Read his historical posts, before you decide to "advocate" on his behalf...he is known by several other names, "Tajasi" being one...
Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says
- Thread starter BlaznFattyz
- Start date
Read his historical posts, before you decide to "advocate" on his behalf...he is known by several other names, "Tajasi" being one...
Devil's advocate? Did someone call my name? Let me step in for a second.
Yet Q, a similar point is argued by those who are for same-sex marriage. You are absolutely right, shared insurance is a benefit of being married. Why should insurance be an exclusive right, or easier to procure, because of one's heterosexuality?
Can't have kids in same-sex unions? That's nonsense. Many, many same-sex couples have children by adoption. That is the reality, whether it is offensive to you or not, Q. And those children as well as their parents deserve all the beneifts of a state-sanctioned union that are granted to heterosexual couples and their children.
No, what is "nonsense" is when teachers in school deliberately tell children they don't have to get married to have kids, and they can explore their sexuality when they are 13 or younger...that is nonsense. What is nonsense is when I have to "Physically" go into a classroom, remmove my child from said same morons who think they know better than me, and threaten a lawsuit to make it stick... That is nonsense. And NO, those same sex adults in a relationship DO NOT DESERVE ANYTHING. What they are trying to get is law that says they do...and they shove it in my face, and it makes me just angrier...and less willing to see their side of things...
Like I said, I have been really researching this little "game" of adult sex with whom, and it is more complex than you might imagine.
v/r
Q
greymare
Well-Known Member
big deep breaths, before you bust something. ok? Q? CPR anyone?
OK, I don't get it. Why is what I am saying "busting a nut", when what I am saying has been the way it's been forever?
No, I don't need to breathe.
I will listen to anyone, as long is it is not IN MY FACE. I'm not stupid. I know what will happen to the insurance industry (among other things). I know what will happen to the social fabric...
Maybe the rest aught to step back and take a hard look at what they are demanding...social suicide...
First casualty in Iraq, a homosexual soldier...served his country, died for his country....thought you'd be proud...too bad his partner doesn't deserve the same pittance any other surviving spouse would get...
You do need to take a breath...you are on the side of racism and segregation pre '60's, the tide is turning...all people deserve respect, and soon all partners will get the same benefits...insurance and otherwise.
The conspiracy that says it will kill the insurance companies, horse pucky...that is homophobia pure and simple....lets see, most businesses pay for the employee...and then the employee pays extra for spouse or more for spouse and family...and the insurance company still has the rights to reject people and pre-existing conditions...insurance companies always make out...like the casinos with their odds makers..they have actuaries...
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Holy ****, Q!! Now you are making me take greymare's advice. Deep breaths, deep breaths.
DO NOT DESERVE ANYTHING?? You really are a bigot.
That said, I'm sure you are not the only parent who dislikes what their children are being taught in public school. You have a short temper, and are more willing to physically (and from what I've seen on this forum for several years, verbally or type-writtenly) throw your weight around than some, and for whatever reasons, you feel entitled to do so. Apparently you are also unwilling to share the same privileges that you feel entitled to. When someone challenges you, you respond with a temper tantrum. Hey, I can sympathize with that. I get upset too and throw temper tantrums.
Quahom1 said:
All you are saying here is that you are upset that challenges are being made to the status quo. Beyond that, if you expand your point-of-view outside of white Judeo-Christian Western values, you will be confronted with the fact that it has not been the way it's been forever.
Quahom1 said:
Social suicide?? Hardly. Equal rights is social suicide, is that what you are telling us? Furthermore, are you telling us all that equal rights is social suicide because it will bankrupt insurance companies? Who gives a DAMN about insurance companies, Q, when we are talking about basic human rights? It comes down to a question of values. Do we value people more, or business? Human rights or profits? Equality or economy?
Didn't someone somewhere in American history have the audacity to claim that all "men" (which we have by now expanded to also include women, at least in theory
) are created equal? How then is it wrong to give people equal rights in marriage, regardless of sexual orientation?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Quahom ... in the words of the Fonz -- SIT ON IT!!!
Now I would just say -- S*** My M* F* D* ...
- but I know you'd just love to.
So I'll keep it in Happy Days language.
Nevertheless, you ARE a C-S ...
I care about the rest of the world, but if you drop of the face of it, I won't lose sleep over it.
Now I would just say -- S*** My M* F* D* ...
- but I know you'd just love to.
So I'll keep it in Happy Days language.
Nevertheless, you ARE a C-S ...
And response to this ... F U, Q.Quahom1 said:
I care about the rest of the world, but if you drop of the face of it, I won't lose sleep over it.
greymare
Well-Known Member
eeeek. big deep breathes people, please. focus. .... stop beating your chest and acting all alpha male. ok. I dont agree (obviously) with your views on homosexuality BUT i am not trying to make you change your mind and agree with mine. So please, Q afford me the same respect. I'll leave this thread again, as I can not be of any use to it any more......
Andrew, come on buddy, I know you are cranky and frustrated by all of this and I apologise for upsetting you by adding to this discussion. but pllease, no need to swear,even though it was pretend swearing. You will only give fuel that you are not a good person and we know that isnt true. love the Grey
Andrew, come on buddy, I know you are cranky and frustrated by all of this and I apologise for upsetting you by adding to this discussion. but pllease, no need to swear,even though it was pretend swearing. You will only give fuel that you are not a good person and we know that isnt true. love the Grey
greymare
Well-Known Member
and one more thing....... pathless... good points, I wish I was as well versed as you in getting my point across. You can be the advocate, I'll just be happy to be the sidekick.
bob x
Well-Known Member
Q, domestic-partner benefits exist in many large states, and not a single insurance company has declared bankruptcy: they profit from us, as they profit from others, and in any case, as I'm sure you would be emphasizing in a different context, we are a small percentage of the populace.
That really has to be most absurd and inane argument I have heard on this topic in a very long time. Can't you step back a little and ask yourself why you allow yourself to believe any kind of absurdity, anything at all, as long as it feeds your hatred for us?
That really has to be most absurd and inane argument I have heard on this topic in a very long time. Can't you step back a little and ask yourself why you allow yourself to believe any kind of absurdity, anything at all, as long as it feeds your hatred for us?
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
what are the exact arguments to deny and/or grant a civil union among homosexuals?
one side says...why can't we have rights like everyone else...
the other side says...because we can't understand you...it's just ewey and isn't right....
sounds sarcastic....but I think that is actually what it boils down to....of course the areas that have it are already experiencing issues with the bane of marriage/civil unions today...divorce.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
do you think that marriages and everything that goes with it: taxes, education, children, etc., is an institution that is fairly voted on and won by the majority or those voted in office who have to deal with these issues of morality and law? if you are in disagreement with the way things are, what kind of government would you like to impose?
Either I'm very tired or your statements need rewording.
I didn't know marriage was voted on. Taxes for married people increase, I know of no specific education bennies that married folks get. Children happen in and out of marriage.
I live in a country, the US which evolves not by changing government, but by the government eventually bowing to the will of the people or the needs of society. I am not expecting this gov't to change anytime soon...that is as long as laws and enforcement of same continue to change as we grow in consciousness.
Of course if they don't change....they will be changed and the gov't we get will be anarchy or marshall law...until we come to our senses.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Marriage (heterosexual, homosexual), Abortion (pro-choice, pro-life) is voted on. Education is an institution that requires students to generate income thru tuition, housing, books,and eventually jobs. Homosexual unions cannot procreate so they cannot contribute to the economic stability of our social institutions. so maybe it isnt always religion and discrimination, but socio-economics and politics.
bob x
Well-Known Member
People who are unable to procreate, or just don't want to, marry all the time.
The US does not allow everything to be decided by majority vote: the issue of whether a minority should be allowed to have the same rights as the majority is not one that is appropriately left up to the majority.
The US does not allow everything to be decided by majority vote: the issue of whether a minority should be allowed to have the same rights as the majority is not one that is appropriately left up to the majority.
So you are indicating which ever way the law or votes go you will comply and no longer have an issue on either of these??
Let's see homosexuals do not contribute because they don't have offspring?? I'd like to see that stat. And who exactly is it that fights homosexuals from adopting, whereby they would be reducing the burden of unwanted children on society? Are you not aware that many homosexuals, due to stigma of the past, have children and grandchildren?? Yes in the past in order to 'fit in' they married, had kids, and lived lives they were forced into....they eventually live their own lives...and in retirement those darn non-contributing homosexuals...have already procreated....phooey...and they created heterosexuals of all things.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
right, but generally speaking they have the ability, and like china, can be very good at it.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
not at all, that is the right of the people to disagree or make better the issues of society. in the context of what i was saying, they do not contribute--they cannot have children. therefore, all the institutions that require the procreation of the species to survive would all have to vote heterosexual marriage in self-interest.
bob x
Well-Known Member
Not always. In particular, women who are too old to have children are nonetheless allowed to get married.
Nobody is asking for heterosexual marriage to be abolished, or interfered with in any way.