By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Santorum will unmarry all gay couples if he's elected

Zim on 04 March 2012

.... unmarry people? Not allowing homosexual couples to get married in the first place is just embarrassingly outdated and shocking. However to actually unmarry married couples?! The mind boggles.



Turkish says and I'm allowed to quote that: Uncharted 3 and God Of War 3 look better than Unreal Engine 4 games will or the tech demo does. Also the Naughty Dog PS3 ENGINE PLAYS better than the UE4 ENGINE.

Around the Network
Rath on 04 March 2012
axumblade said:
mrstickball said:
axumblade said:
Is he actually relevant? The only things I ever really read about this guy are in memes. I guess I should watch real world news every once in a while. :/


He's #2 in delegate counts and has shot up in the polls as of late, being the "Anti-Romney" candidate.

Yeah. I just moved a week or so ago but I have full intentions of reading up on all of the nominees. This republican front runner with this election has been a lot more difficult to follow this year because it changes at the drop of a pin. Or perhaps that's also just me showing my ignorance when it comes to politics.

Nah it does change a lot. Basically everybody (except Paul who is a bit different) is clawing for the ultra-conservative vote at the expense of everybody else. Romney is getting most of the moderate conservative vote while all of the other candidates have been taking turns at being the ultra-conservative darling, until they say or do something that makes them unelectable.



Lafiel on 04 March 2012

Santorum wants a land of the not so free huh?



dany612 on 04 March 2012
HappySqurriel said:
dany612 said:
HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I guess I used the wrong word for it. My point was though that being gay is not always something you choose, so punishing people who got born in a different way than others would be just like hating on people for being born black or white or whatever.

 

You get my point.

Even if it is not something you have direct control over, discrimination against people who are gay is still substantially different from discrimination against someone for race ...

We live in a society where people are expected to have control over their sexual predilections, and to only express them in private consensual and legal settings. While a paedophile may argue he has not choice except to be attracted to children, or a rapist may argue he has no control over being compelled to violently assault women, we expect them to have control over these sexual urges and not to express them because there is no legal consensual way they can express these attractions. We expect people to demonstrate restraint in when they express their attractions and with whom they express them; after all we don't have a BSDM pride week, and we wouldn't claim that someone should discuss what it means to be a Furry to young children.

In many ways it is completely fair to discriminate against many homosexuals (as it would be to discriminate against many heterosexuals) because they seem to have no ability to show restraint is when, where and with whom they express their sexuality with.

Being black is not a private portion of your life which you have discression over where you express it, it is something that people know the moment they see you.

So it's okay to compare homosexuality with paedophilia and rapists but it's not okay to compare homosexuality with race? First of all there is a big difference between homosexuality and the circumstanes of paedophilia and the acts of sexual assualt.  You are close minded on many social issues. There is a difference between being homosexual and acting out what appears to be homosexual. Any straight person can do something homosexual and that is probably something they have control over. A homosexual man, however, does not have the resistance from loving someone of the same gender. Homosexuality is science backed and is constantly investigated. They are not out killing or abusing anyone! When one crosses that line that is when you can juxtapose these two!

If you don't understand what I'm saying, maybe you should re-read it ...

All forms of sexual attraction (whether they're accepted by society or not) can be claimed to be driven by factors outside of the control of the individual; and people could claim to be "born that way" regardless of whether their sexuality is socially acceptable or not. Since we readily are willing to imprison people based on them acting on urges that they claim to have not control on being that they were "born that way" means that being born with particular preferences is entirely irrelevant to whether something should be considered discrimination.

In contrast, it is completely justified to say that what consenting adults do in private should not be a cause for discrimination because it is not the concern of anyone else. People should not be discriminated against regardless of who their partner is as long as they're legally allowed to consent; and what is publicly acceptable between heterosexual couples now should be acceptable to any two partners.

At the same time, what is unacceptable to heterosexual partners in public should also be unacceptable to homosexual partners in public. A gay man who flashes men is just as much of a sex offender as a man who flashes women; and a gay man giving another man a blow-job in public is just as much of an illegal lewd act as a woman giving a man a blow-job in public.

Public or private...my case is on your statement that disagree with homosexuality.



 

        

Silver-Tiger on 04 March 2012

Unbelievable...



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 04 March 2012
dany612 said:
HappySqurriel said:
dany612 said:
HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I guess I used the wrong word for it. My point was though that being gay is not always something you choose, so punishing people who got born in a different way than others would be just like hating on people for being born black or white or whatever.

 

You get my point.

Even if it is not something you have direct control over, discrimination against people who are gay is still substantially different from discrimination against someone for race ...

We live in a society where people are expected to have control over their sexual predilections, and to only express them in private consensual and legal settings. While a paedophile may argue he has not choice except to be attracted to children, or a rapist may argue he has no control over being compelled to violently assault women, we expect them to have control over these sexual urges and not to express them because there is no legal consensual way they can express these attractions. We expect people to demonstrate restraint in when they express their attractions and with whom they express them; after all we don't have a BSDM pride week, and we wouldn't claim that someone should discuss what it means to be a Furry to young children.

In many ways it is completely fair to discriminate against many homosexuals (as it would be to discriminate against many heterosexuals) because they seem to have no ability to show restraint is when, where and with whom they express their sexuality with.

Being black is not a private portion of your life which you have discression over where you express it, it is something that people know the moment they see you.

So it's okay to compare homosexuality with paedophilia and rapists but it's not okay to compare homosexuality with race? First of all there is a big difference between homosexuality and the circumstanes of paedophilia and the acts of sexual assualt.  You are close minded on many social issues. There is a difference between being homosexual and acting out what appears to be homosexual. Any straight person can do something homosexual and that is probably something they have control over. A homosexual man, however, does not have the resistance from loving someone of the same gender. Homosexuality is science backed and is constantly investigated. They are not out killing or abusing anyone! When one crosses that line that is when you can juxtapose these two!

If you don't understand what I'm saying, maybe you should re-read it ...

All forms of sexual attraction (whether they're accepted by society or not) can be claimed to be driven by factors outside of the control of the individual; and people could claim to be "born that way" regardless of whether their sexuality is socially acceptable or not. Since we readily are willing to imprison people based on them acting on urges that they claim to have not control on being that they were "born that way" means that being born with particular preferences is entirely irrelevant to whether something should be considered discrimination.

In contrast, it is completely justified to say that what consenting adults do in private should not be a cause for discrimination because it is not the concern of anyone else. People should not be discriminated against regardless of who their partner is as long as they're legally allowed to consent; and what is publicly acceptable between heterosexual couples now should be acceptable to any two partners.

At the same time, what is unacceptable to heterosexual partners in public should also be unacceptable to homosexual partners in public. A gay man who flashes men is just as much of a sex offender as a man who flashes women; and a gay man giving another man a blow-job in public is just as much of an illegal lewd act as a woman giving a man a blow-job in public.

Public or private...my case is on your statement that disagree with homosexuality.

So your case is a statement I never made?



oldschoolfool on 04 March 2012

he won't be re-elected,so it doesn't matter.



Mummelmann on 04 March 2012

Maybe the peanutbutter-jar evolution debunk man wasn't so bad after all...



bouzane on 04 March 2012
Marks said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Marks said:
I'm not in favour of homosexuality or anything, but the government really should just stay out of it. It's none of their damn business who marries who.

What do you mean by "not in favour"?

Isn't that like me saying I'm "not in favour" of coloured skin?


It just means I don't think homosexuality is natural and shouldn't be practiced by humans...but as I already said it's nobodies business who marries who. I'm kind of taking a Ron Paul stance on this. 

You can't compare skin colour to sexual preference. Not the same thing at all. 


Sorry but not believing that homosexuality is natural utterly moronic. It occurs frequently in nature and has been observed in a wide variety of species, hence calling homosexuality natural is a factual statement, not an opinion.



osamanobama on 05 March 2012
bouzane said:
Marks said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Marks said:
I'm not in favour of homosexuality or anything, but the government really should just stay out of it. It's none of their damn business who marries who.

What do you mean by "not in favour"?

Isn't that like me saying I'm "not in favour" of coloured skin?


It just means I don't think homosexuality is natural and shouldn't be practiced by humans...but as I already said it's nobodies business who marries who. I'm kind of taking a Ron Paul stance on this. 

You can't compare skin colour to sexual preference. Not the same thing at all. 


Sorry but not believing that homosexuality is natural utterly moronic. It occurs frequently in nature and has been observed in a wide variety of species, hence calling homosexuality natural is a factual statement, not an opinion.

so does murder, "rape", and cannabalism.