how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Katzndogz]

In the eyes of the Law, they are supposed to be.

Wrong again. heterosexuality has the possibility of producing offspring. There is no such possibility with homosexuality. So where's the equivalence?

You need to tell my daughter that she doesn't exist yet....or the thousands of children of gay couples thruout the U.S.


And are you going to tell us that couples (like elderly couples) should not be allowed to marry because there is no "possibility"?

You need to be consistant.......no, scratch back, you can be as inconsistant as you want to be....it is the Law that needs to be consistant.

Marriage is not about childbearing and childbearing is not required in any way.

Childbearing is not about Marriage and Marriage is not required in any way.

Therefore your argument is inconsistant.

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

 

[bodecea]

When you come down to abnormal degeneracy equal to normalcy, you are already on the wrong side.

We already have the military being forced to accept beastiality as normal behavior followed closely with pedophilia moved from the mental illness category to the sexual orientation category. Just as what happened with homosexuality a few years ago.

Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation? A Psychologist Breaks Down What Makes a Jerry Sandusky - News - GOOD

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus in the department of psychology at Queen's University, testified before Canada's parliament in February that pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. Though you may think he's crazy, Quinsey is not alone. A growing number of medical professionals share his view, and they think it may help society finally fashion a worthwhile response to people who prey on children.

They can make the behavior considered a form of normal behavior.

When you start down the road to degeneracy it seldom stops at anything short of the very bottom.

It's evident from the argument you are trying to make here that you did not understand the OP.

 

[Katzndogz]

The left wants to embrace degeneracy and legitimize it by calling it normal.

Homosexuality is legal, my friend. But maybe if you moved to a country like....Uganda or Iran, you would be well pleased.

It may be legal, but that doesn't make it normal. It also doesn't require the rest of society to pretend it's normal.

That's the crux of the argument. What homosexuals wish to do privately is their business. Requiring everyone else to consider their behavior normal is where the behavior becomes toxic.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong again. heterosexuality has the possibility of producing offspring. There is no such possibility with homosexuality. So where's the equivalence?

You need to tell my daughter that she doesn't exist yet....or the thousands of children of gay couples thruout the U.S.


And are you going to tell us that couples (like elderly couples) should not be allowed to marry because there is no "possibility"?

You need to be consistant.......no, scratch back, you can be as inconsistant as you want to be....it is the Law that needs to be consistant.

Marriage is not about childbearing and childbearing is not required in any way.

Childbearing is not about Marriage and Marriage is not required in any way.

Therefore your argument is inconsistant.

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

 

[Katzndogz]

When you come down to abnormal degeneracy equal to normalcy, you are already on the wrong side.

We already have the military being forced to accept beastiality as normal behavior followed closely with pedophilia moved from the mental illness category to the sexual orientation category. Just as what happened with homosexuality a few years ago.

Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation? A Psychologist Breaks Down What Makes a Jerry Sandusky - News - GOOD

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus in the department of psychology at Queen's University, testified before Canada's parliament in February that pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. Though you may think he's crazy, Quinsey is not alone. A growing number of medical professionals share his view, and they think it may help society finally fashion a worthwhile response to people who prey on children.

They can make the behavior considered a form of normal behavior.

When you start down the road to degeneracy it seldom stops at anything short of the very bottom.

It's evident from the argument you are trying to make here that you did not understand the OP.

Of course I do! Homosexuals think that they have a right to be degenerates, anyone who doesn't accept degeneracy as a right is an idiot.

I don't much care who wishes to be a degenerate. I draw the line at telling me I have to accept that degeneracy as normal behavior. It won't stop with homosexuality, it shows no sign of stopping with homosexuality. It is progressing through every other stage.

 

[bodecea]

When you come down to abnormal degeneracy equal to normalcy, you are already on the wrong side.

We already have the military being forced to accept beastiality as normal behavior followed closely with pedophilia moved from the mental illness category to the sexual orientation category. Just as what happened with homosexuality a few years ago.

Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation? A Psychologist Breaks Down What Makes a Jerry Sandusky - News - GOOD

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus in the department of psychology at Queen's University, testified before Canada's parliament in February that pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. Though you may think he's crazy, Quinsey is not alone. A growing number of medical professionals share his view, and they think it may help society finally fashion a worthwhile response to people who prey on children.

They can make the behavior considered a form of normal behavior.

When you start down the road to degeneracy it seldom stops at anything short of the very bottom.

It's evident from the argument you are trying to make here that you did not understand the OP.

Of course I do! Homosexuals think that they have a right to be degenerates, anyone who doesn't accept degeneracy as a right is an idiot.

I don't much care who wishes to be a degenerate. I draw the line at telling me I have to accept that degeneracy as normal behavior. It won't stop with homosexuality, it shows no sign of stopping with homosexuality. It is progressing through every other stage.

No, you don't....because you completely ignored the refuting of beastiality and pedophilia in the link. You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or worse....have chosen to dishonestly ignore it.

 

[bripat9643]

You need to tell my daughter that she doesn't exist yet....

Then you aren't a homosexual. You're bisexual.

or the thousands of children of gay couples thruout the U.S.

So you want me to believe that a guy got pregnant from another guy and delivered a baby?

And are you going to tell us that couples (like elderly couples) should not be allowed to marry because there is no "possibility"?

That argument is idiotic. How would the law even know whether a couple is able to conceive? Do you suggest we give every couple a fertility test? Obviously trying to pursue such an agenda to make homosexuals feel better would be the ultimate in stupidity. One thing we do know, however, is that homosexuals cannot have children. We can determined whether a couple is heterosexual simply by looking at their crotches.

You need to be consistant.......no, scratch back, you can be as inconsistant as you want to be....it is the Law that needs to be consistant.

Sorry, we don't need to follow some pedantic idiocy that would vastly complicate the law just to make homosexuals feel better about themselves.

Marriage is not about childbearing and childbearing is not required in any way.

Childbearing is not about Marriage and Marriage is not required in any way.

Bullshit. Every 5-year-old knows what marraige is about:

First comes love
then comes marriage
then comes the baby in a baby carriage.

They get it, so why can't you?

Therefore your argument is inconsistant.

ROFL!

 

[bripat9643]

The Law is not about biology, it is about equality under it. As for Ethics, nothing is more ethical in this country than the concepts of Freedom and Equality for All.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. I already provided you the example of men's and women's restrooms. There are all kinds of laws that make distinctions between men and women.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course I do! Homosexuals think that they have a right to be degenerates, anyone who doesn't accept degeneracy as a right is an idiot.

I don't much care who wishes to be a degenerate. I draw the line at telling me I have to accept that degeneracy as normal behavior. It won't stop with homosexuality, it shows no sign of stopping with homosexuality. It is progressing through every other stage.

When the law makes it illegal to have a expression of disgust on your face at the sight of two guys kissing, then you'll know this society is doomed.

 

[bripat9643]

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

It doesn't sound like that at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

You need to tell my daughter that she doesn't exist yet....or the thousands of children of gay couples thruout the U.S.


And are you going to tell us that couples (like elderly couples) should not be allowed to marry because there is no "possibility"?

You need to be consistant.......no, scratch back, you can be as inconsistant as you want to be....it is the Law that needs to be consistant.

Marriage is not about childbearing and childbearing is not required in any way.

Childbearing is not about Marriage and Marriage is not required in any way.

Therefore your argument is inconsistant.

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

While there never was a law forcing people to marry to have children there was at one time some pretty hefty societal penalties to pay for those who didn't. And for the children too.

Which is much better and more effective than a law. No one wanted to have a child that woud be referred to as a bastard by pretty much everyone.

 

[bodecea]

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

While there never was a law forcing people to marry to have children there was at one time some pretty hefty societal penalties to pay for those who didn't. And for the children too.

Which is much better and more effective than a law. No one wanted to have a child that woud be referred to as a bastard by pretty much everyone.

Oh...I see the problem....you believe the sanitized version of history. Hun....let me tell you something, there were "bastards", there was unwed mothers, there was prostitution, there was everything you see now.....it was just hypocritically hidden or code words were used. We are no more, no less "moral" in that regard than we've ever been....in some cases, we are even BETTER than then because women and children are no longer considered chattel.

 

[bodecea]

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

It doesn't sound like that at all.

Check the post under yours.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are right. Marriage and even family has less and less connection to child bearing or even child rearing. That obligation has largely been transferred to the government as the primary family provider. Having nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

It doesn't sound like that at all.

Oh I find that pretty funny. Especially since we have a long history of shotgun marriages! We had no need of laws when mothers and fathers threw pregnant daughters out in the street to reside in "homes for unwed mothers". Now we have laws trying to track down parents and FORCING them to at least go so far as to support their children! Someday that might be objectionable in and of itself. How DARE the state FORCE people to support their offspring.

 

[Bern80]

When you come down to abnormal degeneracy equal to normalcy, you are already on the wrong side.

We already have the military being forced to accept beastiality as normal behavior followed closely with pedophilia moved from the mental illness category to the sexual orientation category. Just as what happened with homosexuality a few years ago.

No one is being forced to accept anything as 'normal'. They are being forced to not discriminate on the basis of that abnormality.

Look, I'm not gay and two guys kissing or 'gasp' having sex makes me want to hurl. Sorry to any gay men here. For no logical reason it just grosses me out. That said I am an objective enough person to know there is no logical reason not allow a gay couple to have the same rights as a straight couple. The only screw up here is that the fed decided for whatever reason it needed to recognize marriage in some legal sense. This is unneccessary. Government shouldn't have anything to do with any type of contract between two consenting adults. That really reveals the homophobes for the bigots they are as clearly they are trying to use government to make people live by their own personal beliefs and that simply isn't a legitimate role of government.

Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation? A Psychologist Breaks Down What Makes a Jerry Sandusky - News - GOOD

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus in the department of psychology at Queen's University, testified before Canada's parliament in February that pedophilia should be considered a sexual orientation. Though you may think he's crazy, Quinsey is not alone. A growing number of medical professionals share his view, and they think it may help society finally fashion a worthwhile response to people who prey on children.

They can make the behavior considered a form of normal behavior.

When you start down the road to degeneracy it seldom stops at anything short of the very bottom.

That is an interesting thought. Any objective person ought to be able to admit that homosexuality is indeed an abnormality. It occurs less often than not and is therefore by definition abnormal. The question becomes is there a legitimate reason to 'fix' this abnormal condition. Objectively no, there isn't. There is no victim where homosexuality is concerned. So the leap that has been made is if man being attracted to a man is a sexual orientation than isn't a man being sexually attracted to a child also a sexual orientation. Yes it is. There is one major difference. One party doesn't have the ability to consent to being in the relationship. Should either condition be treated. I'm not really sure you can treat those conditions. If what you are sexually attracted to, whether it's the opposite sex, the same sex, children, horses, stuffed animals, etc. is something your born with I doubt it's something treatable.

To homophobes that want gay people to go straight and think it's something you can just 'fix', or that being gay is a choice, I ask this question; could you make yourself sexually arroused by someone of the same sex? I can't. If it's a born with condition than it's probably the same way for them. A gay person isn't going to be able to make themselves be attracted to the opposite sex. And a pedophile probably can't make themselves not be attracted to children or have that attraction treated away. The only time the government needs to get involved in any of these situations is when someone is victimized as a result.

 

[bodecea]

The Law is not about biology, it is about equality under it. As for Ethics, nothing is more ethical in this country than the concepts of Freedom and Equality for All.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. I already provided you the example of men's and women's restrooms. There are all kinds of laws that make distinctions between men and women.

My home needs a men's and women's restroom?

How about all those places small enough with ONE restroom with a lock? What about the law?


And you apparently never been somewhere where the line for the women's room is so long, that we start going in the men's room......never been arrested for that.

 

[bodecea]

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

It doesn't sound like that at all.

Oh I find that pretty funny. Especially since we have a long history of shotgun marriages! We had no need of laws when mothers and fathers threw pregnant daughters out in the street to reside in "homes for unwed mothers". Now we have laws trying to track down parents and FORCING them to at least go so far as to support their children! Someday that might be objectionable in and of itself. How DARE the state FORCE people to support their offspring.

So, you think there should be no law forcing people to support their offspring? (note: this does not require marriage, nor does it require the supporter to be straight.....so it begs the question, why is the Law EQUAL in this regard, but not in Marriage?)

 

[mudwhistle]

I didnt need this prompter.

I already understaood it was a civil rights issue deccades ago

Ok sparky.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sounds like you wish there was a law FORCING people to marry if they have children....that would be a first in our country's history.

While there never was a law forcing people to marry to have children there was at one time some pretty hefty societal penalties to pay for those who didn't. And for the children too.

Which is much better and more effective than a law. No one wanted to have a child that woud be referred to as a bastard by pretty much everyone.

Oh...I see the problem....you believe the sanitized version of history. Hun....let me tell you something, there were "bastards", there was unwed mothers, there was prostitution, there was everything you see now.....it was just hypocritically hidden or code words were used. We are no more, no less "moral" in that regard than we've ever been....in some cases, we are even BETTER than then because women and children are no longer considered chattel.

Women have just as much right to get STDs as men do but have more of a right to have the state support their children.

I don't believe the sanitized version of history. For pretty much a good part of it I was there. Girls who got pregnant and the fathers of those babies were ostracized. They didn't have child care at school. They didn't get to go to the prom. They were treated, both of them like dirt which was a huge deterrent to being young whores and pimps.

No it didn't stop such behavior. There will always be whores and pimps. They just made it painful and less acceptable. Now of course we accept such behavior as a normal part of growing up. Like homosexuals want us to accept that dysfunction as normal. In turn, other forms of degeneracy will be soothed away as normal.

The only thing hopeful is that degnerate cultures don't last for a very long time. They are eventually overtaken by a more robust people sometimes with disastrous results. Scandanavia is being overtaken and eaten away by the highly religious and oppressive muslims right now. In turn the US will become too degenerate to survive also.

 

[Charles_Main]

You have no business worrying about what kind of sex someone has in the privacy of their home in a free country MS.

And you have no business telling people they have to accept, and endorse a Practice they believe to be a sin. Now do you. After all it's a free country, and wrong or right people have a right to be Against Gay marriage. Period.

But in Truthmatters version of a free country, You are not free to hold religious Beliefs, if those beliefs tell you Gays are sinners. lol