What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[Dragonlady]

This idea that marriage is strictly about procreation is ridiculous. So those who are sterile shouldn't marry because they're not going to be parents.

I guess older couples shouldn't marry either since they can no longer have children and their marriage is about sex. No one wants to think about grannies having sex. That's just wrong. No marriage for them.

Marriage is about a lot more than sex and having children. Marriage is a partnership of love and sharing. It's having someone who cares for you and builds a life with you.

It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women, or one of each, the need to share that kind of love and commitment should not be withheld from same sex couples.

 

[Seawytch]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

 

[LittleNipper]

This idea that marriage is strictly about procreation is ridiculous. So those who are sterile shouldn't marry because they're not going to be parents.

I guess older couples shouldn't marry either since they can no longer have children and their marriage is about sex. No one wants to think about grannies having sex. That's just wrong. No marriage for them.

Marriage is about a lot more than sex and having children. Marriage is a partnership of love and sharing. It's having someone who cares for you and builds a life with you.

It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women, or one of each, the need to share that kind of love and commitment should not be withheld from same sex couples.

I know very few older couples capable of living together in marriage. In most cases only the wife survives and the husband is long gone. And the simple fact is that marriage was not designed for old people. Marriage was designed for the young couple. It could be argued that much of want we term marriage today was traditionalized by women for the woman. A young couple that lives long enough will become an old couple. My father is 90 and my mother is 85. They didn't get married just yesterday ----- and they have 3 children and 5 grandchildren to prove it.

People do not need sex to show love and commitment; however, one does need a man and a woman in order to produce a child. In order for a society to grow it needs healthy and happy children and NOT "happy" sexual deviants.

 

[Seawytch]

This idea that marriage is strictly about procreation is ridiculous. So those who are sterile shouldn't marry because they're not going to be parents.

I guess older couples shouldn't marry either since they can no longer have children and their marriage is about sex. No one wants to think about grannies having sex. That's just wrong. No marriage for them.

Marriage is about a lot more than sex and having children. Marriage is a partnership of love and sharing. It's having someone who cares for you and builds a life with you.

It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women, or one of each, the need to share that kind of love and commitment should not be withheld from same sex couples.

I know very few older couples capable of living together in marriage. In most cases only the wife survives and the husband is long gone. And the simple fact is that marriage was not designed for old people. Marriage was designed for the young couple. It could be argued that much of want we term marriage today was traditionalized by women for the woman. A young couple that lives long enough will become an old couple. My father is 90 and my mother is 85. They didn't get married just yesterday ----- and they have 3 children and 5 grandchildren to prove it.

People do not need sex to show love and commitment; however, one does need a man and a woman in order to produce a child. In order for a society to grow it needs healthy and happy children and NOT "happy" sexual deviants.

What state or locality prohibits marriage if the couple is unwilling or unable to procreate? Why would you expect a different standard for gays than you would apply to heterosexuals?

BTW, gays are not incapable of reproducing...

 

[LittleNipper]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

 

[Seawytch]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

 

[LittleNipper]

This idea that marriage is strictly about procreation is ridiculous. So those who are sterile shouldn't marry because they're not going to be parents.

I guess older couples shouldn't marry either since they can no longer have children and their marriage is about sex. No one wants to think about grannies having sex. That's just wrong. No marriage for them.

Marriage is about a lot more than sex and having children. Marriage is a partnership of love and sharing. It's having someone who cares for you and builds a life with you.

It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women, or one of each, the need to share that kind of love and commitment should not be withheld from same sex couples.

I know very few older couples capable of living together in marriage. In most cases only the wife survives and the husband is long gone. And the simple fact is that marriage was not designed for old people. Marriage was designed for the young couple. It could be argued that much of want we term marriage today was traditionalized by women for the woman. A young couple that lives long enough will become an old couple. My father is 90 and my mother is 85. They didn't get married just yesterday ----- and they have 3 children and 5 grandchildren to prove it.

People do not need sex to show love and commitment; however, one does need a man and a woman in order to produce a child. In order for a society to grow it needs healthy and happy children and NOT "happy" sexual deviants.

What state or locality prohibits marriage if the couple is unwilling or unable to procreate? Why would you expect a different standard for gays than you would apply to heterosexuals?

BTW, gays are not incapable of reproducing...
A "gay" man can likely have a child if he marries a person of the opposite sex. No one is stopping that. A sexually deviant person will never be truly happy no matter what some in a society choose to label such activity. And it isn't productive for society to promote deviant sexuality for the sake of being deviant. The only solidly rational for encouraging marriage is to foster well adjusted children. And as you say IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR 2 GAY MEN TO BE ADAM & EVE.

 

[Seawytch]

A "gay" man can likely have a child if he marries a person of the opposite sex. No one is stopping that. A sexually deviant person will never be truly happy no matter what some in a society choose to label such activity. And it isn't productive for society to promote deviant sexuality for the sake of being deviant. The only solidly rational for encouraging marriage is to foster well adjusted children. And as you say IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR 2 GAY MEN TO BE ADAM & EVE.

Gay men can adopt or use a surrogate. I gave birth to three babies for a gay male couple. Lesbians can also adopt or go to a sperm bank. No god, no sex with a member of the opposite gender needed.

The rest of your post is religious claptrap that has nothing to do with civil marriage.

 

[LittleNipper]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

God must really love this lesbian...he let me have 5.

 

[LittleNipper]

A "gay" man can likely have a child if he marries a person of the opposite sex. No one is stopping that. A sexually deviant person will never be truly happy no matter what some in a society choose to label such activity. And it isn't productive for society to promote deviant sexuality for the sake of being deviant. The only solidly rational for encouraging marriage is to foster well adjusted children. And as you say IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR 2 GAY MEN TO BE ADAM & EVE.

Gay men can adopt or use a surrogate. I gave birth to three babies for a gay male couple. Lesbians can also adopt or go to a sperm bank. No god, no sex with a member of the opposite gender needed.

The rest of your post is religious claptrap that has nothing to do with civil marriage.

This is true. And I am TOTALLY against such practices. If a man wants children he needs to be responsible enough to be the head of his wife and family and not some sexual flirt what doesn't know what he wants. And your irreligious feels are what are turning this nation into a growing herd of breeding animals for personal selfish wants and desires. In other words, "You want your cake and eat it to!":

 

[LittleNipper]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

God must really love this lesbian...he let me have 5.

And where and how they end up is something GOD will hold you accountable for.

 

[Seawytch]

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

God must really love this lesbian...he let me have 5.

And where and how they end up is something GOD will hold you accountable for.

Excellent! I'm doing great then. All five kids are fabulous...my two and the three that are the gay male couples. I'm like god's favorite!

 

[RKMBrown]

A question might be asked is, "Why would any married couple deserve a perk of any kind?" The only real reason I can imagine to give a married couple a perk or gift is to encourage them to be model parents and benefit any children they have or may beget. Homosexuals get married to have sex. Friends don't need to have sex, and can be just as friendly towards each other without sex. However, a man and woman have the strong possibility to have children that will need good parents with good character. I feel that society benefits from that promotion and not the promotion of ones sexual prowess infatuations.

ROFL

 

[RKMBrown]

When you can name a state that denies a marriage license to heterosexuals unwilling or unable to procreate, you'd have an argument.

You don't have an argument.

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

God must really love this lesbian...he let me have 5.

And where and how they end up is something GOD will hold you accountable for.

Can't wait to see what god says to you about you speaking for him.

 

[timslash]

With being gay - nothing i think.
But the problem is in homosexual propaganda, only in propaganda. Their parades are awful and there is no place for such events in our country!
And sometimes in homosexuals(when they think that all people should do everything like homosexuals want)

 

[LittleNipper]

This is a truly idiotic statement. It is unknown to most people whether they can have children until they try. And it is only through the permissive will of God that a couple may ever produce even one child. And they shouldn't be having relations until after they are married. And not following this formula is likely one of the common threads that cause couples the most pain and anguish later in their relationship.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. God has nothing to do with whether or not someone gets pregnant. It takes a sperm and an egg...and gays do have those.

You don't have an argument because there are millions of married heterosexual couples that are childless by choice or because of medical difficulties. No where in the United States has a couple been denied a marriage license because they didn't plan on having kids or are unable to. In fact, there are states in the US where certain couples must demonstrate an inability to procreate before they can civilly marry.

A child was never born that GOD didn't permit to exist. And the whole issue of "Civil" marriage in the US is certainly a rather new phenomenon that is now rearing its ugly head in the promotion of "Gay" marriage.

God must really love this lesbian...he let me have 5.

And where and how they end up is something GOD will hold you accountable for.

Can't wait to see what god says to you about you speaking for him.

What kind of speaking for GOD? I read His Word. I don't make up excuses such as "God made me this way, therefore I'm ok and you're ok..." Where exactly is that found in the Bible? "It's Constitutional! The Supreme Court Justices say it's OK" Let's face the simple fact, that if you don't go to heaven you will be waiting a very long time.

 

[zeke]

What kind of speaking for GOD? I read His Word. I don't make up excuses such as "God made me this way

One thing for sure there little nipper. If heaven is filled with the hateful people that I see on here (such as yourself) using their faith in religion to hate others, I am staying home. You assholes can have your "heaven".

But it sure does seem like all you "Christians' should study that part of the Bible about loving your neighbors and not judging others.

 

[LittleNipper]

What kind of speaking for GOD? I read His Word. I don't make up excuses such as "God made me this way

One thing for sure there little nipper. If heaven is filled with the hateful people that I see on here (such as yourself) using their faith in religion to hate others, I am staying home. You assholes can have your "heaven".

But it sure does seem like all you "Christians' should study that part of the Bible about loving your neighbors and not judging others.

Hateful because Christians tell you what is clearly an honest and correct assessment. Perhaps homosexuals are hateful because they sue bakeries, photographers and private schools & businesses? What you seem to wish is for everyone who disagrees with you to remain silent. Was Jonah hateful when he warned Nineveh of God's judgment, or was Jonah judged because he ran the other way ------ and had more pity for a gourd plant then a sinful city?

Read the book of Jonah that you maybe enlightened.

 

[zeke]

Hateful because Christians tell you what is clearly an honest and correct assessment. Perhaps homosexuals are hateful because they sue bakeries, photographers and private schools & businesses?

"Honest and correct assessment" according to a sect of Christianity that for some strange reason has decided that their lives are somehow diminished and invalidated if people who are different than them have the same rights.

You know what nipper. I take it that you think you are going to heaven (good luck with that) but still, why don't YOU quit worrying about what people here on the earth are doing, especially when it doesn't harm you, and let God throw out all those people that God doesn't want in heaven with him.

Win win little nipper. Cause I assure you that you don't speak for God.