Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69406 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
<quoted text>
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
<quoted text>
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.
Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
<quoted text>
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.
Oh, yes. Animals have diseases just like people do! Will you accept "recognition" of a mentally handicapped status?

Didn't think so. Politics!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69407 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
<quoted text>
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
Unequal taxation....or are you just going to deny that obvious truth. SOMEone has to pay for all those social engineering programs.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69408 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Who make up a minute portion of the population.


The percentage of the population is irrelevant when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population were Christian and only 1% were non-Christian, the state would still not be allowed treat the Christians more favorably than the non-Christians.
anonymous wrote:
Normal is also biological normal, where sex is about reproduction.
Even people who know that their sexual activities will not result in offspring still engage in sex. So no, sex is not merely about reproduction.
anonymous wrote:
Anything else, is your personal thrill and not anything that the state needs to protect.
On the contrary, the state protects every adult's right to engage in consensual sexual behavior.

Oh, and we weren't discussing quotas when it comes to homosexuality. I guess you missed that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69409 Dec 31, 2012
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
anonymous wrote:
Unequal taxation
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#69410 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what you missed, it's not the possibility of a god existing that is the problem, it's the claims of specific gods existing that are fallacious. Until evidence is provided the only sane, and intelligent, thing to do is to dismiss it until evidence is provided. Believing in something without evidence is called delusion.
That kind of reasoning is like waiting for a hurricane or tornado or tidal wave to hit...ignoreing all signs that say one might be approaching...

I'd rather be safe and evacuate...than to stand there on the beach front, and get washed away, or sucked up into the sky by a typoon...

Better to evacuate, take action, and there not be a storm, than to stand there waiting for evidence to hit you in the face...cause then when you are aware...it's to late...whooosh...now what?

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#69411 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to learn the ALFABET and then learn real language. Retard.
You are right.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69412 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The percentage of the population is irrelevant when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population were Christian and only 1% were non-Christian, the state would still not be allowed treat the Christians more favorably than the non-Christians.
<quoted text>
Even people who know that their sexual activities will not result in offspring still engage in sex. So no, sex is not merely about reproduction.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, the state protects every adult's right to engage in consensual sexual behavior.
Oh, and we weren't discussing quotas when it comes to homosexuality. I guess you missed that.
You were speculating on what is normal. I gave you a realistic answer. This isn't a "rights" issue because nobody has taken anyone's rights away. They just aren't subsidizing everyone's choices. It's about money, and it's about the vote. You've done absolutely everything but name the beast you serve.

The results are what they are. Recognition means money. The voters say no.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69413 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
<quoted text>
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
There's always ways around that. Separate filing etc. Married people are crying because they can't both claim dependents and/or dodge higher income bracket status. Boo-hoo!

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#69414 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
You are preoccupied with ignorance. You never had a sexual life.......get over it, it's not important. You were no doubt abused as a child......get over it. You are a hateful person who only sends hate. Get over it all. Every message you send is filled with doubt, sour opinion and total ignorance in everything.........GET A LIFE.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69415 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
You were speculating on what is normal. I gave you a realistic answer.
You gave me *an* answer. The problem is, the word "normal" has more than one meaning. That something is common or usual is one of those meanings. But it isn't relevant to human rights.

So what else do you mean by "normal"?
anonymous wrote:
This isn't a "rights" issue because nobody has taken anyone's rights away.
If one couple has their marriage given legal recognition, and another couple does not, and the only difference is the genders of the individuals involved, then yes, it's a rights issue.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69416 Dec 31, 2012
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
anonymous wrote:
There's always ways around that. Separate filing etc.
So what, again, is the detriment here to single taxpayers?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69417 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You gave me *an* answer. The problem is, the word "normal" has more than one meaning. That something is common or usual is one of those meanings. But it isn't relevant to human rights.
So what else do you mean by "normal"?
<quoted text>
If one couple has their marriage given legal recognition, and another couple does not, and the only difference is the genders of the individuals involved, then yes, it's a rights issue.
Exactly, normal can mean many things, but in a court of law, only the voting majority and the biological "normal" matter. Homosexuality does not meet either criteria.

Now, legal recognition means what exactly? Marriage is voluntarily entered into. If you want a contract, you're talking about a financial contract. Anything else, is political. The state has not explicitly gotten involved in enforcing contracts of marriage for the children but it is somewhat implicit. After all, us single people have our rights too, don't we? No, actually we don't, but we're supposed to be grateful because we were kids once too.

All that's left is the real victims, the single parents who have the full burden of raising kids, the stigma of not keeping their contract, and more often than not, the victims of prejudicial treatment against females.

EVERYONE has rights. You're handing out privileges.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69418 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
<quoted text>
So what, again, is the detriment here to single taxpayers?
Inheritance taxes, plain and simple. I won't waste too much time on the prejudicial treatment by insurance agencies, no safety net when unemployed, and let's face it, unequal pay. Go ahead and deny it. See if I care.

There's probably income tax loopholes for them to exploit too but yes, in recant years most have been shut down.

So anyway, what's the recognition that one must have that civil unions can't provide? Granted, in their current form, they don't carry the same weight in some states. But if they did, that wouldn't be enough, would it? Politics.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69420 Dec 31, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are preoccupied with ignorance. You never had a sexual life.......get over it, it's not important. You were no doubt abused as a child......get over it. You are a hateful person who only sends hate. Get over it all. Every message you send is filled with doubt, sour opinion and total ignorance in everything.........GET A LIFE.
I think she'd pretty much said that she had gotten over it. What's your point and why is it hateful to be reclusive?

I can lust after the young girls but never pursue them. I can tune out religious dogma that expects me to breed by their rules. What I'd like to know is what's YOUR issue, or are you just putting on a new hat to carry on an old cat fight?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#69421 Dec 31, 2012
English Sprichst Du das auch dann?

Ok well I am thinking to what there is to a debating...A solution this would be the time of a making hu a new in a Year to one thing?

Can someone think of a millions a Thousand at least or not?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#69422 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she'd pretty much said that she had gotten over it. What's your point and why is it hateful to be reclusive?
I can lust after the young girls but never pursue them. I can tune out religious dogma that expects me to breed by their rules. What I'd like to know is what's YOUR issue, or are you just putting on a new hat to carry on an old cat fight?
Dogs cats and rats and Birds too GOD I hope they keep it together and don't steal each other's pet food...

Well theer are always treats though ...

So what's easy to tune out? It's new years dare and share...Truth ...

Hey there's a guy in the other thread he swears by truths...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#69423 Dec 31, 2012
GET A LIFE that was a cream wow...

Spells mom backwards...upside down or west ost west...

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#69424 Dec 31, 2012
Tinka wrote:
GET A LIFE that was a cream wow...
Spells mom backwards...upside down or west ost west...
I think that I could hit on you and score..........are you my babe in 2013?
Too slow

Knoxville, TN

#69425 Dec 31, 2012
Bored much?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#69426 Dec 31, 2012
Too slow wrote:
Bored much?
Do you have 'Kodak Moments' in Kodak, TN??

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Letter J (Jan '14) 6 min johnny belinda 19
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 8 min johnny belinda 4,106
Broken treetop hanging on wire gets holiday decor 12 min wichita-rick 5
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 12 min jimmy krack korn 220
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 27 min johnny belinda 152,448
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 28 min Yupp111 1,060
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 30 min -Lea- 25,661
HOW LONG can you hold YOUR SEMEN ? For men only. (Mar '12) 1 hr -Lea- 47
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 1 hr Santa 128
More from around the web