Proposition 8 / Same *** marriage

[bcasabee]

Again, your thinking too much bro. People abhorred homosexuals because of what they do and not what they are. If one is gay, its ok, but if they bang each other on their butts, then that is something else.

You're comparing apples and oranges. As with most conservatives, you make it sound as if homosexuality is a choice. What a homosexual does is a part of his/her nature. Prejudice against blacks was due to their color, not what they did. Same thing goes for homosexuality. They're abhorred because of what they are, not what they do.

[bcasabee]

Bro, you are just putting words into my mouth in a very bad taste.

Fixed. You just nailed it in the head.

[mannyamador]

You're comparing apples and oranges. As with most conservatives, you make it sound as if homosexuality is a choice.

Don't put words in my mouth. I do NOT condemn a person's homosexuality. I judge (and if necessary, condemn) a person's ACTIONS.

You make it sound as if homosexuals have no freedom in their actions, and should not be held responsible for whatever they do, That is wrong. Homosexuality (or same-*** attraction) may or may not be a choice, but that is irrelevant. We all have to make do with what we are dealt. But what we do with what we have IS a choice. A male can be very sexually attracted to a female, but that does not mean he has seduce or rape her. if he does so, it is a CHOICE and he must be held responsible for it. In the same way, a man with same-*** attraction does not have to sodomize another man, or even to have *** at all. If he does so, that is his CHOICE.

Like I said, we are all sinners. But that does not justify any particular sin. yet, the sin is NOT who we are, but what we DO. If you wish to resort to attacking strawmen, that's your own lookout. But as I have already stated, I choose to separate persons from their actions, judging the latter but not the former.

No one really knows who another person is unless they live with them for a while (and even then the knowledge is limited). I do not abhor homosexuals for what they are (I don't even know most of them and "what" they are). But I DO abhor what they do. And rightly so.

By the way, homosexuality has been shown to be NOT immutable. There are ex-gay persons. There are no ex-blacks (Michael Jackson don't count).

[mannyamador]

Hey @diatabz, changing another person's words in a quote -- in effect changing what he meant to say -- is NOT honest.

@bcasabee said "How do you find men sodomizing each other? Sexy and yummy?"

He did NOT say: "How do you find a black man married to a white woman? Sexy and yummy?"

If you meant to change it, you should not have put it in as an original quote. You should have said something like: "Now what if you said..."

You are making it appear he is saying something he did not. That is really dishonest of you.

[goryo13]

yep you are acting like those bitter protesters abroad, diatabz. keep it clean, man.

[rodsky]

@rodsky


This is most aptly applied to you. You make up justifications for your own prejudices because you are afraid to embrace the truth, which will set you free. Wake up and find some real arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem ones. Making nasty characterizations of your opponents doesn't make you right. but it does make you look unreasonable.

Please do list down what these prejudices are.

What truth am I afraid to embrace? I'm very truthful to myself, read here... https://www.istorya.net/forums/blogs/...-my-flaws.html

What characterization did I make that seemed to have offended you?

-RODION

[diehard96]

same-*** marriage is pointless. simple as that.

but there are people who like to do pointless things.

morality notwithstanding, if people want to do something pointless, do we have the right to deprive them of the opportunity to do so?

libertarianism: everyone should have the freedom to do as one decides (wants, desires etc) as long as it would not violate any other person's rights or freedom. if same-*** marriage were to be allowed, who would be the aggrieved party? whose rights or freedom would be violated? who would have the moral right to complain?

point is: regardless how much we dislike something, we have to objectively assess our objection to it.

[bcasabee]

^^^. Well, If I were a parent, it would be my right not to exposed my children into these abnormal sexual relationships.

[rodsky]

I guess some people are just uncomfortable, lazy and/or perhaps even horrified at the prospect of having to explain to children things such as homosexuality, incest, and other things considered "taboo". I'm just thankful I have parents who were not uneasy to tell me how *** works, and why there are homosexuals who exist in the world. They did it in a casual, scientific manner, and I admire their patience, humor and perseverance in explaining to me about such things. It made me wish there were more parents like them in the world.

-RODION

[bcasabee]

^^^Btw bro, at what age where you taught by your parents about the proper place a man's rod should be put on? Where your parents with you all the time even if you are at school?