Nothing about Jason Collins?

[Woodruff]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm well aware of the definition of the term. It is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, or the state of being subject to such treatment or control".

That's pretty much a black and white definition of how you purport to view the idea of the equality rights of homosexuals. To sum up, "unjust".

[Night Strike]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm well aware of the definition of the term. It is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, or the state of being subject to such treatment or control".

That's pretty much a black and white definition of how you purport to view the idea of the equality rights of homosexuals. To sum up, "unjust".

And when have I demanded any of those actions take place? I have never once said that homosexuals should be treated cruelly because of their sexual preferences.

Did you know that exactly zero rights are being violated by the current definition of marriage because marriage is NOT a right?

[macbone]

The first thing I thought of when I heard the Jason Collins story was this Bruno interview:

[Woodruff]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm well aware of the definition of the term. It is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, or the state of being subject to such treatment or control".

That's pretty much a black and white definition of how you purport to view the idea of the equality rights of homosexuals. To sum up, "unjust".

And when have I demanded any of those actions take place? I have never once said that homosexuals should be treated cruelly because of their sexual preferences.

Did you know that exactly zero rights are being violated by the current definition of marriage because marriage is NOT a right?

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

[BigBallinStalin]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm sorry that you disagree that the bible clearly states that homosexual activities are shameful and immoral. The bible can't be changed just to support your view of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&p=3752116&hilit=gays#p3752116


Religious fundamentalists wouldn't be a big deal--if they didn't push their views onto others. But they do. They support the state in their effort to constrain others--due to their gender or sexual orientation. That's called "oppression." Even if they do not explicitly call for state intervention, their informal rules strongly discourage homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. Religious fundamentalists live within oppressive institutions which they gladly maintain. That's oppressive--especially for people born into such institutions and who try to escape.

Regarding ideology, your kind are no better than radical Muslims and right/left-wing radicals who legitimize the use of terrorism.

[BigBallinStalin]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm well aware of the definition of the term. It is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control, or the state of being subject to such treatment or control".

That's pretty much a black and white definition of how you purport to view the idea of the equality rights of homosexuals. To sum up, "unjust".

And when have I demanded any of those actions take place? I have never once said that homosexuals should be treated cruelly because of their sexual preferences.

Did you know that exactly zero rights are being violated by the current definition of marriage because marriage is NOT a right?

Denying gays from marriage is "unjust treatment." I know you're well-skilled in cherry-picking your Bible, but you should refrain from doing so with our civilized language.

[Night Strike]

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

We ARE all treated equal when it comes to marriage. The definition of marriage has never included "who you love". It states that government recognizes marriage between one man and one woman at one time. If your relationship doesn't meet those parameters, then that's your choice.

By the way, if YOU are for equality, you need to get rid of every nuance to the tax code. The US income tax code inherently treats people differently based on their choices. In order to want true equality, you must address all those inherent inequalities.

[Night Strike]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm sorry that you disagree that the bible clearly states that homosexual activities are shameful and immoral. The bible can't be changed just to support your view of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&p=3752116&hilit=gays#p3752116


Religious fundamentalists wouldn't be a big deal--if they didn't push their views onto others. But they do. They support the state in their effort to constrain others--due to their gender or sexual orientation. That's called "oppression." Even if they do not explicitly call for state intervention, their informal rules strongly discourage homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. Religious fundamentalists live within oppressive institutions which they gladly maintain. That's oppressive--especially for people born into such institutions and who try to escape.

Regarding ideology, your kind are no better than radical Muslims and right/left-wing radicals who legitimize the use of terrorism.

That quote was specifically referring to how homosexuality is treated in the Bible. There are other non-Biblical reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage, such as how marriage is not a right and there is no inequality in the current definition as mentioned in my previous post.

[Woodruff]

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

We ARE all treated equal when it comes to marriage.

That is a statement of either blindness, hypocricy or ignorance. Which one do you apply to yourself?

The definition of marriage has never included "who you love". It states that government recognizes marriage between one man and one woman at one time. If your relationship doesn't meet those parameters, then that's your choice.

Your "definition" of marriage isn't even what marriage has historically been, Night Strike. The culture of religious repression has tried to make that so, but that's not accurate.

By the way, if YOU are for equality, you need to get rid of every nuance to the tax code. The US income tax code inherently treats people differently based on their choices. In order to want true equality, you must address all those inherent inequalities.

You don't really understand my position on the US income tax code, do you, Night Strike? When you can use my words to prove that I'm a hypocrite, have at it. I know you're trying to reflex-turn this on me, but it doesn't change the dishonesty which you are approaching this issue.

[Night Strike]

Denying gays from marriage is "unjust treatment." I know you're well-skilled in cherry-picking your Bible, but you should refrain from doing so with our civilized language.

How is it "unjust treatment"? Marriage has a set definition from the government. If a person doesn't meet that definition, then they don't get that privilege. The government has thousands of other set definitions that people don't qualify for. Are they being treated unjustly as well?

[Woodruff]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm sorry that you disagree that the bible clearly states that homosexual activities are shameful and immoral. The bible can't be changed just to support your view of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&p=3752116&hilit=gays#p3752116


Religious fundamentalists wouldn't be a big deal--if they didn't push their views onto others. But they do. They support the state in their effort to constrain others--due to their gender or sexual orientation. That's called "oppression." Even if they do not explicitly call for state intervention, their informal rules strongly discourage homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. Religious fundamentalists live within oppressive institutions which they gladly maintain. That's oppressive--especially for people born into such institutions and who try to escape.

Regarding ideology, your kind are no better than radical Muslims and right/left-wing radicals who legitimize the use of terrorism.

That quote was specifically referring to how homosexuality is treated in the Bible. There are other non-Biblical reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage, such as how marriage is not a right and there is no inequality in the current definition as mentioned in my previous post.

Except that isn't the definition of marriage outside of religious repression, and there absolutely is clearly available inequality in the current definition that you are trying to use.

[Woodruff]

Denying gays from marriage is "unjust treatment." I know you're well-skilled in cherry-picking your Bible, but you should refrain from doing so with our civilized language.

How is it "unjust treatment"? Marriage has a set definition from the government. If a person doesn't meet that definition, then they don't get that privilege. The government has thousands of other set definitions that people don't qualify for. Are they being treated unjustly as well?

A similar argument was used for interacial marriages, Night Strike. Seriously...do you not see the correlations?

[Metsfanmax]

Meh. Everyone and their sister is coming out. He's gay, he's gay. Whatever. "Coming out" has kind of lost impact.

FYI, just a personal opinion. I don't care if people are gay, straight, bi, celibate, whatever. If you're not hurting anyone, I don't really care what you do.

Good point. It actually takes more courage today to "come out" and say that marriage is what it always has been.

In a particularly brutal case in the United States, on March 14, 2007, in Wahneta, Florida, 25-year-old Ryan Keith Skipper was found dead from 20 stab wounds and a slit throat. His body had been dumped on a dark, rural road less than 2 miles from his home. His two alleged attackers, William David Brown, Jr., 20, and Joseph Eli Bearden, 21, were indicted for robbery and first-degree murder. Highlighting their malice and contempt for the victim, the accused killers allegedly drove around in Skipper's blood-soaked car and bragged of killing him. According to a sheriff's department affidavit, one of the men stated that Skipper was targeted because "he was a faggot."

You let me know when a family member or friend is brutally murdered by a gay man for being Christian, and then you can come back and talk about how hard it is to be a traditional Christian in America.

[Night Strike]

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

We ARE all treated equal when it comes to marriage.

That is a statement of either blindness, hypocricy or ignorance. Which one do you apply to yourself?

None of those. It's called the truth. I'm sorry you disagree with the truth in order to promote your agenda.

[Woodruff]

Meh. Everyone and their sister is coming out. He's gay, he's gay. Whatever. "Coming out" has kind of lost impact.

FYI, just a personal opinion. I don't care if people are gay, straight, bi, celibate, whatever. If you're not hurting anyone, I don't really care what you do.

Good point. It actually takes more courage today to "come out" and say that marriage is what it always has been.

In a particularly brutal case in the United States, on March 14, 2007, in Wahneta, Florida, 25-year-old Ryan Keith Skipper was found dead from 20 stab wounds and a slit throat. His body had been dumped on a dark, rural road less than 2 miles from his home. His two alleged attackers, William David Brown, Jr., 20, and Joseph Eli Bearden, 21, were indicted for robbery and first-degree murder. Highlighting their malice and contempt for the victim, the accused killers allegedly drove around in Skipper's blood-soaked car and bragged of killing him. According to a sheriff's department affidavit, one of the men stated that Skipper was targeted because "he was a faggot."

You let me know when a family member or friend is brutally murdered by a gay man for being Christian, and then you can come back and talk about how hard it is to be a traditional Christian in America.

You mean you haven't heard about the War on Christianity in the United States? <sigh>

[Woodruff]

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

We ARE all treated equal when it comes to marriage.

That is a statement of either blindness, hypocricy or ignorance. Which one do you apply to yourself?

None of those. It's called the truth. I'm sorry you disagree with the truth in order to promote your agenda.

For a purported scientist, you sure don't allow yourself to use much in the way of critical thinking skills. That's unfortunate. So I guess we'll be kind and go with "ignorance" as the choice, though surely you know that homosexuals are not allowed the governmental benefits and freedoms that heterosexuals are when it comes to marriage. So no...you're not that ignorant. "Hypocricy" it is.

[Night Strike]

Denying gays from marriage is "unjust treatment." I know you're well-skilled in cherry-picking your Bible, but you should refrain from doing so with our civilized language.

How is it "unjust treatment"? Marriage has a set definition from the government. If a person doesn't meet that definition, then they don't get that privilege. The government has thousands of other set definitions that people don't qualify for. Are they being treated unjustly as well?

A similar argument was used for interacial marriages, Night Strike. Seriously...do you not see the correlations?

Nope, because there is nothing the same between race and sexual preference. Race is inherently observed on the outside, whereas sexual preference is simply whatever one states it to be. Hence the massive problems with the Massachusetts law that allows kids to decide which sexuality they want to be while at school no matter what they decide to be away from school. There is no inherently observable determination of sexual preference like there is for male/female and race.

[BigBallinStalin]

There was no thread because it's not a real news story. Why is it so important that the world knows who someone else has sex with?

Because people like you want to oppress them, that's why.

Incorrect. Please learn what "oppression" means.

I'm sorry that you disagree that the bible clearly states that homosexual activities are shameful and immoral. The bible can't be changed just to support your view of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&p=3752116&hilit=gays#p3752116


Religious fundamentalists wouldn't be a big deal--if they didn't push their views onto others. But they do. They support the state in their effort to constrain others--due to their gender or sexual orientation. That's called "oppression." Even if they do not explicitly call for state intervention, their informal rules strongly discourage homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. Religious fundamentalists live within oppressive institutions which they gladly maintain. That's oppressive--especially for people born into such institutions and who try to escape.

Regarding ideology, your kind are no better than radical Muslims and right/left-wing radicals who legitimize the use of terrorism.

That quote was specifically referring to how homosexuality is treated in the Bible. There are other non-Biblical reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage, such as how marriage is not a right and there is no inequality in the current definition as mentioned in my previous post.

The tax code isn't at all similar to gender identity.

Your analogy is crap, NS, and you don't care about the rule of law--so long as it reaffirms your religious beliefs. Hey, which isn't surprising, being the fundamentalist that you are. Thanks for revealing that you do support government policies which oppress others.

[Night Strike]

So we don't have a right to equal treatment by the government? When did that Amendment get passed, Night Strike? I thought you were all about the Constitution?

We ARE all treated equal when it comes to marriage.

That is a statement of either blindness, hypocricy or ignorance. Which one do you apply to yourself?

None of those. It's called the truth. I'm sorry you disagree with the truth in order to promote your agenda.

For a purported scientist, you sure don't allow yourself to use much in the way of critical thinking skills. That's unfortunate. So I guess we'll be kind and go with "ignorance" as the choice, though surely you know that homosexuals are not allowed the governmental benefits and freedoms that heterosexuals are when it comes to marriage. So no...you're not that ignorant. "Hypocricy" it is.

People aren't allowed to be married to more than one person at once, so why are we denying governmental benefits to them? If you truly believe equality is being denied, why aren't you pushing for all these other sexual relationships to be supported?

[BigBallinStalin]

Denying gays from marriage is "unjust treatment." I know you're well-skilled in cherry-picking your Bible, but you should refrain from doing so with our civilized language.

How is it "unjust treatment"? Marriage has a set definition from the government. If a person doesn't meet that definition, then they don't get that privilege. The government has thousands of other set definitions that people don't qualify for. Are they being treated unjustly as well?

Do you know what "equality before the law" means?

What is your notion of Justice? (pray tell, it's a religious interpretation, amirite?) If so, then that's an insufficient standard for administering justice. Theocracies are inherently oppressive.

[Metsfanmax]

Race is inherently observed on the outside, whereas sexual preference is simply whatever one states it to be.

Night Strike, I think you're secretly gay. Should I just take your word for it that you're not? Why should I trust you?

[Night Strike]

The tax code isn't at all similar to gender identity.

Your analogy is crap, NS, and you don't care about the rule of law--so long as it reaffirms your religious beliefs. Hey, which isn't surprising, being the fundamentalist that you are. Thanks for revealing that you do support government policies which oppress others.

How is it crap? We're always told homosexuals are being denied the same privileges as those who are married, yet every single one of those privileges has to do with governmental positions, including taxes. If it's such crap, why is it the same argument used by every promoter of homosexual marriage? If my argument is crap, then so is there's because it's the exact same argument.

[Night Strike]

Race is inherently observed on the outside, whereas sexual preference is simply whatever one states it to be.

Night Strike, I think you're secretly gay. Should I just take your word for it that you're not? Why should I trust you?

Precisely the point I was making.

[BigBallinStalin]

The tax code isn't at all similar to gender identity.

Your analogy is crap, NS, and you don't care about the rule of law--so long as it reaffirms your religious beliefs. Hey, which isn't surprising, being the fundamentalist that you are. Thanks for revealing that you do support government policies which oppress others.

How is it crap?

Because the tax code and the decision-making process which reinforces it is not at all similar to gender identity. Analogies do not hold if the two topics being compared are hardly similar.

But this point doesn't matter because you simply don't care about the rule of law--as long as it reinforces your fundamentalist views. Since you're a Christian theocrat, no amount of education will change your mind or open you to thinking for yourself. That's the primary problem with people like you.

[Metsfanmax]

Race is inherently observed on the outside, whereas sexual preference is simply whatever one states it to be.

Night Strike, I think you're secretly gay. Should I just take your word for it that you're not? Why should I trust you?

Precisely the point I was making.

Well, I think it's finally about time for you to come out of the closet.

Seriously though, I know you know this argument is just empirically wrong. Your sexual preference can be figured out by looking at a naked guy and a naked girl and figuring out which one of those gives you an erection (possibly both). I can state all I want that blood fills up my penis when I see a picture of Justin Timberlake, and though I wish it were true, it is simply not true.