don't procreate. You don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Only if you agree that your opinion is not a factor when considering whether homosexual marriage should be legalized.

We live in a 'free society' that is based on votes. You cast yours as you see fit, and I'll cast mine.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

We live in a 'free society' that is based on votes. You cast yours as you see fit, and I'll cast mine.

Great. When the majority decides that you can't own guns then I guess you'll just accept that their opinion is valid and cheerfully give them up.

Some things shouldn't be voted on because they are inherent rights. It's only when you can show clear and definite harm to the society as a whole that any activity should be prohibited. You don't want freedom for all, only for those that you agree with. Ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that this is the same mindset that says women should never been allowed to vote because they base decisions on emotion rather than logic.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

We live in a 'free society' that is based on votes. You cast yours as you see fit, and I'll cast mine.

Wrong again. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. What that means is that certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Wrong again. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. What that means is that certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

The point is you have the freedom to vote for the person that is most aligned with your values. To clarify I don't have issues with those who are openly gay. I do disagree with marriage though.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

The point is you have the freedom to vote for the person that is most aligned with your values. To clarify I don't have issues with those who are openly gay. I do disagree with marriage though.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I can vote for a candidate that supports gun control. He can push through a law prohibiting firearms ownership. The courts then strike it down as they never had the constitutional authority to enact such a law in the first place.

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

You are the king of bad analogies. Murder is an attack with an unwilling victim. It is not the same thing as two adults loving in the way that comes naturally to them. That you would equate the two makes you a slobbering bigoted monster.



It's none of your business. If we break a law we will be dealt with. But come what may... It absolutely doesn't concern you. Keep your bigoted nose out of other people's lives.



They aren't defending anyone. Just pointing out how utterly stupid you are.

It has to affect your "chick's" daughter. Don't you see that? If if doesn't concern me, why did you respond to a post by me with this information................very disturbing.

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

You really do have trouble reading or something, don't you? I've answered you twice regarding this. Your innability to follow along is not my problem.

Yeah, it is hard keeping up with the gang( from another post), so please give a post # to help me...............

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Don't act like 36 wasn't ***** slapping you around pretty hard before anybody else showed up. The unanswered damn good questions are piling up. You have your work cut out for you.

My "work" has been done. Your boy won't answer questions and it appears that he's deleted posts to remove incriminating evidence. Go back to your homosexual "work" of defending a perverted lifestyle.....................

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I can vote for a candidate that supports gun control. He can push through a law prohibiting firearms ownership. The courts then strike it down as they never had the constitutional authority to enact such a law in the first place.

At this point your arguing for the sake of it. Agreed we don't always get what we want, but I'm all ears.if you have a solution for implementing a new system. Your system sounds like it would likely support your views however, and to that point it would be no better than what we have now or another system which you force your views on others. The argument can be made both ways. So in one post you talk about individual liberties, and the in another you complain.about that system. So are you or are you not satisfied with our governmental process? I think we can agree its not perfect, and not.every single person can be pleased. This is where I again say lets agree to disagree and stop making arguement for.the sake of it.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Geko45

certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

Homosexuals are free to get married the same as heteros are. All they have to do is find a willing member of the opposite sex.

What you're talking about is changing the age-old definition of marriage. If we let libs get away with changing word definitions all the time to bolster whatever their current craze may be, we'll have anarchy. But that's what cultural-Marxist desinforatsiya-artists want, isn't it? Sow confusion, promote unhealthy lifestyles to weaken and kill, wreak destruction in free society so that totalitarian elements can take over.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

Your system sounds like it would likely support your views however, and to that point it would be no better than what we have now or another system which you force your views on others. The argument can be made both ways. So in one post you talk about individual liberties, and the in another you complain.about that system.

False Equivalence.

No, our positions are not the same at all. Your position is that other people should not be able to do what they want even though it doesn't effect you at all. My position is to stop you from being able to implement your position on others. You can do whatever you want with your own life as long as it does not affect others. We should all have that sort of liberty. I'm in favor of letting everyone have exactly that. You are opposed to it.