Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[CurveLight]

Let me guess, you think Homosexuality is a mental disease that is inflicted upon children and others by the Gay Community. To cure this disease, you need to be reeducated and shown the light.

Am I on the money on your thoughts of homosexuality?

Not sure about the light thing?

But yes, there is a gay agenda that targets the minds of our children and teenagers.

Rotfl! But people who question 9E are conspiracy nuts. That's too funny!

 

[Sunni Man]

Rotfl! But people who question 9E are conspiracy nuts. That's too funny!

???

 

[CurveLight]

Rotfl! But people who question 9E are conspiracy nuts. That's too funny!

???

You claim there is some kind of conspiracy against kids perpetrated by gays. It's pure homophobic bullshit and realized or not, you help protect pedophiles with these myths.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's pure homophobic bullshit and realized or not, you help protect pedophiles with these myths.

How so???

 

[CurveLight]

No, I wouldn't say that I believe homosexuality is a choice, the jury is still out on that.

And I don't think the government has the right to pass or enforce any statute that forces any person to violate their conscience under penalty of law.

Well for the first part, that's good then.

And for the second part, I feel what you're saying. As long as you don't try to enforce businesses to keep people they don't want due to their beliefs that conflict with company policy, I'll feel better about it.

However, segregation is illegal now. If we are to follow that advice of yours, then it would be legal again.

No, personally I would keep protections in place for race, and national heritage. Those are things over which you have absolutely no control.

That's ironic. Race is an absolute myth socially engineered to try and justify prejudices and bigotry. National heritage is also a construction so you would prefer to keep myths at the top with other things at the bottom?

 

[paperview]

No, I wouldn't say that I believe homosexuality is a choice, the jury is still out on that.

And I don't think the government has the right to pass or enforce any statute that forces any person to violate their conscience under penalty of law.

Well for the first part, that's good then.

And for the second part, I feel what you're saying. As long as you don't try to enforce businesses to keep people they don't want due to their beliefs that conflict with company policy, I'll feel better about it.

However, segregation is illegal now. If we are to follow that advice of yours, then it would be legal again.

No, personally I would keep protections in place for race, and national heritage. Those are things over which you have absolutely no control.

How about religion? That is something over which a person has 100% choice and control over.

 

[CurveLight]

It's pure homophobic bullshit and realized or not, you help protect pedophiles with these myths.

How so???

Homophobic ideology often places gays and pedophiles in the same category, as you have recently done. It is often claimed gays are pedophiles by nature of being gay. However, the majority of pedophiles are older hetero males. Thus, pedophiles are highly successful at gaining trust and entry into orgs like church groups and boy scouts because misinformation has taught people to look out for gays as potential pedophiles. Being a married hetero most pedophiles go undetected until it is too late.

If we really cared about the welfare of kids we would not let homophobia take precedence over accurate information.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's pure homophobic bullshit and realized or not, you help protect pedophiles with these myths.

How so???

Homophobic ideology often places gays and pedophiles in the same category, as you have recently done. It is often claimed gays are pedophiles by nature of being gay. However, the majority of pedophiles are older hetero males. Thus, pedophiles are highly successful at gaining trust and entry into orgs like church groups and boy scouts because misinformation has taught people to look out for gays as potential pedophiles. Being a married hetero most pedophiles go undetected until it is too late.

If we really cared about the welfare of kids we would not let homophobia take precedence over accurate information.

A pedophile who molests a little boy is a homosexual.

Members of NAMBLE are all homosexuals.

To let a faggot be a leader of Boy Scouts. Is letting the fox into the hen house.

Same with letting gays adopt kids.

That is the ultimate form of child abuse.

 

[CurveLight]

How so???

Homophobic ideology often places gays and pedophiles in the same category, as you have recently done. It is often claimed gays are pedophiles by nature of being gay. However, the majority of pedophiles are older hetero males. Thus, pedophiles are highly successful at gaining trust and entry into orgs like church groups and boy scouts because misinformation has taught people to look out for gays as potential pedophiles. Being a married hetero most pedophiles go undetected until it is too late.

If we really cared about the welfare of kids we would not let homophobia take precedence over accurate information.

A pedophile who molests a little boy is a homosexual.

Members of NAMBLE are all homosexuals.

To let a faggot be a leader of Boy Scouts. Is letting the fox into the hen house.

Same with letting gays adopt kids.

That is the ultimate form of child abuse.

It's not that your ignorance is the problem. It is your irrational hate of gays and you don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say a "pedophile who molests a little boy is a homosexual." Fucking stupid. A pedophile who molests a little boy is a ..... Drum Roll.....please....a pedophile. But hey, feel good knowing your hatred of gays helps protect pedophiles. How do you morally justify preference of kids getting molested over your homophobia?

 

[Sunni Man]

It is your irrational hate of gays and you don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say a "pedophile who molests a little boy is a homosexual." Fucking stupid. A pedophile who molests a little boy is a ..... Drum Roll.....please....a pedophile.

A pedophile who molests a boy is also a homosexual.

He is having sex with someone who is the same sex as him.

Example: A gay man has sex with a boy ONE day before his 18th birthday.

You would say the man is not a homosexual but a pedophile.

The next day the boy has his birthday and is now 18 years old. The age of consent.

He and the man have sex.

So now the man is no longer a pedophile but a gay.

So besides the legal and criminal defination; the act was the same.

This example shows that there is NO difference between a gay and a pedophile.

They are really the same thing.

 

[CurveLight]

It is your irrational hate of gays and you don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say a "pedophile who molests a little boy is a homosexual." Fucking stupid. A pedophile who molests a little boy is a ..... Drum Roll.....please....a pedophile.

A pedophile who molests a boy is also a homosexual.

He is having sex with someone who is the same sex as him.

Example: A gay man has sex with a boy ONE day before his 18th birthday.

You would say the man is not a homosexual but a pedophile.

The next day the boy has his birthday and is now 18 years old. The age of consent.

He and the man have sex.

So now the man is no longer a pedophile but a gay.

So besides the legal and criminal defination; the act was the same.

This example shows that there is NO difference between a gay and a pedophile.

They are really the same thing.

I can almost smell the ignorance oozing around your ears. This is about the sixth and last time I will point out sexual orientations and sexual activities are not the same thing.

Your example just reveals again you don't know what you are talking about. An adult that has sex with a 17 year old would get charged with the crime of statutory rape. Not pedophilia. How can you hate gays more than you love kids or accurate information?

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think anyone is pushing to force gay marriage on churches. It is the legal and societal impacts of marriage that gays seek. The legal rights as well as the legal acknowledgement and acceptance of their relationship.
This being the case, the government should assign civil unions to all couples. Let gays find a religion that will marry them.

Good post.

I think the vast majority of people both homosexual and straight would agree that civil unions are a good compromise.

Unfortunately, I also think that if "marriage" were the term and/or the civil union law was not specifically written declaring that no church would be required to marry anyone, I think that it would not be long before someone attempted to force the church to marry them.

It would end up just like the Boy Scouts in the long run. We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Immie

 

[paperview]

We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Churches have been and will continue to be able to discriminate in who they wish to marry, for whatever reason.
Your commentary on that is a

 

[bodecea]

Civil UNions would give them all that, without making "Marriage" an issue.

It could...but so far it does not.

From what I've read Civil Unions actually are more durable than a marriage. The only issue with them is that they are not generally recognozed and I think Some states make it more difficult to obtain. If we ironed those issues out I think the problem would be resolved. IF, the problem is really fair treatment.

Nope...had a civil union....was not the same. And no civil union has to be recognized counry wide as of yet...In fact some states such as Virginia and Texas are so third world country that they passed laws ensuring that they don't recognize civil unions of any kind from anywhere.

 

[bodecea]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

You're right. As SOON as denying to join gay couples becomes a violation of their civil rights, the Gay/Progressive Gestapo will invade the churches and start shutting them down.

Just like the interracial marriage supporting NAACP did and the interfaith marriage supporting groups and divorce supporting groups did when churches refused to marry them.

 

[bodecea]

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

And of course, no one lives in Utah but Mormons.

Ergo, no mormons live in Utah.

 

[bodecea]

Hogwash, if we were to give them all the benefits of marriage and call it civil unions how would that not be equal?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they have the exact same benefits and drawbacks whether it's called a civil union or a marriage is purely aesthetic.

If you give them the same bennies as Marriage then why......call it something else?
Wow many legal loopholes lawyers would make?

I'm curious about something. Why do all the bigots against gay marriage silently endorse legalized pedophilia? Do yo really find a higher moral value in a 50 year old banging a 13 year old than two adults of the same sex? What, exactly does that moral code look like? Thank you in advance.

It's the other way around buddy. Many of the folks who support Same Sex marriage are also in support of NAMBLA

Unless you have some proof to back up that statement, I will say that you simply made that inflammatory statement up...in other words, you lied.

 

[bodecea]

Rotfl! But people who question 9E are conspiracy nuts. That's too funny!

???

You claim there is some kind of conspiracy against kids perpetrated by gays. It's pure homophobic bullshit and realized or not, you help protect pedophiles with these myths.

And let us remember that 1 in 4 girls is sexually molested by Adult Hetero MALES before they hit 18 years old.

And even sicker, many of them are family members.

 

[Immanuel]

"In reality the Mormon church gave no money to those groups fighting prop 8"
Source or STFU

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?

We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Churches have been and will continue to be able to discriminate in who they wish to marry, for whatever reason.
Your commentary on that is a

You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie

 

[paperview]

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

Was it you that asked someone to provide a link earlier in this thread?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link to support this?

We would have activists attempting to force churches to marry them because "separate but equal" was unconstitutional.

Churches have been and will continue to be able to discriminate in who they wish to marry, for whatever reason.
Your commentary on that is a

You are wrong.

Activists would attempt to force their desires upon the church. They have been doing it for years as it is. It is not that churches will not be able to decide who they will marry, but, homosexual activists will continue to attempt to force churches to marry them until they win.

I believe that the vast majority of people would accept civil union legislation as long as the legislation took the State out of the marriage business. However, I also believe that there are some out there that will not accept such a compromise.

Immie

They have been doing it for years as it is.

Prove it