GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2012, 20:52   #226
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge1400 View Post
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.
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 20:58   #227
Sarge1400
Senior Member
 
Sarge1400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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?
Sarge1400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:08   #228
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge1400 View Post
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.
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:11   #229
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,535
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:16   #230
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
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?
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:21   #231
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 11-05-2012 at 21:39..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:31   #232
Sarge1400
Senior Member
 
Sarge1400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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?
Sarge1400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:35   #233
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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?
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:35   #234
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:36   #235
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
I think I spelled it out pretty clearly.
No, you didn't. There are now 3 of us asking for clarification.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:38   #236
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,535
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:40   #237
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 21:42   #238
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 22:14   #239
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
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

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 22:16   #240
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 23:44   #241
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:31   #242
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:44   #243
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:53   #244
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 08:54   #245
scccdoc
Senior Member
 
scccdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 08:57   #246
scccdoc
Senior Member
 
scccdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 09:07   #247
scccdoc
Senior Member
 
scccdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
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.....................
scccdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 09:15   #248
PrecisionRifleman
Senior Member
 
PrecisionRifleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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
__________________
PrecisionRifleman

G20SF
Gen4 G23
PrecisionRifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 09:19   #249
snowbird
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: land of the free
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
-T. Roosevelt, President 1901-09, US soldier, martial artist, hiker, agriculteral worker, and conservationist, among other things.
snowbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 09:24   #250
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,240
355 Members
885 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42