Gay marriage

[OCA]

What makes " Family" Benificial, and gay marriage not benifical??? And Gay's do have families together too.

Gays by definition cannot logically have a family unless by artificial terms and even then it is not a family since by all accounts a family is comprised of a mother and father. Nice try though.

 

[MyName]

I dont like this topic.
I really dislike this topic.
It always starts quick and goes fast only to degenerate into a pit of shit for everyone.

Its depressing

 

[OCA]

yeah, and the other 80-60 percent are straight people. So then maybe straight marriage should be illiegal! Hitler was straight! Sadamm was straight! My point is, no matter the category of people, there are good and bad people in them, and you can't argue with that.

Are you really seriously trying to argue against homosexuals being a higher percentage of transgressors based upon population? You've gotta be shitting me!

 

[OCA]

I dont like this topic.
I really dislike this topic.
It always starts quick and goes fast only to degenerate into a pit of shit for everyone.

Its depressing

KL don't rain on my fucking parade!

 

[OCA]

you say common sense I say intolerance

You are for legitimizing a segment(minute segment) of the population that constantly demonstrates a disregard for safe life practices and shows a clear disregard for the law. Doesn't this make you sort of irresponsible?

 

[MyName]

hehehe
maybe I will....maybe I wont.

(it'd be good for your climbing greek bloodpressure if I did though)

 

[OCA]

yes, and someone who thinks because someone is different then themselves is wrong, and imoral has lots of common sense

IMMORAL HAS COMMON SENSE??????????????????????????????????????

Are you off your proverbial rocker?

 

[OCA]

adoption, and you can have a family without kids!!!!

God willing, however you define God, we shall never let gays adopt and if they can somewhere already that it be reversed. How sad for the children.

 

[no1tovote4]

Right - not some centralized government issuing edicts from on high. But, in the constitutional design of self-government, power to make these kinds of decisions devolves to the states, the communities, and - ultimately - the individual.

By that definition, the government (meaning the people) most assuredly DOES have the right to define morality.

Regardless of that the Federal Government was specifically limited and should not be involved with this. This extends to the states because of the 14th amendment, thus states that previous to that Amendment that had sponsored a religion had to rewrite their own Constitutions as well.

Morality should be based in the Churches and not in the Government. It is a very Libertarian Ideal that the only reason Government should exist is to protect people from victimization and for the common defense, not to define morality.

Marriage is one of such topics, it is fundamentally a religious institution and should be be regarded or defined by the Government other than to insure that people are not victimized. Such as laws of marrying more than one lady in secret, attempting to marry children, marrying animals (they cannot consent any more than children), etc. Otherwise it should be the purview of the Churches to define what is right or wrong.

 

[dmp]

This comment belongs here, attached to a couple replies I've seen from the pro-Gay members:

Your logic says that 2 consenting adults make it right. You just came up with a logic that justifies ANY behavior including murder.

You then make right and wrong a situation of situational ethics when it is not. If you want to go down that path, you are opening a can of worms you won't like. I will put you into a chair and face to face with your creator.

 

[OCA]

This comment belongs here, attached to a couple replies I've seen from the pro-Gay members:

Wow, good old New Guy.

 

[Annie]

Wow, good old New Guy.

~shiver~

 

[5stringJeff]

~shiver~

Like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

 

[Annie]

Like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

On so many levels, by so many.

 

[dmp]

straight people committ the same crime,

Well, the number of girls molested by older women actually descends into relative statistical insignificance - but even if that weren't the case, what's the difference? The issue here is, after all, homosexuality.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming thickheaded here, but I really don't see where the 7 to 1 ratio has any bearing on this simple fact: Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, and yet commit 25-40% of child molestations. Ergo, the statistical probability that homosexuals - relative to their sheer numbers - will molest children, is staggering. That, it seems to me, is the only logical inference that can be drawn. I honestly don't understand what the molester to victim ratio has to do with anything - unless you're inferring that fewer homosexual child molesters - relative to the homosexual population in general - perpetrate proportionately more molestations than do heterosexual child molesters;i.e., homosexual child molesters - by virtue of their homosexuality - become some sort of super-predator. I can scarcely believe that.

And, of course, you're right about young girls being more likely to be molested by heterosexual pedophiles. Heterosexuals comprise 97-98% of the population. By that yardstick alone, the discrepancy between male and female victims would run closer to an average which reflects that fact. It does not. Something else is in play here. Speaking charitably, 3 out of 10 molestations are carried out by a tiny minority of the population. I really don't know how else to explain it.

'nuff said.

 

[Said1]

Wow, good old New Guy.

I swear those two are VERY familiar.

 

[OCA]

~shiver~

No like New Guy?

 

[OCA]

I swear those two are VERY familiar.

Which two?

 

[Annie]

No like New Guy?

You'd have to go back, If you can't remember.

 

[Said1]

Which two?

Stitchman and it's sista Sispiria.