Christine O’Donnell and the bill of rights, Via: www.fameappeal.com Go to 2:37, 7:03, 3:35 For Fame Appeal Articlebit.ly clip was taken october 18 2010, in my law school’s court room. To the left is Democrat Chris Coons, to the right is Tea Party candidate Christine O’donnell -topics; first amendment, church v. state
A0DBOB
November 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm
@CommonSenseJoe
“It has, however, ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.”
The Mormons, Kings, Princes, etc throughout history would like to have a word with you.
Please at least do a handful of research beforehand?
neverAcquiesce
November 18, 2010 at 11:31 pm
There’s pepperoni on this pizza? Wait, you’re telling me this pizza has pepperoni on it? So you’re saying there’s pepperoni piled all over this pizza?
A0DBOB
November 19, 2010 at 12:01 am
@CommonSenseJoe
“I did choose my sexual partners.”
Yes, but that choice was influenced by your “wiring”. If you were wired differently you would not be attracted to your spouse, you may have been attracted to your spouses brother (or sister, not sure what gender you are).
A0DBOB
November 19, 2010 at 12:08 am
@CommonSenseJoe
“There is no state interest served by including same sex relationship in marriage.
Um yes? The ability to present the rights and privileges of marriage to homosexual couples without the need to create universal perfect civil unions. It is MUCH more difficult to try to create a federal civil union then it is to recognize same sex marriage.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 12:25 am
@sandroeleven I fully realize how marriage has evolved over the years. It has, however, ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
ReligiousFiction
November 19, 2010 at 12:26 am
ohhhhh myyyyyyy goshhhhhhhhhhh
I’ve never seen such blatant and joyful ignorance.
FinnHawk
November 19, 2010 at 12:37 am
ignorant and clueless at that! christine I mean, of course.
FinnHawk
November 19, 2010 at 1:29 am
what a bitch!
sandroeleven
November 19, 2010 at 2:09 am
@CommonSenseJoe You fail to realize is was a contract, didnt have much to do with love, but was about having a woman take care of your kid. Marriage has diff definitions.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 2:30 am
@AndRod29 Respectfully, with animals, you cannot know the “WHY?”. Also, whether the behavior is “homosexual” is a matter of interpretation by the observer. It has no bearing on human beings because we have a mind. A lion will eat it’s own offspring. We do not, at least not yet.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 3:02 am
@A0DBOB Respectfully, you did use the term, “Nothing at all in our minds are wired towards natural reproduction?”. This is not about genes or being “wired”. It is about someone choosing to engage in a behavior. Comparing a chosen behavior to gender, race, or height is flawed. I did not choose my gender, race, or height. I did choose my sexual partners.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 3:43 am
@A0DBOB If by natural, you mean it happens, then yes, one could say homosexuality is natural because it happens. The issue is whether or not people are BORN that way or do they CHOOSE to engage in the behavior.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 4:14 am
@AndRod29 No, it is not discrimination. They do not want civil unions. They want marriage because they incorrectly assume it will give them acceptance in society. Marriage is not defined by the church, but society itself. The government recognizes a specific relationship because it serves the state’s interests to do so. There is no state interest served by including same sex relationship in marriage.
People often choose repulsive behaviors. It is a choice.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 4:42 am
@sandroeleven Actually, it does. It has always been between men and women. It has never been based on sexual preference.
A0DBOB
November 19, 2010 at 5:00 am
@CommonSenseJoe
“We are ALL “wired” heterosexually.”
Yet again you prove my point…. instead of saying “wired” I used the examples of genes which is pretty much what “wired” means.
So again I point you to my previous point. What if they are wired “wrong”, like those other examples I gave. That would make them natural, but not normal.
A0DBOB
November 19, 2010 at 5:22 am
@CommonSenseJoe
“Next you will tell me that pedophilia is natural as well because we see it in nature.”
Somehow I knew you would go there. Murder/rape/etc is also natural. Natural does not equate to being good. Disease and death are natural, cancer is natural. Joy and happiness are also natural reactions. Please realize that I am trying to show you that homosexual is natural, I have not said anything whether it is good or not.
A0DBOB
November 19, 2010 at 6:10 am
@AndRod29
“The argument that it is observed in nature is used as a counter to those who consider unnatrual.”
Thank you… but your efforts are in vain. I tried to explain that to him multiple times already.
AndRod29
November 19, 2010 at 6:58 am
@CommonSenseJoe If a church does not want to marry them, then whatever, but to deny them the benefits (through civil unions) that most other people have simply because they are different is discriminatory no matter what way you try to spin it.
And there are some churches that are more then willing to marry homosexuals, but the stat won’t let them.
And I highly doubt that homosexuality is a behavior one chooses to engage in, considering the grief and problems that result from it.
AndRod29
November 19, 2010 at 7:19 am
@CommonSenseJoe The argument that it is observed in nature is used as a counter to those who consider unnatrual. especially considering that many of the animals who engage in it often have a higher mental capacity then other animals. Dolphins, lions and monkeys all engage in it, usually as a way to bond closer with one another. In fact there are over 1500 recorded species having homosexual acts with one another, not simply because they were “in heat”
ConCon75
November 19, 2010 at 7:28 am
turn the USA into glass..
sandroeleven
November 19, 2010 at 7:28 am
@CommonSenseJoe The institution of marriage doesnt rally havea true definition
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 7:47 am
@A0DBOB Since homosexuality is neither, it is a distinction without a difference. If two persons of the same sex which to engage in homosexuality, that is their right. It is not their right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their sexual preference. It is what THEY choose to do. Comparing homosexuality to race or height is foolish. Homosexuality is a behavior one choosing to engage in. Next you will tell me that pedophilia is natural as well because we see it in nature.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 8:31 am
@A0DBOB Before you pat yourself on the back, there is no instinct for homosexuality. A dog in heat humps ANYTHING! There is no choice. The instinct is to reproduce, not fulfill a sexual “orientation”. Also what is natural for an animal is NOT natural for a human being. They will eat their own offspring. The argument that homosexual behavior is observed in nature is flawed to begin with. If an animal mounts a female and then a male, it is not bisexual. In heat, they mount anything.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 9:28 am
@A0DBOB I am not sure what you think I misspoke about.
CommonSenseJoe
November 19, 2010 at 10:21 am
@A0DBOB Actually, I am being consistent but you are still a stuck in the mindset of sexual orientation. We are born to reproduce heterosexually. That is indisputable. What we are attracted to or our sexual preference is TOTALLY subjective. We are ALL “wired” heterosexually. Nothing prevents so-called “gay” persons from engaging in intercourse. In fact, many of them have done so for decades, had children, and even married. Feelings are subjective, unreliable, and cannot be verified.