A Cure for the Gay.

[Gunny]

I can't say that I understand the appeal of hairy legged dudes, myself...


for me this is a live and let live situation. Individual opinions don't matter as much as Constitutional standards. The same people hellbent on pushing gays out of the realm of Constitutional protection and equal application are the same people that scream about a falling sky when the same lens focuses on THEIR peer groups.

Try again. Who specifically is hellbent on pushing gays out of the realm of Constitutional protection? That's quite a stretch from being opposed to legislation that caters to a minority group based on aberrant sexual behavior.

And to this point, each of YOUR posts has been as "Chicken Little" as it gets.

 

[Gunny]

That didn't take long at all for you to digress to insults. That's a clear indication that you've run out of intelligent things to say and I've therefore won the argument.

Ummm...dude.... you've pretty-much had your ass handed to you again. Not because your stance is necessarily wrong .... but because you haven't the first clue how to argue it.

 

[Gunny]

You actually never had any intelligent things to say in the first place, so actually I won by default.

Pretty-much.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry glock, being gay is not an abnormality. In todays society it is becoming more and more accepted. Black people were a small percentage 30-40 years ago and were not accepted, does that make them abnormal?

Your first claim is nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. "Tolerated" would fit much better than "accepted."

Your second is a fallacious argument. Genetics determines race/skin color. The only actual evidence to date that supports homosexuality is behavior.

 

[maineman]

I, for one, think that the state should stay out of the business of "marriage" altogether and leave that to religious organizations. I think the state should license civil unions for any people who want to legally join their lives, their assets and liabilities..... and churches should be able to marry whoever the dictates of their faith allow them to marry.... marriages ought not to afford anyone the rights granted by the state, and civil unions ought to be just that - and stay devoid of any spiritual, romantic or sexual component.

 

[maineman]

Your first claim is nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. "Tolerated" would fit much better than "accepted."

Your second is a fallacious argument. Genetics determines race/skin color. The only actual evidence to date that supports homosexuality is behavior.

actually, I think that there was an extensive study in France from autopsies that showed a phyical difference in the shape and size ofa certain area of the brain in gay men.

 

[Gunny]

Acceptance and abnormal are unrelated. Having a 160 IQ is abnormal and accepted. Being a child molester is abnormal and not accepted. Abnormal is a simple mathematical definition. If you are in the under 5% range of behavior, then you are abnormal. Gays are less than 2%, therefore being gay is abnormal.

If you want to be gay, then fine. But don't call your behavior and sexual practices normal, natural, or healthy, because it is none of those.

Dude, WHERE on Earth did you come up with those arbitrary numbers that I sure as I read on, someone's going to hold your ass to fire over?

 

[Gunny]

....according to your OPINION...



sure does SUCK to know that gay hating bigots are powerless to rid the nation of gays and can only nit pick minor issues like the definition of marriage, eh?

im sure gays will call their lifestyle anything they want to just like you expect to do with your own lifestyle.


live and let live.

The premise of your argument is stupid, and based on extremist stereotypes. Believing homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior is not mutually inclusive with one being a gay-hating bigot.

You need to learn to separate your political opinion from fact.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

actually, I think that there was an extensive study in France from autopsies that showed a phyical difference in the shape and size ofa certain area of the brain in gay men.

That was actually blood not flowing to the penis.

 

[Gunny]

It makes perfect sense if you don't mix terms like you just did. Normal and natural are unrelated. Being gay just happens to be neither.

I believe that your hypothesis that the gay population will increase is incorrect. It also appears to be inconsistent with your apparent belief that 'gay choses people'.

Normal and natural are NOT unrelated. ALmost everything that happens naturally is accepted as normal.

Nature does not accept true homosexuals. Would you PLEASE at least learn to argue the topic?

 

[Gunny]

I, for one, think that the state should stay out of the business of "marriage" altogether and leave that to religious organizations. I think the state should license civil unions for any people who want to legally join their lives, their assets and liabilities..... and churches should be able to marry whoever the dictates of their faith allow them to marry.... marriages ought not to afford anyone the rights granted by the state, and civil unions ought to be just that - and stay devoid of any spiritual, romantic or sexual component.

I couldn't have said that better, and in fact, have pretty much said the same in the past. I agree.

 

[maineman]

I couldn't have said that better, and in fact, have pretty much said the same in the past. I agree.

If I had known that you had said it earlier, I would have merely copied your post and added an "I agree" to it.... and I think that you could very well have said it better...

 

[Gunny]

actually, I think that there was an extensive study in France from autopsies that showed a phyical difference in the shape and size ofa certain area of the brain in gay men.

There may have been. I've seen quite a few stretches on the topic, from both extremes. I don't think we're ever going to know for that very reason. Only the extremes are out to prove or disprove, and stretch whatever they can to suit what they're funded to find.

FWIW, I think it is irrelevant. My argument is and has been that homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior. A study of the facts supports this, and only blind, poltical agenda supports anything else.

Others come to their own conclusions that if one states that, he/she is automatically a gay-hating bigot. I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own home and I don't believe they should be legally discriminated against for being gay; which, they are not.

I just don't support legislation that caters solely to their behavior, nor am I going to call them "normal" anymore than anyone calls an "autisitc" normal.

 

[Gunny]

If I had known that you had said it earlier, I would have merely copied your post and added an "I agree" to it.... and I think that you could very well have said it better...

I didn't say it in this thread. I have said it in the past. Yours is an original here as far as I know.

 

[Puddles]

I, for one, think that the state should stay out of the business of "marriage" altogether and leave that to religious organizations. I think the state should license civil unions for any people who want to legally join their lives, their assets and liabilities..... and churches should be able to marry whoever the dictates of their faith allow them to marry.... marriages ought not to afford anyone the rights granted by the state, and civil unions ought to be just that - and stay devoid of any spiritual, romantic or sexual component.

I agree except I don't think religious organizations have any business in it either. Ideally, religions should be a path or guide to being one with god/spirituality.

 

[maineman]

I guess I don't see the value in getting hung up on "normalcy". Gay folks can be great people, and some can be assholes....kinda like straight folks.... the fact that two men live next door to me does not mean my marriage is somehow less valuable or less important in my life. If they were "married" or if they were joined in a civil union, it would not impact MY life one iota, nor would it impact the lives of my children or anyone else I know. I happen to like them both because they are Red Sox fans and we watch the games sometimes in my livingroom and sometimes in theirs when my wife wants the downstairs TV... their "gayness" is a non-issue in my life...their "neighborliness" is.

 

[maineman]

I agree except I don't think religious organizations have any business in it either. Ideally, religions should be a path or guide to being one with god/spirituality.

"holy matrimony" means something to the Christian church...it should be allowed to continue to mean something....

 

[Puddles]

Normal and natural are NOT unrelated. ALmost everything that happens naturally is accepted as normal.

Nature does not accept true homosexuals. Would you PLEASE at least learn to argue the topic?

I couldn't have said that better, and in fact, have pretty much said the same in the past. I agree.

Ok Gunny, I stand corrected - we do agree on more than Glock being a moron

I will accept the nicely put argument about normal and natural not being related. I think the issue I took with homosexuality being referred to as abnormal - is because it has such a negative connotation which hinders society from getting past the whole anti-gay thing - but I still don't really see homosexuality being that abnormal as some like to perceive it as being - I don't know why I've never seen it that way...maybe because we're more progressive than other generations when it comes to a lot of the social/cultural issues.

 

[Gunny]

I agree except I don't think religious organizations have any business in it either. Ideally, religions should be a path or guide to being one with god/spirituality.

If marriage is a religious rite, then they have every right to be part of it. However, the religious rite of marriage and the legal civil union are two completely separate thing. The state just accepts the preacher's documents as fact and legal for convenience. You STILL have to go to the court to get the license, not the church.

How else could the state start dipping further into your pockets?

My personal opinion on this topic is that it all seems to be about rights. I think hospitals, insurance companies, corporate employers, etc have NO right to tell ANYONE who they wish to declare as beneficiary/next of kin.

I have YET to see anyone but me address it. Guess it's not as controversial as gays and would force some really greedy and powerful people to answer somehard questions.

 

[maineman]

If marriage is a religious rite, then they have every right to be part of it. However, the religious rite of marriage and the legal civil union are two completely separate thing. The state just accepts the preacher's documents as fact and legal for convenience. You STILL have to go to the court to get the license, not the church.

How else could the state start dipping further into your pockets?

My personal opinion on this topic is that it all seems to be about rights. I think hospitals, insurance companies, corporate employers, etc have NO right to tell ANYONE who they wish to declare as beneficiary/next of kin.

I have YET to see anyone but me address it. Guess it's not as controversial as gays and would force some really greedy and powerful people to answer somehard questions.

bingo