You're confused. Name calling would be calling you an idiot. I said that I thought you were uninformed. That simply implies you're lacking data on the subject, not that you lack the capacity to process it.
Many pro LGBT supportes i know believe that a straight anti-LGBT person must be closeted. Thats a nom sequitur aimed at distracting your opponent by trying to make them defensive. Its the oldest trick in the book, and it aint working on this old dog. Stick to facts - you were doing better with them
Calling someone uninformed i consider name calling. Especially since you used that instead of stating your counter argument. Its like youre implying that my opinion must be wrong because youre too entrenched in your own to reconsider it based on information that i may have that youre not yet aware of or may not have interpreted in the same way i have
And you backed up your name calling with more name calling by saying im confused lol Im not corn-fused. I know exactly what im talking about, and im utterly lucid
Who's deflecting? You expressed a personal opinion that you found something disgusting and that humanity didn't need it our heads. I told you it wasn't in mine and asked why it was in yours. It's not like you stated some profound philosophical point that required debate. While I'm at it, I asked you some questions that you've completely ignored. What are the merits in denying the LGBT community the same rights as every other American simply because their God find it immoral. According to their God, a woman should be a virgin when she marries, if she's not, she is to be killed. (funny how they don't enforce that one) Same goes for disobedient children. They should be killed. Should I find merit in those too, because hey, it's their values? How would it be denying the Republicans their values if we grant the LGBT community the same rights as every other American? They're still free to believe whatever they want. They're simply not free to impose those beliefs on everyone else. You never answered them. So who's deflecting here?
I did answer them. I stated that the rights of LGBT folks havent ever been denied. Theyve always had the same rights as everyone else.
Um, it's not "like" I was implying that your opinion is wrong. I WAS implying that your opinion is wrong. That's hardly name calling. It's called "debating." If you can't handle someone telling you that they think you're wrong during a debate without complaining about "name calling" then maybe you shouldn't try to debate in the forum.
That wasn't my question. And since you seem hell bent on going down this path, I'll explain to why that's not true. Rights aren't simply what's defined in the Constitution. There's no right to privacy in the Constitution, but you have one, as defined by statutory law. Marriage is a legal relationship. There are many legal rights that married people have that single people don't. And by denying the LGBT community the same ability to form legal realtionships as heteros have, you're denying them those rights too. Here are some them: Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will. Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids. Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids. Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing. Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country. Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court. Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans. Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be. Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family. Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples. Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce. Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans. Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences. Is that clear enough for you?
Look, nobody in the LGBT community has been denied any constitutional rights. They are free to own guns and property. They can vote. They can practice any religion they want and express their beliefs without retribution from the government. They have the right to marry and have children with a member of the opposite gender, just like everyone else. What the LGBT community seeks are extra rights that no one else can have. But most of the rights you claim have been denied to them are in fact not denied to them at all. They just have to do the right thing and choose to marry a person of the opposite gender - like everyone else. I believe LGBT is a psychological disorder that is untreatable. But just because their minds are perverted does not mean that we should accept it as "normal." By this logic, i should be allowed to marry a 9th grader.
This argument is intellectually dishonest. It reclassifies a restriction as a right. As an example, it is as if the government told citizens they had a right to worship Buddah or not to worship Buddah. Anyone who wanted to worship Jesus or Yahweh would be doing it illegally and could be punished. But the intellectually dishonest would argue that those people who wish to worship differently were not discriminated against at all: after all, they had the same rights as everyone else - to worship Buddah or not to. Thus, they have presented a restriction as a right. Completly falacious and intellectually dishonest. Similarly, marrying a 9 year old? Why is it only anti-gay bigots think of pedophelia? This is so ridiculous, I'll type slowly so you can understand: marriage is a social contract. This why we have minimum ages. A 9 year old does not have the legal capacity to form this sort of contract. See the obvious and glaring difference? That is without any of the nonsense of dealing with the differences between pedophelia and virtually anything else. Sorry Cheese, your dreams of marrying a 9 year old are doomed to failure.
Obviously, you didn't read my post. The Constitution doesn't give heteros the right to marry either. Rights aren't simply what's defined in the Constitution. Rights can be granted by laws. They're called "legal rights". And Marriage is a legal relationship, not a religious one. No, they're not seeking "extra" rights. They're seeking equal rights. They're seeking the right to form the same legal relationship and enjoy the benefits from it just like adults of different genders can form. What you consider to be perverted is irrelevant, nor is it a basis to deny consenting adults the same rights as other consenting adults. By the way, that's why you can't marry a 9th grader. They're not legally an adult. Usually.
You noticed that too? They always bring up that lame ass logic. "Why can't I marry a kid then?" Duh, kids aren't adults. At least he didn't start talking about marrying dog or goats. I've seen them go that route plenty of times. It's a fascinating, yet repulse insight into their thought process. It's late. I'm outta here.
Yeah. The whole child/adult thing is just as fuzzy in the legalsphere as homosexuality. I also believe this discussion has reached its end and no one is going to be convinced of anything. Its been an interesting discussion, and im glad we were allowed to have it without interference from the mod team. Im actually floored that weve been allowed to continue as far as we have. This is a new record for me i think. Every other time ive expressed my anti LGBT views, thats about the time that the forum police show up. Thanks all for the discussion. Ill be eagerly looking forward to our next one
Let me explain something to you by citing an article, voters do not care about your narrative, your numbers, because they know what a poor economy FEELS like. This is why you were swept this midterm, you people are so out of touch with reality. The economy is improving yes, but things aren't perfectly fine with your jobs numbers and decreasing unemployment rate. "The unemployment rate no longer seems to reflect America's mood. Friday's strong jobs report showed that the jobless rate — the most closely watched gauge of the economy's health — is down to 5.8 percent. A year ago, the rate was 7.2 percent. Five years ago, it was 10 percent. It's the kind of sustained decline that would normally suggest a satisfied public. Not so much anymore. After Tuesday's midterm elections, exit polling showed how little falling unemployment has resonated. Most voters said they cast their ballots out of fear for the economy, stripping the Democrats from the Senate majority and implicitly rejecting President Barack Obama. Many Americans don't feel they've benefited from falling unemployment any more than they have from a sustained rise in the stock market or from solid U.S. economic growth. Some hints of their discontent can be found within an otherwise glowing jobs report for October: Wages that are barely growing and a stubbornly low proportion of adults who either have a job or are looking for one." http://www.ibj.com/articles/50432-why-m ... employment Also, according to Pew Research... "According to the October jobs report, more than 92 million Americans — 37% of the civilian population aged 16 and over — are neither employed nor unemployed, but fall in the category of “not in the labor force.” That means they aren’t working now but haven’t looked for work recently enough to be counted as unemployed. While that’s not quite a record — figures have been a bit higher earlier this year — the share of folks not in the labor force remains near all-time highs." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -entirely/ This seems like a massive percentage. And that 37% does not even include the current unemployed. But right now, the number of people who are not working, but would like to work, is unprecedentedly high. "These people have given up looking—possibly because they don’t think any jobs are available for them, or perhaps to attend school and upgrade their skills, or to go into semi-retirement. They’ve pushed down the labor force participation rate to its lowest level (62.7 percent in September) since the late 1970s." http://www.marketplace.org/topics/econo ... nt-updated Those late 1970s? Those were not Bush years. It's time to take a breath and accept at least some responsibility for these numbers. You have a lame duck president who has been in office for over six years. He entered with a favorable congress. It's time to stop crying "But Bush...".
Buck, historically a president in his second term has seen their party give up a predictable amount of seats in the house, senate, etc. It takes a legislative body to work with the president to pass bills. Republican representation have put the breaks on as the "party of no" from day one as majority in the house. Their interests were only to see him fail. Sad because that put party above country. Mid-term polls showed how the American voter felt: "34 percent of voters expressed that they were voting in opposition of President Obama today and 61 percent expressed that they were dissatisfied or even angry with the Republican leaders in Congress." That's not a vote of confidence in the Republican party. If that were the case then we would have seen them win a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
Actually, the only people who equate homosexuality and pedophelia are those who want to make people think they are related, no matter how far from reality it may be. It is a dishonest comparison, used in the hopes that the intellectually challenged will not recognize the complete difference and will instead create a guilt by association - thus supporting their bigotry and hatred. Otherwise, good conversation. I'm sure we will have many more. Take care