Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[007]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
normal? abnormal?

If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means,[/i]please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?

Just curious

There's one problem right there. You don't know what "normal" is.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Taking what you've written WAY OUT On a limb, and out of context, (just like a liberal eh? )

You are saying that Gay people are insane.



If they are insane, their contracts are invalid.

No homo-marriage.

Frankly? I'd support homo-marriage if they gave up ANY and EVERY right to be a parent. It'd be better for a child in a homo-family, to die of SIDS than to grow up twisted and mentally fucked.

talk about taking out of context........

I simply pointed out that choices are not the end all answer for abnormal behavior. Brain chemistry imbalances can account for some of this in various things ranging from murder to homosexuality to kleptomania and schizophrenia

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
talk about taking out of context........

I simply pointed out that choices are not the end all answer for abnormal behavior. Brain chemistry imbalances can account for some of this in various things ranging from murder to homosexuality to kleptomania and schizophrenia

Of course I was taking it out of context, hence my words "Taken COMPLETELY out of context" etc.. I was putting a 'liberal spin' on your words.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
There's one problem right there. You don't know what "normal" is.

who does? and if they say they do, who are they to say that?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Of course I was taking it out of context, hence my words "Taken COMPLETELY out of context" etc.. I was putting a 'liberal spin' on your words.

good one :

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
who does? and if they say they do, who are they to say that?

People today use that line to justify all sorts of behaviour.

"...if you don't have sense enough to come in, out of the rain..."

(sigh)

 

[OCA]

Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers.

So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
People today use that line to justify all sorts of behaviour.

"...if you don't have sense enough to come in, out of the rain..."

(sigh)

granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way?

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way?

Yes.

Normal is easy to define.

Take the behavior that MOST people do. Those behaviours become 'Normal'.

1-5% of our population loves to have sex w/ others of the same gender.

That is 'abnormal'.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers.

So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice?

so because lawyers abuse the insanity defense we should declare everybody sane regardless?

and I've never seen two stud horsed try to mate with each other, but I've seen some pretty stupid dogs try to do this with each other, and then theres this rotten cat I know with an affinity for pillows, but I guess the cats of sound mind and body and can be held accountable for his choices also, right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers.

So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice?

I agree with monkeyman on this one. Fry violent idiots, crazies too.



"all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed an reproduce with the opposite sex" actually you cannot use this as a premise in your sillyjism; this is what's up for debate in this thread.

 

[007]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way?

Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.

MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?

What part about a "Civil Union" didn't they like, when they would have been given ALL the legal benefits of "marriage"?

What is it about "marriage" that they feel the need to destroy it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.

MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?

What part about a "Civil Union" didn't they like, when they would have been given ALL the legal benefits of "marriage"?

What is it about "marriage" that they feel the need to destroy it?

While I will not engage in the normal/abnormal debate, I will say that there is a definite hatred of strong families which emanates from the left. The nuclear family is the main competitor with government on instilling values. What's good for the citizenry is not always the best thing for egomaniacal liberals bent on destroying society. Therein lies the tension.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.

MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?

What part about a "Civil Union" didn't they like, when they would have been given ALL the legal benefits of "marriage"?

What is it about "marriage" that they feel the need to destroy it?

I disagree about being so definitive and leaving no gray area.

I wish I knew what it was they weren't happy with about the 'civil union' though. Never could understand that part.

and about destroying marriage? do you really think they could do any more damage than what has already been done by the heterosexual crowd?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
While I will not engage in the normal/abnormal debate, I will say that there is a definite hatred of strong families which emanates from the left. The nuclear family is the main competitor with government on instilling values. What's good for the citizenry is not always the best thing for egomaniacal liberals bent on destroying society. Therein lies the tension.

I would also have to say that whats good for the egocentric right wing is not always the best thing for society as well, but they are usually bent on destroying other societies since they don't work with ours.

 

[007]

But the "heterosexual crowd" is who marriage was intended for. So whether they've done a good job or bad job with it really isn't relavent.

That's the issue here. WHY DO QUEERS NEED TO BE *MARRIED* WHEN UNDER A CIVIL UNION THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ALL THE SAME LEGAL BENEFITS?

I see it as just another liberal attack on something "Christians" hold dear and sacred. They want to CHEAPEN it and DRAG IT INTO THE GUTTER with them. That's the way I see it.

Personally, I could give a rats ass if two same sex people want to live together, or be joined in civil union and get "marriad" people's benefits. SO WHAT?

It's all about the "word" MARRIAGE!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
But the "heterosexual crowd" is who marriage was intended for. So whether they've done a good job or bad job with it really isn't relavent.

then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I would also have to say that whats good for the egocentric right wing is not always the best thing for society as well, but they are usually bent on destroying other societies since they don't work with ours.

Societies focused on individual rights and free markets are superior in every demonstrable way, at all stratas of society, and for society as a whole. We would be happy to not destroy other societies, my problem is their desire to destroy us.

Now bring up the patriot act and say it's no better than saddam.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it?

(sigh)

I was searching and found a thread by a guy named 'dmp' - he pointed out some very real concerns with homosexual marriage.


Look it up

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Now bring up the patriot act and say it's no better than saddam.

uh, ok.

Patriot Act is no better than Saddam.


now, what the hell did that mean anyway?