Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[dmp]

Here is what I don't get, if it doesn't affect your "personal" (what ever that is supposed to mean) life in any way then why do you care? Is it because some little black book called the bible says that you should try to make other people suffer for being different.


You also said that child rape and various sorts of theft don't affect your life at all, but they are still about stealing. Child rape mentally damages the child (because it is RAPE), in essence it is causing harm to others. How does homosexuality hurt two people when they consent to the sexual practice, nobody is dying, nothing is getting stolen, no one is getting raped.
I just wonder why you care if it really doesn't affect you like you say.

Here...he says it just about perfect.

It won't effect my personal life if homosexuals pretend to marry just as it wouldn't if polygamist marry. It would probably effect my wallet and my and the overall health of the nation which I guess would effect me personally. It would also degrade the morales of this nation even more than it has been degraded already by the idiots involved in the music and film industry. By adding to the mockery that has been placed on the institution of marriage and the raising of kids this nation would head even further toward the abyss. It is all a part of a cummulative push to destroy everything that is decent with this country.....

...Obviously there is something extremely wrong with the way marriage is done today, it isn't working. Allowing something as silly as "gay marriage" would do nothing to strengthen the institution. I have known and been friends with many homosexuals, some who were together for a number of years, their lifestyle is not condusive to a successful marriage just as many straight couples that lead similar lifestyles aren't good candidates for marriage. The definition of the word marriage is "the state in which a MAN and a WOMAN a formally united for the purpose of living together(usually in order to procreate children)and with certain legal rights and obligations towards each other".....from the Oxford American Dictionary, I'm tired of having the language corrupted for the sake of one silly group or another. Marriage isn't suppose to be something taken so lightly, it isn't a fad or a joke, it isn't something for imature idiots that can't even figure out who they are. Homosexuals have already done enough to destroy marriage by marrying women or men and then after having children deciding they want to live a different lifestyle. These self absorbed assholes have done more to spread STDs among heterosexuals and destroy families than anything else.

My parents were married 57 years and even though my Father died 3 years ago, my Mother is still madly in love with him and will be until she dies, that is the definition of marriage I was raised with. They had 6 kids on a Air Force pilot's salary yet they worked as a team to do the best they could to fulfill their obligations to themselves as well as their children. There were disagreements and arguements but never any thoughts of breaking the vows that they entered years before. They fixed rather than threw away.

The clowns that want to argue in favor of bastardizing the word and institution of marriage will always be able to come up with examples of normal people that fail at marriage, that does nothing to justify multiplying the problems by adding people that identify themselves totally by who or what they have sex with.

Let's be truthful, homosexual leaders are pushing this for one reason, to legitamize their lifestyle and in turn make it easier to adopt children. This country has enough children being raised the wrong way. Although there are many single parents that do a great job of raising their children, it is far from the ideal way to raise children. A child gets knowledge from both the Mother and Father on how to get through life, without one or the other they miss out on that knowledge and it effects them for many years. Two men or two women don't cut it, if anything it would have to have an influence on the young mind and make the kid more susceptible to that foolish lifestyle just as kids raised by KKK asswipes.

 

[sitarro]

Here is what I don't get, if it doesn't affect your "personal" (what ever that is supposed to mean) life in any way then why do you care? Is it because some little black book called the bible says that you should try to make other people suffer for being different.

That "little black book" has been around for a very long time, the teachings inside have been followed by billions of people and is respected and revered today more than ever. What a very small mind you obviously have to not get that. I'm guessing you are 12, maybe 13 years old or have the mental ability of someone that age.....am I close?

 

[007]

It won't effect my personal life if homosexuals pretend to marry just as it wouldn't if polygamist marry. It would probably effect my wallet and my and the overall health of the nation which I guess would effect me personally. It would also degrade the morales of this nation even more than it has been degraded already by the idiots involved in the music and film industry. By adding to the mockery that has been placed on the institution of marriage and the raising of kids this nation would head even further toward the abyss. It is all a part of a cummulative push to destroy everything that is decent with this country.

I don't think that anyone should have the right to have kids or marry, it should at least take the effort it takes to get a driver's license to have the privelidge of experiencing both. Obviously there is something extremely wrong with the way marriage is done today, it isn't working. Allowing something as silly as "gay marriage" would do nothing to strengthen the institution. I have known and been friends with many homosexuals, some who were together for a number of years, their lifestyle is not condusive to a successful marriage just as many straight couples that lead similar lifestyles aren't good candidates for marriage. The definition of the word marriage is "the state in which a MAN and a WOMAN a formally united for the purpose of living together(usually in order to procreate children)and with certain legal rights and obligations towards each other".....from the Oxford American Dictionary, I'm tired of having the language corrupted for the sake of one silly group or another. Marriage isn't suppose to be something taken so lightly, it isn't a fad or a joke, it isn't something for imature idiots that can't even figure out who they are. Homosexuals have already done enough to destroy marriage by marrying women or men and then after having children deciding they want to live a different lifestyle. These self absorbed assholes have done more to spread STDs among heterosexuals and destroy families than anything else.

My parents were married 57 years and even though my Father died 3 years ago, my Mother is still madly in love with him and will be until she dies, that is the definition of marriage I was raised with. They had 6 kids on a Air Force pilot's salary yet they worked as a team to do the best they could to fulfill their obligations to themselves as well as their children. There were disagreements and arguements but never any thoughts of breaking the vows that they entered years before. They fixed rather than threw away.

The clowns that want to argue in favor of bastardizing the word and institution of marriage will always be able to come up with examples of normal people that fail at marriage, that does nothing to justify multiplying the problems by adding people that identify themselves totally by who or what they have sex with.

Let's be truthful, homosexual leaders are pushing this for one reason, to legitamize their lifestyle and in turn make it easier to adopt children. This country has enough children being raised the wrong way. Although there are many single parents that do a great job of raising their children, it is far from the ideal way to raise children. A child gets knowledge from both the Mother and Father on how to get through life, without one or the other they miss out on that knowledge and it effects them for many years. Two men or two women don't cut it, if anything it would have to have an influence on the young mind and make the kid more susceptible to that foolish lifestyle just as kids raised by KKK asswipes.

Outstanding sitarro. That "should" end the discussion, but you know these whack job, looney left, fuck each other up the ass, liberals. They want to be able to twist everything including nature to suit their own sick, perverted and vile, if it feels good do it, agenda. They'll hammer away at this in full knowledge that it's wrong, wrong, wrong. And that's just another reason why conservatives feel liberals are liars and freaks.

My hats off to you brother...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sitarro again.

 

[mattskramer]

Yeah, isn't it a bitch that conservatives have turned the tables and are now using the liberal mantra "the children! the children!" However, in this case it's for real.

Uh Liberals, whoever they are, might have used the mantra “the children! The children” I don’t know what you mean by that but it is likely a moot point as far as I am concerned. Don’t commit the fallacy of “Guilt by Association”. Shoot. I am Matt S Kramer and I don’t even consider myself to be a member of that group and I don’t use “mantras”.

You very neatly avoided my questions about polygamy. Why do you think we don't we allow polygamous marriages?

I didn’t see a specific question addressed to me concerning polygamy. Personally, I’m opposed to it. I think that it would complicate relationships. Some people support polygamy. Though I prefer representative government to other forms of government, as I said before, the majority can be wrong.

Regarding your post #66:
Yes, I've heard about adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm banks. So what? Those are all manipulative measures for gays to obtain children by other means than the normal, biological means. Frankly, I don't like messing with Mother Nature. And children should not be denied either a mother or a father.

Those are also manipulative measures for heterosexuals to obtain children by other means than the normal, biological means. You say that children should not be denied a mother or a father. First, please define mother and father. Are you referring to the nurturing type and/or the biological type? After we clarify that, would you outlaw divorce for that reason? Look. You do not have to be a sperm-donor to be a “real” daddy. I have not seen any studies but I think that a child would be better off raised by a caring couple (whether that couple is of the same sex or opposite sex) than at an orphanage.

You ask "is every child a benefit to society?" What a question! I'm beginning to think you have a very dangerous mind to even ask such a question.

You said that They (gays) don’t provide the same benefits traditional couples do. I wanted you to clarify what that benefit is. Is it Children? If so, then my question is valid. Not every child is a benefit to society. As I mentioned previously, some children are surrendered to the state. Many children are given to adoption centers. Some children become a danger to society. They become an economic burden. Some children commit violent crimes.

Yes, they should be allowed to get married because they have the normal potential to have children. There are obviously some medical problems with some couples but those are the exceptions. Gays don't have medical problems, they just plain can't have children together.

Okay. I think that we agree to disagree with this issue. Correct me if I am wrong. You contend that gay couples should not be allowed to get married because no gay couple can have biological children of their own. Yet, you contend that heterosexual couples should be allowed to get married because, except for those who choose not to have kids and those rare couples who can’t have kids, many (if not most) heterosexual couples can have kids. Okay. It seems pretty petty, cold, and practically irrelevant but, again, we simply agree to disagree.

In conclusion: One need not be an egg donor to be a mommy and one does not need to be a sperm donor to be a daddy. Now, how about you go tell those adopted kids (likely offspring from heterosexuals who abandoned them) that the couple that accepted then and brought them into their loving home, are not their mother and father (or 2 daddies or 2 mommies - whatever the case may be).

 

[Gunny]

Uh Liberals, whoever they are, might have used the mantra “the children! The children” I don’t know what you mean by that but it is likely a moot point as far as I am concerned. Don’t commit the fallacy of “Guilt by Association”. Shoot. I am Matt S Kramer and I don’t even consider myself to be a member of that group and I don’t use “mantras”.



I didn’t see a specific question addressed to me concerning polygamy. Personally, I’m opposed to it. I think that it would complicate relationships. Some people support polygamy. Though I prefer representative government to other forms of government, as I said before, the majority can be wrong.



Those are also manipulative measures for heterosexuals to obtain children by other means than the normal, biological means. You say that children should not be denied a mother or a father. First, please define mother and father. Are you referring to the nurturing type and/or the biological type? After we clarify that, would you outlaw divorce for that reason? Look. You do not have to be a sperm-donor to be a “real” daddy. I have not seen any studies but I think that a child would be better off raised by a caring couple (whether that couple is of the same sex or opposite sex) than at an orphanage.




You said that They (gays) don’t provide the same benefits traditional couples do. I wanted you to clarify what that benefit is. Is it Children? If so, then my question is valid. Not every child is a benefit to society. As I mentioned previously, some children are surrendered to the state. Many children are given to adoption centers. Some children become a danger to society. They become an economic burden. Some children commit violent crimes.



Okay. I think that we agree to disagree with this issue. Correct me if I am wrong. You contend that gay couples should not be allowed to get married because no gay couple can have biological children of their own. Yet, you contend that heterosexual couples should be allowed to get married because, except for those who choose not to have kids and those rare couples who can’t have kids, many (if not most) heterosexual couples can have kids. Okay. It seems pretty petty, cold, and practically irrelevant but, again, we simply agree to disagree.

In conclusion: One need not be an egg donor to be a mommy and one does not need to be a sperm donor to be a daddy. Now, how about you go tell those adopted kids (likely offspring from heterosexuals who abandoned them) that the couple that accepted then and brought them into their loving home, are not their mother and father (or 2 daddies or 2 mommies - whatever the case may be).

 

[cslaughlin13]

TO SCREAMING EAGLE :
you know I'm actually not a communist or a socialist, and I don't live by a "little red book" as you put it. You really must be paranoid if you think that the CPUSA is going to take over your family.

 

[Bonnie]

TO SCREAMING EAGLE :
you know I'm actually not a communist or a socialist, and I don't live by a "little red book" as you put it. You really must be paranoid if you think that the CPUSA is going to take over your family.

You know that "paranoia" argument gets more stale everytime it's used. Are you saying that for people to have an unfavorable opinion on a lifestyle it automatically equates to paranoia??

 

[cslaughlin13]

That "little black book" has been around for a very long time, the teachings inside have been followed by billions of people and is respected and revered today more than ever. What a very small mind you obviously have to not get that. I'm guessing you are 12, maybe 13 years old or have the mental ability of someone that age.....am I close?

quoted by sitarro:

Actually I am 19 and have taken 4 years of catholic theology (long story, don't ask). I know a lot about it and enough to know that it was written by humans, even though they are supposely influenced by God. Couldn't it have possibly occurred to your "small mind" that humans could have put their opinion inside the book to make God a "he" even though it is clear that God is not a human being, or couldn't some biased person twist around what God (if he exists) had said and written that homosexuality is wrong when instead God could have said something completely different.

Another idea that other people should know: even though I am gay, I am actually not liberal because I think their economic views are crap and I don't actually plot against christians to destroy your way of having a family just because I want rights.

Maybe you guys should check you conspiracy theories because they sure don't add up too well.

 

[sitarro]

Kids have a hard enough time growing up in todays world without having to explain to the other kids in their school how they have 2 daddies or 2 mommies, only a couple of self absorbed jerks would want to force a kid to grow up that way. Why not just go adopt a poodle that you can paint the nails on and give really stupid haircuts to?

It all comes down to a big attempt to try to find a way to feel normal while living an abnormal lifestyle. It isn't fair to children to bring them into such a lousy environment. I would say the same thing about subjecting children to living with a prostitute and his or her pimp, Ken Lay and his obnoxious wife, Bill Clinton and his obnoxious wife, or anyone else that doesn't understand that raising a child isn't like having a puppy. Britney Spears would be another example of an idiot that shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. A drunk like Teddy Kennedy, what is his son, another drunk. How about that nutcase Rosie ODonnell, is that a stable household? What chance does Madonna's kids have of any normalcy?

It really should be about what is BEST for the child.....2 daddies or 2 mommies don't qualify.

 

[Gunny]

You know that "paranoia" argument gets more stale everytime it's used. Are you saying that for people to have an unfavorable opinion on a lifestyle it automatically equates to paranoia??

When you're a member of the pro-fag agenda? In a word, "YES."

 

[cslaughlin13]

btw bonnie, I am actually not attacking him on his opinion being different than mine on my lifestyle, if you had actually bothered to read the quote and/or his post, he mentions that Gay people are trying to destroy the social structure like communists and socialists and we are not, and thinking that people are out to get you when they are not is the techincal definition of paranoia

 

[cslaughlin13]

to GunnyL: it seems like your projecting quite a lot of built up anger, maybe you should calm down cause you sure seem like your part of this so called "pro-fag agenda" :firing:

 

[Gunny]

btw bonnie, I am actually not attacking him on his opinion being different than mine on my lifestyle, if you had actually bothered to read the quote and/or his post, he mentions that Gay people are trying to destroy the social structure like communists and socialists and we are not, and thinking that people are out to get you when they are not is the techincal definition of paranoia

What you are trying to do is have your aberrant lifestyle legitimized by law even in the face of reality and a majority opinion that rejects such a notion.

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home, but I DON'T want to see you on the street displaying your deviant sexual behavior where my children can see it and think it's okay, when it ain't.

 

[Gunny]

to GunnyL: it seems like your projecting quite a lot of built up anger, maybe you should calm down cause you sure seem like your part of this so called "pro-fag agenda" :firing:

Yeah, right. IF there is any anger, it's over knuckleheads like you trying to convince people that abnormal behavior is normal.

And you can try your lame wit on someone else. I've actrually mellowed out from when I used to believe y'all should just be moonlaunched one-way. No anger there either, just pragmatism. Your existence is using up natural resources otherwise normal people could use.

 

[cslaughlin13]

to gunnyL, you must be very intollerent of other people
and btw: gay marriage isn't going to make you see any more gay people walking around, your homophobia must come from something like...the need to be fucked by another dude

 

[Bonnie]

btw bonnie, I am actually not attacking him on his opinion being different than mine on my lifestyle, if you had actually bothered to read the quote and/or his post, he mentions that Gay people are trying to destroy the social structure like communists and socialists and we are not, and thinking that people are out to get you when they are not is the techincal definition of paranoia

I did read his post and saw an opinion not paranoia. Is it paranoia to see a gay agenda that inserts itself into schools with young children barely able to reason? Because that is actually happening and parents are just now waking up to it. I suppose if parents see a school book that tells their children it's perfectly normal to be gay and they the parents have a problem with that, they are also paranoid???

 

[cslaughlin13]

Bonnie: I am actually not advocating the teaching of homosexual issues in sexual education in school (even though I don't think that their is anything wrong with that), I just want to be able to get the same benefits, thats all, I'm not trying to push my homosexuality on anybody, Give my my God damn benefits then I will say thanks, have a nice day and be done with the whole gay rights thing.

 

[Gunny]

to gunnyL, you must be very intollerent of other people
and btw: gay marriage isn't going to make you see any more gay people walking around, your homophobia must come from something like...the need to be fucked by another dude

I'm not a homphobe, jack, so get over yourself. Calling you what you are requires neither fear nor hate.

And yeah, gay marriage is just another toe in the door for y'all. You can blow THAT smoke up your boyfriend's ass. He'll probably like it.

BTW... I am actually pretty tolerant. You just happen to be one of the things I'm not very tolerant of.

 

[cslaughlin13]

you know, I don't actually sit at home all day and plot ways to destroy families and christians or Republcans for that matter

 

[Gunny]

I did read his post and saw an opinion not paranoia. Is it paranoia to see a gay agenda that inserts itself into schools with young children barely able to reason? Because that is actually happening and parents are just now waking up to it. I suppose if parents see a school book that tells their children it's perfectly normal to be gay and they the parents have a problem with that, they are also paranoid???

Look at the MO, Bonnie. He's got a label for anyone who doesn't agree with his agenda. "Paranoid," "homphobe," ... wonder what's next?