- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
05 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasA married couple does have more rights than an unmarried couple. There are rights of medical access, kinship, implied power of attorney, probate, etc.
So you actually believe that straight people doesn't have more rights than gay people? Honestly?
Fabian has a point. Note how I took homosexuality out of my statement, and it's a true statement.
Heterosexuals can legally marry in the US. Homosexuals cannot (expect for rare circumstances or attempts that are being subverted). Therefore, heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals do no have, by way of marriage.
05 Nov 09
Originally posted by BadwaterWhat's more, the right for a couple to marry is a right in and of itself.
A married couple does have more rights than an unmarried couple. There are rights of medical access, kinship, implied power of attorney, probate, etc.
Fabian has a point. Note how I took homosexuality out of my statement, and it's a true statement.
Heterosexuals can legally marry in the US. Homosexuals cannot (expect for rare circumstances or attempts ...[text shortened]... bverted). Therefore, heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals do no have, by way of marriage.
06 Nov 09
6 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackas i stated to swiss gambit, i have no idea what she does in her private life, nor do i care for its none of my business, she has stated that she was brought up to respect marriage between a man and a women, all i knew was that she was in a beauty peagent and answered a question and felt she was discriminated against because of her answer. Regardless of her morality i respect her taking a stance, publicly, in the face of gaydom ! like obviously you are way more moral than us and once again able to pontificate from your throne of virtue! if this is the best you have jacko, vile insinuations then on the basis of your higher morality but rather complete lack of originality not to mention hypocritical approach, i think i can leave you to deliberate upon whether her breasts are real or not, me, i got better things to do with my mind.
So breast augmentation is a JW article of faith - who knew? Do they also support filming your sex acts - as she has also done? Plastic Surgery and pornography - the true pillars of the JW church?
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei think i can leave you to deliberate upon whether her breasts are real or not, me, i got better things to do with my mind.
as i stated to swiss gambit, i have no idea what she does in her private life, nor do i care for its none of my business, she has stated that she was brought up to respect marriage between a man and a women, all i knew was that she was in a beauty peagent and answered a question and felt she was discriminated against because of her answer. Regardles ...[text shortened]... deliberate upon whether her breasts are real or not, me, i got better things to do with my mind.
Like continue your ongoing bigoted crusade against gays?
Speaking of hypocrisy, Christians who continue to sin, yet denigrate homosexuals because they believe homosexuals sin, are prime examples of hypocrites.
06 Nov 09
6 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei often find that when one removes the adjectives from your posts thinkofone, that one is left with a realisation, that originally what was seemingly of some import, was really something less than that, it was like a façade, nothing more than an attempt at character assassination, however at least you have not sought to basely reduce your insults to sexuality, which, by its absence, is noble indeed.
[b]i think i can leave you to deliberate upon whether her breasts are real or not, me, i got better things to do with my mind.
Like continue your ongoing bigoted crusade against gays?[/b]
there are two classes or types of sin, those which are deliberate, in full knowledge and done with intent, and those which are done involuntarily, through aberration and imperfection. Are you able in your understanding, to make the distinction? perhaps you would like it illustrated?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvidently, like most bigots and hypocrites, you remain in denial.
i often find that when one removes the adjectives from your posts thinkofone, that one is left with a realisation, that originally what was seemingly of some import, was really something less than that, it was like a façade, nothing more than an attempt at character assassination, however at least you have not sought to basely reduce your insults to ...[text shortened]... rough aberration and imperfection. Are you able in your understanding, to make the distinction?
06 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneok, once again if we reduce the sentence to its actual intent, without the adjectives, once again we are left with, well a façade, a non reality. An opinion bolstered by an opinion? an assumption based on an assumption. my intent was merely to establish, if it was reasonable to expect that the same level of criticism that has been levelled against the religious community, may indeed be valid with respect to the gay community also. i thank you for confirming my original suspicions.
Evidently, like most bigots and hypocrites, you remain in denial.
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobielol. You got all that by removing the word "most"?
ok, once again if we reduce the sentence to its actual intent, without the adjectives, once again we are left with, well a façade, a non reality. An opinion bolstered by an opinion? an assumption based on an assumption. my intent was merely to establish, if it was reasonable to expect that the same level of criticism that has been levelled against ...[text shortened]... alid with respect to the gay community also. i thank you for confirming my original suspicions.
Seems you've forgotten my original post on this thread:
You are "termed a homophobe and a bigot" because you regularly exhibit the characteristics of a homophobe and bigot. When you couch your ravings about an isolated play in terms of "the gay movement and its insidious nature" or use phrases like "bunch of pansies and cowards" it shows what is in your heart.
Somehow it never ceases to amaze me how bigots such as yourself manage to think themselves otherwise.
You're a real piece of work.
Were you taught this bigotry by the Jehovah's Witnesses or did you learn them on your own?
Quite a few of your subsequent posts seem to have additional gay slurs. But what can be expected from such a bigot and hypocrite.
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality. i truly believe that to be the case, and i have sought to demonstrate it. this is not an 'isolated play', nor an isolated instant, there are many which demonstrate this perspective, again your use of adjectives is entirely inappropriate and misleading. i have already stated why i deem them to be cowards and pansies, for Christ and the Bible, are very soft targets, and making a play under the guise of art, knowing that it was both controversial and offensive is both cowardly and inartistic.
lol. You got all that by removing the word "most"?
Seems you've forgotten my original post on this thread:
[b]You are "termed a homophobe and a bigot" because you regularly exhibit the characteristics of a homophobe and bigot. When you couch your ravings about an isolated play in terms of "the gay movement and its insidious nature" or use phrases li taught this bigotry by the Jehovah's Witnesses or did you learn them on your own?[/b]
gay slurs, is your opinion, i prefer colloquialisms, you of all people should understand a preference 😉
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegay slurs, is your opinion, i prefer colloquialisms, you of all people should understand a preference 😉
i truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality. i truly believe that to be the case, and i have sought to demonstrate it. this is not an 'isolated play', nor an isolated instant, there are many which demonstrate this perspective, ...[text shortened]... is your opinion, i prefer colloquialisms, you of all people should understand a preference 😉
Naturally you call them "colloquialisms" instead of what they are. Can you spell RATIONALIZATION? Seems likely that that's what some "Christian" racists termed the use of many a racial slur. Evidently you see fit to carry on the tradition.
Like I said before, "Evidently, like most bigots and hypocrites, you remain in denial."
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs long as there are cases like Matthew Shepherd, hangings of gays in Iran, beheadings of gays in Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, it is reasonable to expect that there will indeed be calls for civil liberties and equality and that it will seem very reasonable to do so.
i truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality. i truly believe that to be the case, and i have sought to demonstrate it. this is not an 'isolated play', nor an isolated instant, there are many which demonstrate this perspective, ...[text shortened]... is your opinion, i prefer colloquialisms, you of all people should understand a preference 😉
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by kirksey957Or even as long as there is a lack of civil liberties and inequality....
As long as there are cases like Matthew Shepherd, hangings of gays in Iran, beheadings of gays in Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, it is reasonable to expect that there will indeed be calls for civil liberties and equality and that it will seem very reasonable to do so.
06 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere are two classes or types of sin, those which are deliberate, in full knowledge and done with intent, and those which are done involuntarily, through aberration and imperfection. Are you able in your understanding, to make the distinction? perhaps you would like it illustrated?
i often find that when one removes the adjectives from your posts thinkofone, that one is left with a realisation, that originally what was seemingly of some import, was really something less than that, it was like a façade, nothing more than an attempt at character assassination, however at least you have not sought to basely reduce your insults to ...[text shortened]... you able in your understanding, to make the distinction? perhaps you would like it illustrated?
No doubt the BTK Killer also told himself his sins were "done involuntarily, through aberration and imperfection".
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd I know the reasons for exclusion of same sex couples too.
C'mon TW, I think you know what he means.
If both parties are of age, not closely related and not already married, then heterosexual couples are afforded rights that are denied to homosexual couples.
I'm sure you also know the reasons for there being an age of consent and an exclusion for those closely related.
His claim was that homosexuals are afforded less rights - that is simply not true.
He would be better off dealing with the various reasons for the restrictions and showing that the ones regarding same-sex couples are not reasonable.
So, what are the reasons for exclusion for those closely related? Are they reasonable? I rather suspect that they are largely cultural just as the exclusions against same sex couples are.
What about the exclusions for multiple wives? - note that in Zambia we have two marriage laws. If you get married under the traditional marriage laws then polygamy is legal.