The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[nt250]

Uh…Yes. That is basically my philosophy within reason. I basically believe that, to a large extent, people (and nations as an extension) should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. I’m somewhat libertarian in that respect. I like relationships based on mutual informed consent and things of that nature. What was your point in bringing this to my attention?

That you're stupid. You don't understand your own sig line.

 

[nt250]

Let us no longer allow the creation of dams to prevent hurricanes.

Yup. Stupid.

 

[007]

I wasn't distorting anything, and as of yet, you STILL haven't explained how allowing gay marriage will increase the divorce rate and lower marriage rates.



One of your biggest failings that I've noticed is that you consider opinions and conjecture that you agree with as proof. And you usually deem it irrefutable to boot. I asked this question earlier and noone replied...maybe you'd like to take a shot at it: How do you intend to blame gay marriage for the rising divorce and out-of-wedlock-birth rates in this country when gay marriage hasn't existed here? Now, when you engage that micro-processor (pun intended) in your skull to formulate your response, ask yourself this question also: (yes, I know that asking you to multi-task is stretching your system capacity) If the rising rates in the U.S. can't be attributed to gay marriage, does it REALLY make any sense to try to attribute it to the rates in Europe?



Before recommending that I take a break, review the forum and count how many threads I've started to defend gays, and then count how many YOU'VE started to bash them.

Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.

So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

 

[MissileMan]

Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.

So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

But what I've seen argued by those against gay marriage is that it will negatively effect straight marriages both in numbers and duration. It is this preposterous claim that I've been arguing against. And I'm still waiting for an explanation of exactly how that's going to occur.

 

[007]

But what I've seen argued by those against gay marriage is that it will negatively effect straight marriages both in numbers and duration. It is this preposterous claim that I've been arguing against. And I'm still waiting for an explanation of exactly how that's going to occur.

Well that's certainly not been 'my' arguement.

My point is, and always has been, is that if queers are allowed to marry, they will only desecrate and defile what has been for millennia a holy union between a man and woman. That appartently isn't what we were arguing.

 

[nt250]

Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.

So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

I think you're wrong, PR. I think the divorce rate for homosexuals would actually be very low compared to hetrosexuals. Homosexuals only want to get married to prove to the world that their lifestyle is acceptable. It's a purely political move and really has nothing to do with commitment at all.

Homosexuals wouldn't have as many reasons for getting divorced as hetro's do. No, I can picture a homosexual couple going their separate ways and never getting divorced. They certainly wouldn't get divorced over infidelity. Well, not unless their partner had straight sex. Then, yeah, that might piss them off enough to want a divorce.

 

[Kagom]

Lesbians are some of the most monogamous people on the face of the planet o.o

 

[Said1]

I think you're wrong, PR. I think the divorce rate for homosexuals would actually be very low compared to hetrosexuals. Homosexuals only want to get married to prove to the world that their lifestyle is acceptable. It's a purely political move and really has nothing to do with commitment at all.

Homosexuals wouldn't have as many reasons for getting divorced as hetro's do. No, I can picture a homosexual couple going their separate ways and never getting divorced. They certainly wouldn't get divorced over infidelity. Well, not unless their partner had straight sex. Then, yeah, that might piss them off enough to want a divorce.

For example? Oh, infidelity is acceptable?
And further more, you're saying the divorce rates would be lower because they won't get divorce, just seperate, forever? There is so much wrong with your post, but I'm mainly interested in what I brought up.

 

[Gunny]

I am intellectually honest and consistent. I’ll grant you that it is inappropriate to flaunt sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual). Now, how do you define the term flaunt.

Is a man allowed to kiss a woman in public?
Is a man allowed to kiss a man with as much sexuality in public?

How intellectually honest and consistent are you or do you advocate a double standard?

The only thing consistent about you is your dishonesty.

Case in point ... you want to play relativist with the term "flaunt."
Stop trying to draw a dishonest parallel between the normal and the abnormal. There isn't one. Normal people have rights based on collective behavior that is in tune with science, nature and morality. People who choose to live outside the confines of what is normal are going to suffer the consequences of their choice whether or not they want to or like it, and the maojority does not deserve to suffer the tyranny of the minority just because you and some fags think their aberrant lifestyle should be catered to based on nothing but relativism.

 

[mattskramer]

That you're stupid. You don't understand your own sig line.

No. I understand my own sig line. Did I every say anything patently against it?

 

[mattskramer]

The only thing consistent about you is your dishonesty.

Case in point ... you want to play relativist with the term "flaunt."
Stop trying to draw a dishonest parallel between the normal and the abnormal. There isn't one. Normal people have rights based on collective behavior that is in tune with science, nature and morality. People who choose to live outside the confines of what is normal are going to suffer the consequences of their choice whether or not they want to or like it, and the maojority does not deserve to suffer the tyranny of the minority just because you and some fags think their aberrant lifestyle should be catered to based on nothing but relativism.

Whatever. I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.

 

[Gunny]

Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. The weaker animals are left to starve and die. Again, this is part of some grand design. Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.

Bullshit. Our society has devolved into legislating propping up the weak and keeping those who would otherwise die due to natural selection because of nimrods like YOU. It was fine up to the point the gene pool got completely devoid of common sense and produced morons like you who obviously have no connection whatsoever with reality.

Look at your argument here. You want to give special rights to an aberrant minority to artificially place them atop the food chain, that faced with natural selection would die without reproducing, and be shunned by their own species and forced to exist in solitary until they did die.

 

[Gunny]

Whatever. I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.

I'm ducking nothing. Your question is irrelevant. Just as is your argument. Just as YOU are.

Society accepts a man kissing a woman as normal so it's okay. Society does not accept homosexual behavior in public so it isn't okay. Pretty damned simple.

 

[Gunny]

Whatever. I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.

Matter of fact, anyone who is anyone on this board and can spell their name and type has kicked your ass all the way up to your shoulders, where apparently it remains.

You and your bullshit arguments are a waste of bandwidth. Please go sell your 100% pure grade A horse manure elsewhere.

 

[nt250]

Lesbians are some of the most monogamous people on the face of the planet o.o

And you know this how? You're 19 years old.

Trust me. I've known quite a few women who call themselves Lesbians and when it comes to sex the only thing they care about is that it doesn't take place with a man.

Kag, did you ever watch the US version of Queer As Folk? I was a big fan of that show. I just loved Emmett, he was such a doll.

 

[nt250]

No. I understand my own sig line. Did I every say anything patently against it?

Your inadverant typo says it all.

EVERY single thing you say is patently against it.

 

[nt250]

For example? Oh, infidelity is acceptable?
And further more, you're saying the divorce rates would be lower because they won't get divorce, just seperate, forever? There is so much wrong with your post, but I'm mainly interested in what I brought up.

Do you know any gay people? Ever been to a gay bar?

Gay people have sex like you and I would have a cup of coffee. Actually, it's not that formal. I'd know your name.

 

[Kagom]

And you know this how? You're 19 years old.

Trust me. I've known quite a few women who call themselves Lesbians and when it comes to sex the only thing they care about is that it doesn't take place with a man.

Kag, did you ever watch the US version of Queer As Folk? I was a big fan of that show. I just loved Emmett, he was such a doll.

I liked the show, but they kinda stereotyped WAAAAAAY too much.

I know a few women who are the same way, but I believe as a whole they're not as bad as gay men can be. And don't doubt my experience because of my age

 

[nt250]

I liked the show, but they kinda stereotyped WAAAAAAY too much.

No, they didn't. I used to hang out at a bar that had a very popular gay bar next to it. We used to go over there sometimes and what you saw on Queer As Folk isn't a sterotype. This wasn't a Lesbian bar, it was a gay mens bar. Very friendly guys, though.

I know a few women who are the same way, but I believe as a whole they're not as bad as gay men can be. And don't doubt my experience because of my age

You're not of drinking age yet so if you are hanging out in gay bars you could get in trouble. And stay away from rest areas.

 

[Kagom]

No, they didn't. I used to hang out at a bar that had a very popular gay bar next to it. We used to go over there sometimes and what you saw on Queer As Folk isn't a sterotype. This wasn't a Lesbian bar, it was a gay mens bar. Very friendly guys, though.

You're not of drinking age yet so if you are hanging out in gay bars you could get in trouble. And stay away from rest areas.

I've been to bars when I was in Germany, so I do know just a little something.

Well, differing views. I don't see many gay men who go by the stereotype or what's on QaF, that's all.

And I hate rest areas.