[Bellissima]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
Why do you expect me to respond when you abuse me by calling me a 'homophobe' and a 'moron'? You did nothing in that post except abuse me and hurt my feelings.

oh boo hoo i am so sorry, i should never have been so brash and mean, i mean you ALWAYS consider the feelings of myself and others, you would never dream of calling us... i don't know... disgusting, creepy, make you feel sick, make you angry... the list goes on. oh and that other tiny little thing... what is that... oh yeah, wanting to deny equality and encourage discrimination and prejudice of a group of people..

how could i ever call you such a horrible name as "homophobe" when you have done nothing to deserve it?! i am sorry i'll try to be less of a meanie in the future.





and i know you find it hard to understand sarcasm, so i'll give you a big heads up now.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
For treating things like homosexuality, disorders that hurt others and for treating traumatic experiences.

Originally it was used for things like homosexuality and things like Schizophrenia. It was believed to "restart" the brain similar to how medical professionals do to a hear. But that doesn't work because the brain doesn't work that way and there wasn't anything wrong to start with for homosexuals.

But I can't marry a dog, or my family? that's fair - homosexuals shouldn't marry.

You are bringing this up again? As has been said to you OVER AND OVER marrying a dog is illegal and immoral because the dog cannot give consent. Family is a situation that can cause harm to those involved and possible harm to their children. So still not an applicable comparison. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS YET? THE SAME THING HAS BEEN SAID TO YOU FOR MONTHS.

you don't want me telling the truth about homosexuality though.

What 'truth' is that? Is this truth demonstrable? or backed by any kind of science? or anything thats credible?

No, but you are trying to force our state to accept gay marriage and this will force more openly gay people on me.

Besides the fact that you won't even be able to tell. It doesn't matter because you have no right to force them to be in the closet. That is what is more important from a political, legal, and human rights viewpoint.

I have a right to be happy. I think even the UN says that.

Not at the cost of someone else's rights and happiness.

You are against my right to own a gun. You are the one who is clearly anti-american. not unexpected from you though.

Lets look at where that right leads...ever hear of Travyon Martin? What good giving guns to the people does.

[ScheduleII]

My definition of marriage won't change because of any court or law. I will always define marriage as "one man and one woman" because I believe God has set it to be that and NO HUMAN HOWEVER POWERFUL is greater than Almighty God. Simples.
Also the US was formed by a revolution. If the majority don't like a Supreme Court ruling the people and armed forces could overthrow the Supreme Court and set up a new constitution where the majority of the people have ultimate power over certain issues such as the legal definition of marriage (which will never replace the true definition of marriage, which is a sacrament of God not a legal contract and is therefore not the Court's call.)

[ScheduleII]

What if Santorum got in, the SCOTUS said gay marriage was a right and he decided to send his secret service, armed with fully automatic guns, to blow all the Supremes' heads off as they left the building? Then Congress could rip up the constitution and start again with the army and militias right behind them to bloodily destroy any dissent.
If it was impossible for constitutions to be defeated and destroyed most of the world would still be run by absolute monarchs... Revolution is a part of history and there is no reason to suspect it will never happen again in America.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
My definition of marriage won't change because of any court or law. I will always define marriage as "one man and one woman" because I believe God has set it to be that and NO HUMAN HOWEVER POWERFUL is greater than Almighty God. Simples.
Also the US was formed by a revolution. If the majority don't like a Supreme Court ruling the people and armed forces could overthrow the Supreme Court and set up a new constitution where the majority of the people have ultimate power over certain issues such as the legal definition of marriage (which will never replace the true definition of marriage, which is a sacrament of God not a legal contract and is therefore not the Court's call.)

it's a shame that no one will care when (not if) gay marriage becomes legal.

that is fine you holding that opinion, but why are you so arrogant as to think that your opinion and your belief in god (which should have NOTHING to do with politics and law) should dictate what everyone else does when those things do not cause harm to anyone?

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Bellissima)
it's a shame that no one will care when (not if) gay marriage becomes legal.

that is fine you holding that opinion, but why are you so arrogant as to think that your opinion and your belief in god (which should have NOTHING to do with politics and law) should dictate what everyone else does when those things do not cause harm to anyone?

Well I will never call you married. Your names will be on marriage certificates but I will only care if you are Biblically married, and same sex couples cannot be, so I will see you as unmarried before God, no matter what the law says.

My mind is not ruled by the Government. They can tax you, punish you and kill you (Jean Claude De Menezes) but they can't make you think in their terms. My mind is ruled by Christ. Let every thought be subject to Christ, says the Bible.
No "Caesar" will ever take that away from me.

Of course, you won't care about my personal classification or the view of those that think like me, in the same way you have a right to classify me as a homophobe if you believe I fit the criteria, and if there is ever an official government definition of the word you will still have the right to believe in your own one- just that the official one will determine if you can be charged with a crime or whatever context the law uses it in.

[DYKWIA]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Not even close Stop pretending to know psychology. You're so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

I think I'm pretty good at it, despite not taking classes in it.

Yes, the gay people will show up on your door step and chat at you "WE ARE GAY! WE ARE GAY!" That's clearly how that works.

They do that already in their gay pride marches.

Fact of the matter is gay people will get married, and that's all that will change.

and we will see an increase in the number of openly gay people.

Go back to basic law 101 - nowhere do you have that right; especially when your 'happiness' supposedly comes from oppressing an entire minority group. Sorry, it don't work that way.

i just don't want gay marriage and gay adoption. I believe in gay rights.

I never said I was against your right to own a gun I said gun laws currently are ridiculous. Nice try.

you are against my right to own a gun, since you condone increased restrictions on the type of gun I can own and how easily I can get one, at least that would be my guess.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Originally it was used for things like homosexuality and things like Schizophrenia. It was believed to "restart" the brain similar to how medical professionals do to a hear. But that doesn't work because the brain doesn't work that way and there wasn't anything wrong to start with for homosexuals.

It works and it doesn't damage a person. I condone it.

You are bringing this up again? As has been said to you OVER AND OVER marrying a dog is illegal and immoral because the dog cannot give consent. Family is a situation that can cause harm to those involved and possible harm to their children. So still not an applicable comparison. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS YET? THE SAME THING HAS BEEN SAID TO YOU FOR MONTHS.

It is close enough.

besides the fact that you won't even be able to tell. It doesn't matter because you have no right to force them to be in the closet. That is what is more important from a political, legal, and human rights viewpoint.

No, but I have a right and a duty to stop gay marriage occurring.

Lets look at where that right leads...ever hear of Travyon Martin? What good giving guns to the people does.

Restricting gun laws will simply mean that criminals will keep hold of the guns while decent folk will lose their ability to protect themselves. Also, we have a huge border with Mexico, which allows huge numbers of guns to get into the country. It would make no sense to take away our gun freedoms. I like being able to own a gun.

[DYKWIA]

(Original post by Bellissima)
oh boo hoo i am so sorry, i should never have been so brash and mean, i mean you ALWAYS consider the feelings of myself and others, you would never dream of calling us... i don't know... disgusting, creepy, make you feel sick, make you angry... the list goes on. oh and that other tiny little thing... what is that... oh yeah, wanting to deny equality and encourage discrimination and prejudice of a group of people..

how could i ever call you such a horrible name as "homophobe" when you have done nothing to deserve it?! i am sorry i'll try to be less of a meanie in the future.

and i know you find it hard to understand sarcasm, so i'll give you a big heads up now.

I get sarcasm, I just don't find you use it particularly well.

But yes, i would appreciate it if you were less abrasive towards me.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well I will never call you married. Your names will be on marriage certificates but I will only care if you are Biblically married, and same sex couples cannot be, so I will see you as unmarried before God, no matter what the law says.

My mind is not ruled by the Government. They can tax you, punish you and kill you (Jean Claude De Menezes) but they can't make you think in their terms. My mind is ruled by Christ. Let every thought be subject to Christ, says the Bible.
No "Caesar" will ever take that away from me.

Of course, you won't care about my personal classification or the view of those that think like me, in the same way you have a right to classify me as a homophobe if you believe I fit the criteria, and if there is ever an official government definition of the word you will still have the right to believe in your own one- just that the official one will determine if you can be charged with a crime or whatever context the law uses it in.

ok that is fine you are entitled to your opinion like i said whether i agree with it or not..

if there were a referendum on making gay mariage legal, would you say yes or no? i understand YOU would not recognise it, but would you try and stop others doing it? surely if in your eyes it is not joined together by god, then it doesn't matter what they do because it's up to god to decide not humans?

[Bellissima]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
I get sarcasm, I just don't find you use it particularly well.

But yes, i would appreciate it if you were less abrasive towards me.

no i don't think you do.


i would appreciate it if you were less homophobic.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
I think I'm pretty good at it, despite not taking classes in it.

i just don't want gay marriage and gay adoption. I believe in gay rights.

you are against my right to own a gun, since you condone increased restrictions on the type of gun I can own and how easily I can get one, at least that would be my guess.

No, but I have a right and a duty to stop gay marriage occurring.Restricting gun laws will simply mean that criminals will keep hold of the guns while decent folk will lose their ability to protect themselves. Also, we have a huge border with Mexico, which allows huge numbers of guns to get into the country. It would make no sense to take away our gun freedoms. I like being able to own a gun.

Gun rights are in the Constitution and gay rights aren't. If the Supreme Court find otherwise they should be kicked out. If there is no legal means to do so, then the President and his executive can easily refuse to implement their decisions. Without the "machinery" of government obeying them the Supremes would just be nine men writing words on paper, in the same way that Congress' laws would be waste paper if there was not a system of government agencies to carry out their civil laws and police/jail/military to enforce their criminal laws.

I think that sadly, us conservatives will lose the battle on homosexual marriage. We should take solace in remembering that there are two definitions of marriage, the higher and lower one, and the higher one (marriage as a God ordained sacrament) cannot be changed by any worldly will, not even Satan (the false god of this world) can change it. The lower one (marriage as a legal contract) is about to fall due to the influence of evil and rejection of Christ.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
I think I'm pretty good at it, despite not taking classes in it.

Based on what? Who told you that you're good at it? Or what basis do you have to think you are?

They do that already in their gay pride marches.

Pride marches come to your door and target you specifically...really??

And Gay marriage won't change that. So you haven't made a point.

and we will see an increase in the number of openly gay people.

Which as we have already discussed will sad to no change in anything except their mental health.

i just don't want gay marriage and gay adoption. I believe in gay rights.

I'm curious exactly what 'gay' rights are you for?

It works and it doesn't damage a person. I condone it.

And who are you to condone and make such assertions? You haven't even taken a class on psychology (as stated above). I have taken MANY classes and study it and research it on my own time. And major organizations say that this statement is false. So what authority do you have that makes what you just said true?

It is close enough.

Based on what standard? There is no 'close enough'. Either its comparable or its not. And both of those cases are incomparable.

No, but I have a right and a duty to stop gay marriage occurring.

Actually no you don't. The marriage is a human right and therefore you have no right to keep people from the institution without just cause. Which again you have yet to show.

Restricting gun laws will simply mean that criminals will keep hold of the guns while decent folk will lose their ability to protect themselves. Also, we have a huge border with Mexico, which allows huge numbers of guns to get into the country. It would make no sense to take away our gun freedoms. I like being able to own a gun.

Restricting gun laws will simply mean that it will be harder for criminals to get a hold of guns, which lowers the risk of decent folk and therefore the need to protect themselves from such things. Also our border with mexico has nothing to do with gun control. Any boarder is a point for smuggling of guns but that would be a part of gun restrictions now wouldn't it? Less freedoms for guns would equate to less things like school shootings and incidents like the one in Florida. That seems sensible to me.

[DYKWIA]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Gun rights are in the Constitution and gay rights aren't. If the Supreme Court find otherwise they should be kicked out. If there is no legal means to do so, then the President and his executive can easily refuse to implement their decisions. Without the "machinery" of government obeying them the Supremes would just be nine men writing words on paper, in the same way that Congress' laws would be waste paper if there was not a system of government agencies to carry out their civil laws and police/jail/military to enforce their criminal laws.

I think that sadly, us conservatives will lose the battle on homosexual marriage. We should take solace in remembering that there are two definitions of marriage, the higher and lower one, and the higher one (marriage as a God ordained sacrament) cannot be changed by any worldly will, not even Satan (the false god of this world) can change it. The lower one (marriage as a legal contract) is about to fall due to the influence of evil and rejection of Christ.

I really hope we don't lose and I will continue to fight gay marriage. It is wrong and decent people like you can see that.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Bellissima)
ok that is fine you are entitled to your opinion like i said whether i agree with it or not..

if there were a referendum on making gay mariage legal, would you say yes or no? i understand YOU would not recognise it, but would you try and stop others doing it? surely if in your eyes it is not joined together by god, then it doesn't matter what they do because it's up to god to decide not humans?

I would say no because I think it's bad for society to turn away from the ancient standard of marriage as man and woman.

But if it passes then there will be 2 definitions of marriage- the legal contract (open to gays) and the sacrament (utterly fixed and immutable as man-woman; even if every one of the 6 billion+ people in the world and every church and country agreed with gay marriage it would still not change this one.) I would just prefer if a legal contract for two men or women to live as a couple was called a civil partnership. It's using the name which God has given to one of His greatest mysteries, and the first institution He founded in the Garden, which annoys us.

For example in future when churches say "no sex outside marriage" many people may think this includes gay marriage, when marriage in the Bible means by God's rules so it will still be sin. If the law kept to "civil partnership" there would be no confusion.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Gun rights are in the Constitution and gay rights aren't. If the Supreme Court find otherwise they should be kicked out.

You clearly aren't very educated on the constitution. An individuals right to own a gun is in the constitution but can be restricted. And it has been found that while not directly mentioned, marriage is in fact something that is protected as a right by the constitution. So that coupled with the equal protection clause would mean that the federal government has no right to exclude persons of a protected class (i.e. sexual orientation) from said institution.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
I would say no because I think it's bad for society to turn away from the ancient standard of marriage as man and woman.

But if it passes then there will be 2 definitions of marriage- the legal contract (open to gays) and the sacrament (utterly fixed and immutable as man-woman; even if every one of the 6 billion+ people in the world and every church and country agreed with gay marriage it would still not change this one.) I would just prefer if a legal contract for two men or women to live as a couple was called a civil partnership. It's using the name which God has given to one of His greatest mysteries, and the first institution He founded in the Garden, which annoys us.

For example in future when churches say "no sex outside marriage" many people may think this includes gay marriage, when marriage in the Bible means by God's rules so it will still be sin. If the law kept to "civil partnership" there would be no confusion.

ok then i do not respect your opinion at all, you are encouraging discrimination.

the bible was written by man, not god, it is also a very old book, i am sure you have played chinese whispers before. why do you think you understand god and know what he wants? why do you think you should judge others and carry out this "nasty" side of god? surely loving thy neighbour and other things from jesus should come before OLD TESTAMENT stuff?
mariage predates christianity also.
and judging from your post you also believe in creationism and adam and eve so i think that about ends our conversation.

[DYKWIA]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Based on what? Who told you that you're good at it? Or what basis do you have to think you are?

I just feel I am good at it. It's not exactly a particularly complex subject.

Pride marches come to your door and target you specifically...really??

They don't have to. They target conservatives in general.

I'm curious exactly what 'gay' rights are you for?

I don't think homosexuality should be illegal, I think you should be allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex and I believe you should be allowed to get help for your sexuality and I even accept that gay PDA's should be allowed, even if I don't like them.

And who are you to condone and make such assertions? You haven't even taken a class on psychology (as stated above). I have taken MANY classes and study it and research it on my own time. And major organizations say that this statement is false. So what authority do you have that makes what you just said true?

All major organizations agree that such therapies DO lead to a decrease in homosexual activity since they are scared away from it and often feel sick. I know that feeling and tbh it is not that bad, especially if it means you don't act on such impulses.

Restricting gun laws will simply mean that it will be harder for criminals to get a hold of guns, which lowers the risk of decent folk and therefore the need to protect themselves from such things. Also our border with mexico has nothing to do with gun control. Any boarder is a point for smuggling of guns but that would be a part of gun restrictions now wouldn't it? Less freedoms for guns would equate to less things like school shootings and incidents like the one in Florida. That seems sensible to me.

Yeah, so you want to destroy the constitution and take away my rights to a weapon. You disgust me, with this statement. We can't stop criminals from holding on to guns and we can't stop mexico from smuggling weapons and other contraband into the country. The answer to such school shootings is better preparation in case schools get attacked. And anyway, events such as those only happen once in a while and I believe the freedom and protections offered by being allowed to own a gun outweigh occasional shootings They only suggest that the police force are not doing enough.

[ScheduleII]

I did not say absolute gun rights, but extensive gun rights are, so most of the restrictions the Dems would want are unconstitutional. The EPC doesn't work as sexual preference does not prohibit marriage. A man with a preference for sex with other men could still marry... just that he'd need to marry a woman. EPC does not grant any right to redefine marriage, which when it has been considered as a right has always been as man/woman.

[DYKWIA]

(Original post by Bellissima)
ok then i do not respect your opinion at all, you are encouraging discrimination.

the bible was written by man, not god, it is also a very old book, i am sure you have played chinese whispers before. why do you think you understand god and know what he wants? why do you think you should judge others and carry out this "nasty" side of god? surely loving thy neighbour and other things from jesus should come before OLD TESTAMENT stuff?
mariage predates christianity also.
and judging from your post you also believe in creationism and adam and eve so i think that about ends our conversation.

You are hypocritical. You have no respect for other people with other opinions. If he is religious, let him be that way. He is more respectable than you.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
I think I'm pretty good at it, despite not taking classes in it.

LOL! Not even close. You don't even know what ETC was used for or why it's so harmful and doesn't work Clearly, you're not good at is.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
They do that already in their gay pride marches.

Somehow I doubt that gay people show up to your door and say "HEY DYKWIA! WE'RE GAY! LOOK AT US!" lol

(Original post by DYKWIA)
and we will see an increase in the number of openly gay people.

There's no evidence for that claim

And, even if that were true, what's so bad about that? Having to hide one's sexual orientation is stressful and, as psychologists will tell you, not good. Openly gay people = psychologically better off people. Clearly, it's so horrible that people's mental health will be less impeded on.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
i just don't want gay marriage and gay adoption. I believe in gay rights.

Those kind of are gay rights.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
you are against my right to own a gun, since you condone increased restrictions on the type of gun I can own and how easily I can get one, at least that would be my guess.

Because giving ex-cons guns is CLEARLY a great idea? Especially when they've been previously convicted of gun crimes? Right.

And, my problem is mostly with laws like "Stand Your Ground" where you can around shooting people, claim you felt 'threatened' and if no one one can say otherwise, you get to walk free without so much as even being arrested.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
It works and it doesn't damage a person. I condone it.

It doesn't. Not even close. Go actually READ research - you know literally nothing about psychology. You're only making yourself look pitifully ignorant and uneducated.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
It is close enough.

It's not even close to comparable. Do you not understand the differences between sexual orientation and paraphilias or fetishisms? No, of course you don't. You don't know anything about psychology, especially sexual psychology.

(Original post by DYKWIA)
No, but I have a right and a duty to stop gay marriage occurring.

I'd love for you to tell me what law in the Constitution gives you that right. LOL