The Evil of Gay Transcends Individual Religion

[Newby]

What a bunch of nonsense.... I just love when those who are all for gay marriage, go on the warpath about polygamy and how it's 'illegal'...


Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Drock, because children resulting from a cousin marriage may be ill more often sounds like a pretty bogus excuse to me, and again, it does no harm to you. If you want to talk about how 'society' is being harmed, well then let's oulaw all kinds of things like drinking, eating fats and sugars, smoking, divorce, pornography,etc... The list can grow very long, and I'm sure those who oppose gay marriage could come up with a nice list of how that harms society as well. So, again, I see that as a hypocritical excuse..

 

[Douger]

Taking advice from the worlds head pedopusher eh ?

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Newby - I thought I explained my case rather thoroughly. The only type of union that I might oppose is one that puts a certain 3rd party group - who has no choice over the marriage - at serious risk (which I think is a reasonable stance to hold). When direct relatives of opposite sex marry, and procreate, there's a strong probability that their offspring will be born with devastating and debilitating birth defects. This is a well known and well documented medical effect that occurs because the gene pools (I believe) are much too similar.

As for polygamy, there are no 3rd party groups who are at direct risk as a result of the marriage.

See the difference?

To call me a hypocrite (with regards to this) is grossly inaccurate.

 

[Newby]

Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Newby - I thought I explained my case rather thoroughly. The only type of union that I might oppose is one that puts a certain 3rd party group - who has no choice over the marriage - at serious risk (which I think is a reasonable stance to hold). When direct relatives of opposite sex marry, and procreate, there's a strong probability that their offspring will be born with devastating and debilitating birth defects. This is a well known and well documented medical effect that occurs because the gene pools (I believe) are much too similar.

As for polygamy, there are no 3rd party groups who are at direct risk as a result of the marriage.

See the difference?

To call me a hypocrite (with regards to this) is grossly inaccurate.

They're not your children, it's not your decision, it doesn't affect your life, it's none of your business.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Newby - I thought I explained my case rather thoroughly. The only type of union that I might oppose is one that puts a certain 3rd party group - who has no choice over the marriage - at serious risk (which I think is a reasonable stance to hold). When direct relatives of opposite sex marry, and procreate, there's a strong probability that their offspring will be born with devastating and debilitating birth defects. This is a well known and well documented medical effect that occurs because the gene pools (I believe) are much too similar.

As for polygamy, there are no 3rd party groups who are at direct risk as a result of the marriage.

See the difference?

To call me a hypocrite (with regards to this) is grossly inaccurate.

They're not your children, it's not your decision, it doesn't affect your life, it's none of your business.

Not a good argument. If the parents choose to molest their children, would that be none of my business either?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

Just one. Eliminate all tax exemptions from any church or organization which engages in political discourse. Priests, Rabbi's, Ministers, Imams, Charlatans and Demagogues have the absolute right to express their opinions, biases and bigotry all they please. The American taxpayer should not have to subsidize them and repeal CU v. FEC.

 

[bodecea]

What a bunch of nonsense.... I just love when those who are all for gay marriage, go on the warpath about polygamy and how it's 'illegal'...
Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Drock, because children resulting from a cousin marriage may be ill more often sounds like a pretty bogus excuse to me, and again, it does no harm to you. If you want to talk about how 'society' is being harmed, well then let's oulaw all kinds of things like drinking, eating fats and sugars, smoking, divorce, pornography,etc... The list can grow very long, and I'm sure those who oppose gay marriage could come up with a nice list of how that harms society as well. So, again, I see that as a hypocritical excuse..

Now that is interesting. Name names.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What a bunch of nonsense.... I just love when those who are all for gay marriage, go on the warpath about polygamy and how it's 'illegal'...


Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Drock, because children resulting from a cousin marriage may be ill more often sounds like a pretty bogus excuse to me, and again, it does no harm to you. If you want to talk about how 'society' is being harmed, well then let's oulaw all kinds of things like drinking, eating fats and sugars, smoking, divorce, pornography,etc... The list can grow very long, and I'm sure those who oppose gay marriage could come up with a nice list of how that harms society as well. So, again, I see that as a hypocritical excuse..

You're right, I would have no problem with family members being allowed to marry. It's gross, but go ahead it doesn't impact me. But what I said is right, inbred people are less able to fight disease and sickness, and this more likely to spread it.

And as a side point there are prominent republicans who are trying to destroy the multi-billion dollar a year pornography industry, those are the people to not take seriously when they say they wanna fix the economy.

 

[Newby]

What a bunch of nonsense.... I just love when those who are all for gay marriage, go on the warpath about polygamy and how it's 'illegal'...
Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Drock, because children resulting from a cousin marriage may be ill more often sounds like a pretty bogus excuse to me, and again, it does no harm to you. If you want to talk about how 'society' is being harmed, well then let's oulaw all kinds of things like drinking, eating fats and sugars, smoking, divorce, pornography,etc... The list can grow very long, and I'm sure those who oppose gay marriage could come up with a nice list of how that harms society as well. So, again, I see that as a hypocritical excuse..

Now that is interesting. Name names.

Sky was one that I recall, she was okay with her being allowed to marry her partner, but not polygamy. Go figure.

So, are you for or against making polygamy legal?

 

[Newby]

Newby - I thought I explained my case rather thoroughly. The only type of union that I might oppose is one that puts a certain 3rd party group - who has no choice over the marriage - at serious risk (which I think is a reasonable stance to hold). When direct relatives of opposite sex marry, and procreate, there's a strong probability that their offspring will be born with devastating and debilitating birth defects. This is a well known and well documented medical effect that occurs because the gene pools (I believe) are much too similar.

As for polygamy, there are no 3rd party groups who are at direct risk as a result of the marriage.

See the difference?

To call me a hypocrite (with regards to this) is grossly inaccurate.

They're not your children, it's not your decision, it doesn't affect your life, it's none of your business.

Not a good argument. If the parents choose to molest their children, would that be none of my business either?

Having children and molesting children aren't even remotely the same thing. Are you also going to restrict the freedoms of people that have heriditary conditions from procreating too? They may pass it onto their children, so they should be restricted from having any? Because you say so?

 

[Newby]

What a bunch of nonsense.... I just love when those who are all for gay marriage, go on the warpath about polygamy and how it's 'illegal'...


Kevin, if you stand for gay marriage, but oppose any other kind of union, you are a hypocrit, it's pretty simple.

Drock, because children resulting from a cousin marriage may be ill more often sounds like a pretty bogus excuse to me, and again, it does no harm to you. If you want to talk about how 'society' is being harmed, well then let's oulaw all kinds of things like drinking, eating fats and sugars, smoking, divorce, pornography,etc... The list can grow very long, and I'm sure those who oppose gay marriage could come up with a nice list of how that harms society as well. So, again, I see that as a hypocritical excuse..

You're right, I would have no problem with family members being allowed to marry. It's gross, but go ahead it doesn't impact me. But what I said is right, inbred people are less able to fight disease and sickness, and this more likely to spread it.

And as a side point there are prominent republicans who are trying to destroy the multi-billion dollar a year pornography industry, those are the people to not take seriously when they say they wanna fix the economy.

Good, glad we agree.

I could care less about the pornography industry, but it's certainly something can can arguably be labeled as 'bad for society', like gambling and drinking and foods high in fat and sugar. It was just an example.

 

[KevinWestern]

They're not your children, it's not your decision, it doesn't affect your life, it's none of your business.

Not a good argument. If the parents choose to molest their children, would that be none of my business either?

Having children and molesting children aren't even remotely the same thing. Are you also going to restrict the freedoms of people that have heriditary conditions from procreating too? They may pass it onto their children, so they should be restricted from having any? Because you say so?

And finally Newby, remember when I mentioned that I really wouldn't care if relatives got married, especially if it meant marriage equality for all?

I don't know what point you're trying to get at. I said before that although I'd have reservations over allowing relatives to marry, if it came down to a vote I'd vote "yes".

So what's your argument?

 

[Newby]

Not a good argument. If the parents choose to molest their children, would that be none of my business either?

Having children and molesting children aren't even remotely the same thing. Are you also going to restrict the freedoms of people that have heriditary conditions from procreating too? They may pass it onto their children, so they should be restricted from having any? Because you say so?

And finally Newby, remember when I mentioned that I really wouldn't care if relatives got married, especially if it meant marriage equality for all?

I don't know what point you're trying to get at. I said before that although I'd have reservations over allowing relatives to marry, if it came down to a vote I'd vote "yes".

So what's your argument?

Well, I guess I don't understand why you would draw any line at all, i.e. 'reservations'? If your motto is to let people live their lives, then let them do so without any distinctions.

 

[KevinWestern]

Having children and molesting children aren't even remotely the same thing. Are you also going to restrict the freedoms of people that have heriditary conditions from procreating too? They may pass it onto their children, so they should be restricted from having any? Because you say so?

And finally Newby, remember when I mentioned that I really wouldn't care if relatives got married, especially if it meant marriage equality for all?

I don't know what point you're trying to get at. I said before that although I'd have reservations over allowing relatives to marry, if it came down to a vote I'd vote "yes".

So what's your argument?

Well, I guess I don't understand why you would draw any line at all, i.e. 'reservations'? If your motto is to let people live their lives, then let them do so without any distinctions.

Newby, you have to realize that there’s a big difference between (a) people who have reservations and actively use the government to prevent those things from occurring, and (b) people who have reservations and don’t use the government to prevent those things from occurring (in the spirit of freedom).

I have the right to disagree with something, don’t I?

I can care less if people have reservations about same sex marriage - everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people use the government to block same sex marriage from becoming legal.
.
.
.

 

[Newby]

And finally Newby, remember when I mentioned that I really wouldn't care if relatives got married, especially if it meant marriage equality for all?

I don't know what point you're trying to get at. I said before that although I'd have reservations over allowing relatives to marry, if it came down to a vote I'd vote "yes".

So what's your argument?

Well, I guess I don't understand why you would draw any line at all, i.e. 'reservations'? If your motto is to let people live their lives, then let them do so without any distinctions.

Newby, you have to realize that there’s a big difference between (a) people who have reservations and actively use the government to prevent those things from occurring, and (b) people who have reservations and don’t use the government to prevent those things from occurring (in the spirit of freedom).

I have the right to disagree with something, don’t I?

I can care less if people have reservations about same sex marriage - everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people use the government to block same sex marriage from becoming legal.
.
.
.

So, when is it okay for the government to promote something that you agree with or not promoting something that you don't? Should we just not have a voice at all?

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, I guess I don't understand why you would draw any line at all, i.e. 'reservations'? If your motto is to let people live their lives, then let them do so without any distinctions.

Newby, you have to realize that there’s a big difference between (a) people who have reservations and actively use the government to prevent those things from occurring, and (b) people who have reservations and don’t use the government to prevent those things from occurring (in the spirit of freedom).

I have the right to disagree with something, don’t I?

I can care less if people have reservations about same sex marriage - everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people use the government to block same sex marriage from becoming legal.
.
.
.

So, when is it okay for the government to promote something that you agree with or not promoting something that you don't? Should we just not have a voice at all?

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and our property. If two people want to do something that has no effect on anyone else’s life but their own, the government should not (in my view) step in to prevent that from happening.

And why should it?

 

[Newby]

Newby, you have to realize that there’s a big difference between (a) people who have reservations and actively use the government to prevent those things from occurring, and (b) people who have reservations and don’t use the government to prevent those things from occurring (in the spirit of freedom).

I have the right to disagree with something, don’t I?

I can care less if people have reservations about same sex marriage - everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people use the government to block same sex marriage from becoming legal.
.
.
.

So, when is it okay for the government to promote something that you agree with or not promoting something that you don't? Should we just not have a voice at all?

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and our property. If two people want to do something that has no effect on anyone else’s life but their own, the government should not (in my view) step in to prevent that from happening.

And why should it?

Well, that's what's great about America, you get to have your opinion, and so does everyone else. If they use theirs to promote legislation or to keep legistlation from happening, that's what it's all about. Everyone should have a voice.

 

[KevinWestern]

So, when is it okay for the government to promote something that you agree with or not promoting something that you don't? Should we just not have a voice at all?

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and our property. If two people want to do something that has no effect on anyone else’s life but their own, the government should not (in my view) step in to prevent that from happening.

And why should it?

Well, that's what's great about America, you get to have your opinion, and so does everyone else. If they use theirs to promote legislation or to keep legistlation from happening, that's what it's all about. Everyone should have a voice.

People have a right to vote for whatever legislation they want to. However, I as an American will always stand against legislation that prevents a certain group from taking part in an action that does no harm.

It's a shame that citizens will vote to live under tyranny.

 

[Newby]

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and our property. If two people want to do something that has no effect on anyone else’s life but their own, the government should not (in my view) step in to prevent that from happening.

And why should it?

Well, that's what's great about America, you get to have your opinion, and so does everyone else. If they use theirs to promote legislation or to keep legistlation from happening, that's what it's all about. Everyone should have a voice.

People have a right to vote for whatever legislation they want to. However, I as an American will always stand against legislation that prevents a certain group from taking part in an action that does no harm.

It's a shame that citizens will vote to live under tyranny.

But you refuse to accept that other people do see it as doing harm, that's the difference. And you would shut them up rather than let them have a voice because you don't agree with them. That's as much living under tyranny as your example, no different, just the other side of the coin.

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, that's what's great about America, you get to have your opinion, and so does everyone else. If they use theirs to promote legislation or to keep legistlation from happening, that's what it's all about. Everyone should have a voice.

People have a right to vote for whatever legislation they want to. However, I as an American will always stand against legislation that prevents a certain group from taking part in an action that does no harm.

It's a shame that citizens will vote to live under tyranny.

But you refuse to accept that other people do see it as doing harm, that's the difference. And you would shut them up rather than let them have a voice because you don't agree with them. That's as much living under tyranny as your example, no different, just the other side of the coin.

Fair enough response...

But personally I have debated with a lot of people on the gay marriage issue and have not once come across a solid argument as to why state-recognized gay marriage would be detrimental to society, nor has anyone coughed up a good answer to this question:

How will allowing gay marriage infringe on any of your personal rights?