The Homosexual Dilemma

[Coyote]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

That's a reason to discriminate?!?

Sounds to me like a reason for tolerance, but I'm just a silly liberal...

​

 

[Howey]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.

Mark

"Them"?

 

[rdean]

When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays. He must love them more.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?

umh....maybe?

Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums. It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.

oh...I'm not the same Coyote then (I don't think)....maybe you remember Segap who also went by Coyote in places?

Anyway....assholes are assholes regardless of sexual orientation

Coyote and a martini? Ok, different coyote.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

It seems they want to spread the misery and then claim they haven't offended in any way, as they're doing on this thread.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My homosexual agenda is to try to stay up til midnight tonight and wake up in the morning.

My 11 year old is determined to make it this year. He actually drank coffee.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?

When I run into one, I'll ask.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The homophobe dilemma -- "do I admit how often I dream of having something shoved in my face or don't ?I"

Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.

But I didn't say that, did I? Do you often read things that weren't written? Read the OP again. This time use your reading glasses.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?

Who said that? Are you delusional too?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

So that makes makes blatant discrimination in the tax code and other relationship based government benefits in this here and now, eh?

We're going to have to agree to disagree. And I'll bet you a fake dollar that I'm the one on the right side of history here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!

So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

That's a lot of typing just to say you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, that you're ignorant of the law, and that you wish to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

So that makes makes blatant discrimination in the tax code and other relationship based government benefits in this here and now, eh?

We're going to have to agree to disagree. And I'll bet you a fake dollar that I'm the one on the right side of history here.

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.

Right now, under the current administration, the recent Windsor ruling and the fall of DOMA have federal marriage benefits in the tax code and in the Social Security Act being given to same-sex couples who can prove that they were married legally in the state or country where the license was issued. I don't necessarily object to states handling the issuance of marriage licenses and maintaining the data bases for such events, but the morality of it all is way above the pay grade of even state politicians. As it should be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

Forcing? Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?

Straw Reasoning... thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

No one claimed that anyone if forcing anyone to marry anyone. Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species. That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.

Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?

Civil Rights?

Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion. Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.

There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.

And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.

 

[Skylar]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

What you said is your opinion. The reason your arguments are so often refuted, and so easily.....is that you can't tell the difference between the two.

Though you did get part of it right. In the 36 of 50 states where same sex marriage is recognize, there's no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.

Right now, under the current administration, the recent Windsor ruling and the fall of DOMA have federal marriage benefits in the tax code and in the Social Security Act being given to same-sex couples who can prove that they were married legally in the state or country where the license was issued. I don't necessarily object to states handling the issuance of marriage licenses and maintaining the data bases for such events, but the morality of it all is way above the pay grade of even state politicians. As it should be.

1. DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.

2. Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.

3. Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

What he said if a fact of the irrefutable variety.

There is no discrimination in the natural marriage standard against the sexually abnormal. PERIOD!

Nature requires that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... any homosexual is perfectly entitled to marry anyone he or she can talk into it, as long as whoever that is, is a member of the distinct gender.

Happens everyday ... .