Who do you support for Governor in Pe...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50653 Jul 3, 2013
Rational Evolutionist wrote:
Why same-sex marriage is harmful from a secular perspective
It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes the official and active promoter of anti-evolutionary sexual behavior. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new, alternative lifestyle and children will be socialized and encouraged to act against their primal procreative instincts.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect heterosexuals and all people of good will to betray their biological inhibitions by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and evolution.
Since homosexual behavior threatens the genetic progression and continuity of humanity, society should be very cautious to normalize and institutionalize it as a healthy alternative lifestyle.
Your argument has a familiar ring to it.

Hmmmm...

Oh yeah - it sounds a lot like this:

----------

Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day

By Dr. Ed Fields

Some might ask: Why should the government ever have regulated the behavior of two consenting individuals? Do they not have the right to mate with whomever they choose?

Our forefathers recognized the vast gulf which exists between the White and Black races in terms of equality. They recognized the Negro African race to be an inferior race, child-like, capricious, impulsive and cruel, yet useful for manual labor under the constant direction of the White man.

They also recognized the inherent danger in the presence of a large Negro population in contact with Whites because it invariably leads to interracial sexual relations. They saw the hideous results of low-class White men mating with plantation negro females. They knew that every civilization in history that had used Negro slaves eventually succumbed to the corruption of interracial breeding, leading to the collapse of that society.

Therefore, the founders of America passed laws forbidding White-Black marriage. This was the real motivation behind the segregation laws which existed in the pre civil rights era South. They did not want their civilization to decay and fall due to interbreeding with inferior racial stock!
Rational Evolutionist

Saint Paul, MN

#50654 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument has a familiar ring to it.
Hmmmm...
Oh yeah - it sounds a lot like this:
----------
Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day
By Dr. Ed Fields
Some might ask: Why should the government ever have regulated the behavior of two consenting individuals? Do they not have the right to mate with whomever they choose?
Our forefathers recognized the vast gulf which exists between the White and Black races in terms of equality. They recognized the Negro African race to be an inferior race, child-like, capricious, impulsive and cruel, yet useful for manual labor under the constant direction of the White man.
They also recognized the inherent danger in the presence of a large Negro population in contact with Whites because it invariably leads to interracial sexual relations. They saw the hideous results of low-class White men mating with plantation negro females. They knew that every civilization in history that had used Negro slaves eventually succumbed to the corruption of interracial breeding, leading to the collapse of that society.
Therefore, the founders of America passed laws forbidding White-Black marriage. This was the real motivation behind the segregation laws which existed in the pre civil rights era South. They did not want their civilization to decay and fall due to interbreeding with inferior racial stock!
While it's convenient to compare the same-sex marriage movement with the racial rights movement, it's simply not a valid comparison because there are far too many significant differences. For instance, homosexuals' descendants were never forced into slavery, categorized by anthropologists and governments as a sub-human species; homosexuals have never been systematically or institutionally segregated, deprived of housing, employment or educational opportunities, persecuted by the police, forced to drink from different water fountains etc.

Many people of color, in particular African Americans, are offended by the outrageous claim that the same-sex marriage movement is in par with the racial rights movement because the differences are far too significant and innumerable. Secondarily, they’re incomparable because, to quote General Colin Powell,“skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”(Source: Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)

To date, nonpartisan scientists have yet to prove that homosexuality is an innate biological condition. And even if it is, it's not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc.

If homosexuals are really suffering systemic discrimination and oppression, comparable to the African-Americans plight of the past, then explain why American gay couples are far more likely to be highly educated and higher-income?(Kurtzleben, US News, March 2013) Does that sound like a demographic that’s being systemically oppressed? Moreover, how can this systemically “oppressed” group exert enormous political power disproportionate to their numbers?

Personally, I think it’s quite intellectually dishonest and shameful to compare the same-sex marriage movement with the racial rights movement.

Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/0 ...
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50655 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument has a familiar ring to it.
Hmmmm...
Oh yeah - it sounds a lot like this:
----------
You've been brainwashed by the LGBT movement, my friend.

Interracial marriage is not comparable to same-sex marriage. A fertile man and woman are anatomically compatible and can procreate, regardless of their skin pigmentation. A fertile man and man or woman and woman are neither anatomically/sexually compatible nor capable of producing a baby together in a natural way. I know it’s hard to accept, but that’s the truth.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50656 Jul 3, 2013
If homosexuals are really suffering systemic discrimination and oppression, comparable to the African-Americans plight of the past, then explain why American gay couples are far more likely to be highly educated and higher-income?(Kurtzleben, US News, March 2013) Does that sound like a demographic that’s being systemically oppressed?

Don't believe the LGBT movement's lies.

Source: < http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/0... ;
xfactor

Mckeesport, PA

#50657 Jul 3, 2013
So what does the NSA have on these SCOTUS judges that decided the ACA is constitutional?

They have everything on everyone, and you don't think they use it?

Moving money from the private sector to the government is NEVER a good idea. Unless you are are a big fan of inadequacy, cronyism, bureaucracy, inefficiency, and socialism.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50658 Jul 3, 2013
Rational Evolutionist wrote:
<quoted text>
While it's convenient to compare the same-sex marriage movement with the racial rights movement, it's simply not a valid comparison because there are far too many significant differences. For instance, homosexuals' descendants were never forced into slavery, categorized by anthropologists and governments as a sub-human species; homosexuals have never been systematically or institutionally segregated, deprived of housing, employment or educational opportunities, persecuted by the police, forced to drink from different water fountains etc.
Many people of color, in particular African Americans, are offended by the outrageous claim that the same-sex marriage movement is in par with the racial rights movement because the differences are far too significant and innumerable. Secondarily, they’re incomparable because, to quote General Colin Powell,“skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”(Source: Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)
To date, nonpartisan scientists have yet to prove that homosexuality is an innate biological condition. And even if it is, it's not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc.
If homosexuals are really suffering systemic discrimination and oppression, comparable to the African-Americans plight of the past, then explain why American gay couples are far more likely to be highly educated and higher-income?(Kurtzleben, US News, March 2013) Does that sound like a demographic that’s being systemically oppressed? Moreover, how can this systemically “oppressed” group exert enormous political power disproportionate to their numbers?
Personally, I think it’s quite intellectually dishonest and shameful to compare the same-sex marriage movement with the racial rights movement.
Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/0 ...
Here's why your argument isn't valid:

You can hide your sexual orientation. You cannot hide your skin color.

Individual homosexuals have received the same kinds of discrimination and harassment as African Americans, just not on the same scale because of the ability to hide sexual orientation.

I understand why you don't like the comparison. But your stated reasons don't hold up under scrutiny.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50659 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been brainwashed by the LGBT movement, my friend.
Interracial marriage is not comparable to same-sex marriage. A fertile man and woman are anatomically compatible and can procreate, regardless of their skin pigmentation. A fertile man and man or woman and woman are neither anatomically/sexually compatible nor capable of producing a baby together in a natural way. I know it’s hard to accept, but that’s the truth.
If only love was just about sex and procreation.

But it's not. It's a much more complex thing than that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50660 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
If homosexuals are really suffering systemic discrimination and oppression, comparable to the African-Americans plight of the past, then explain why American gay couples are far more likely to be highly educated and higher-income?(Kurtzleben, US News, March 2013) Does that sound like a demographic that’s being systemically oppressed?
Don't believe the LGBT movement's lies.
Source: < http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/0... ;
Is there an echo in here.

LOL!
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#50661 Jul 3, 2013
xfactor wrote:
So what does the NSA have on these SCOTUS judges that decided the ACA is constitutional?
They have everything on everyone, and you don't think they use it?
Moving money from the private sector to the government is NEVER a good idea. Unless you are are a big fan of inadequacy, cronyism, bureaucracy, inefficiency, and socialism.
try precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_r...

" It was signed by President John Adams on July 16, 1798. The Act authorized the deduction of twenty cents per month from the wages of seamen, for the sole purpose of funding medical care for sick and disabled seamen, as well as building additional hospitals for the treatment of seamen.[1] This was the first Federal mandate levied on individuals for health insurance,[2] preceding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), passed in early 2010, by nearly 212 years."

so no need for NSA conspiracy claptrap.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50662 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's why your argument isn't valid:
You can hide your sexual orientation. You cannot hide your skin color.
Individual homosexuals have received the same kinds of discrimination and harassment as African Americans, just not on the same scale because of the ability to hide sexual orientation.
I understand why you don't like the comparison. But your stated reasons don't hold up under scrutiny.
I'm sure gays have been UNFAIRLY discriminated, but discrimination against gays has not been enshrined in laws that parallel the racist Jim Crow laws.

Do you understand the difference between social and institutional discrimination?

Obese people are constantly being discriminated against by society, but there are no laws specifically instituting discrimination against obese people. Understand?
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50663 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg - I challenge you to argue against plural marriage using the same ethical framework used to argue in support of same-sex marriage. Can you logically dispute any of the arguments below without also disputing same-sex marriage?

1. Polyamorous Orientation: According to the theory of Genetic Imperative, many men are biologically hardwired or oriented to feel attraction toward multiple women, yet social values and socialization pressures require men to repress expression of these innate impulses (this is true across all socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups). Since a predominant number of men have inborn sexual tendencies that are incompatible with a monogamous lifestyle, by no fault of their own, marriage ought to be progressively redefined as a socially approved relationship between an undefined number of consenting spouses.

2. Separation of Church and State: Many state marriage laws codify and uphold religious principles that unjustly and unconstitutionally force polyamorous persons to conform to non-secular tradition.

3. Consequential Neutrality: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists’ right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.

4. Consequentialism: Studies have shown that parental household income and parental involvement correlates positively with many lifelong success indicators. Since multiple-parent households have greater income potential and more parental time than monogamist parents, children raised by stable polygamist parents stand to be more educated, healthy, well-adjusted and productive as adults than their monogamist-raised counterparts. Considering the significant long-term social benefits of polygamous relationships, governments should not discriminatorily deny their citizens’ right to this equally valid lifestyle.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50664 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure gays have been UNFAIRLY discriminated, but discrimination against gays has not been enshrined in laws that parallel the racist Jim Crow laws.
Do you understand the difference between social and institutional discrimination?
Obese people are constantly being discriminated against by society, but there are no laws specifically instituting discrimination against obese people. Understand?
Don't be confused - I fully understand your point.

MY point is that it's an irrelevant distraction from the fundamental fact that denying equal rights to homosexuals is not substantially different from denying equal rights to African Americans. On the issue of marriage, the experience of the LGBT community is no different than the experience of interracial couples.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50665 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Obese people are constantly being discriminated against by society, but there are no laws specifically instituting discrimination against obese people. Understand?
But there ARE laws specifically instituting discrimination against gay couples wishing to be married, right?
Alex Schilajew

Beaver Falls, PA

#50666 Jul 3, 2013
I vote against the republican party. 23 of the red states receive about a trillion dollars more from fed. gov. than they put in.Also, on the TARP hearing the rep.southern senators voted against giving money to GM and Chrysler. They have foreign car mfgs. in southern states.Gee, I think I see the problem!! Want to straighten up America vote anti-republican .A trillion dollar would cure most financial problems. Why are you supporting Mississippi,SC,etc?? When they try to take jbs away fro Yankee state IE. GE.???
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50668 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
But there ARE laws specifically instituting discrimination against gay couples wishing to be married, right?
'

Yes, just as there ARE laws specifically instituting discrimination against polyamorous and incestuous couples.

The question DFLers need to ask is, is mankind ready to redefine an ancient human institution that is biologically natural and universal?

It's important to consider that in states where same-sex marriage is legal, public schools are required to teach impressionable children that homosexuality is a normal and an equally valid alternative to heterosexuality. This new and untested social experiment, which goes against humans’ procreative instincts and natural order, will have profound negative social, economic, health, and evolutionary consequences.

The LGBT movement would like you to believe that same-sex marriage is only an issue concerning two people who love each other, but that is far from the truth.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50669 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>'
Yes, just as there ARE laws specifically instituting discrimination against polyamorous and incestuous couples.
The question DFLers need to ask is, is mankind ready to redefine an ancient human institution that is biologically natural and universal?
It's important to consider that in states where same-sex marriage is legal, public schools are required to teach impressionable children that homosexuality is a normal and an equally valid alternative to heterosexuality. This new and untested social experiment, which goes against humans’ procreative instincts and natural order, will have profound negative social, economic, health, and evolutionary consequences.
The LGBT movement would like you to believe that same-sex marriage is only an issue concerning two people who love each other, but that is far from the truth.
DFLers?
America deserves to fail

Lehighton, PA

#50670 Jul 3, 2013
DumbFuck Liberals ...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50671 Jul 3, 2013
America deserves to fail wrote:
DumbFuck Liberals ...
I wasn't talking to you. The poster might have had something else in mind.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#50673 Jul 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't talking to you. The poster might have had something else in mind.
Dan the Man Chambersburg: Something tells me you're a nice person with good intentions, but sadly you've succumbed to the false propaganda of the LGBT movement. My advice is: think critically for yourself, and let no one persuade you that the sky is purple when it's clearly blue in color.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50674 Jul 3, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan the Man Chambersburg: Something tells me you're a nice person with good intentions, but sadly you've succumbed to the false propaganda of the LGBT movement. My advice is: think critically for yourself, and let no one persuade you that the sky is purple when it's clearly blue in color.
I am a nice person with good intentions. Thanks for noticing.

I am also intelligent with good critical thinking and reasoning skills and can form accurate, reliable opinions based on the facts and reality. I have LGBT friends (do you?) who tell me about their life experiences, hopes and dreams, as well as the bigotry and injustice they experience. You can trust that my opinions on this issue are intelligently formed, rational, and based on an accurate perception of reality. Your assumption that they are not is insulting and rude.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Loretto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Our view: Could Erie church closing be new begi... Jul 26 Arington Sonya 6
celebrities phone numbers (Mar '08) Jul 18 Kandee805 17
What happen now? Jun '15 DontFront 1
Cambria County Prison (Dec '11) Jun '15 DontFront 4
Appeals court nixes suit May '15 unknown 1
Jesus, Son of God (Mar '14) Apr '15 Jesus 4
To the REALIST, (Mar '14) Apr '15 The devil 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Loretto Mortgages