A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Mr Natural]

Why does there need to be a "Reasonable Solution"?

If two guys want to get married, they should get married. What's the big ******* deal?

Just like brothers and sisters have the same right correct?

No skin off my nose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Right, that is what I said. I do not support their marriage.

If you would care to show me where I said anything about making any sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, you will have made your point.


But as for you and your severe repression, to quote Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams): "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history."

I notice how you will quote a post some times and then other times you don't? Why's that?

You said brothers and sisters do not have a right too marry each other if they choose to do that but gays have that right according too you. Isn't that hypocritical on your part?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why does there need to be a "Reasonable Solution"?

If two guys want to get married, they should get married. What's the big ******* deal?

Just like brothers and sisters have the same right correct?

No skin off my nose.

Of course not their is no reason what so ever for you too say you oppose Brothers and sisters matting each other on a discussion board, but as soon as people start to make an issue of it and demand those rights you will object too it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Right, that is what I said. I do not support their marriage.

If you would care to show me where I said anything about making any sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, you will have made your point.


But as for you and your severe repression, to quote Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams): "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history."

I notice how you will quote a post some times and then other times you don't? Why's that?

You said brothers and sisters do not have a right too marry each other if they choose to do that but gays have that right according too you. Isn't that hypocritical on your part?

I said I didn't support brothers and sisters marrying. A few days ago I said I didn't really have a hard opinion on the matter.

What this means is that I do not care one way or the other. If they were allowed I wouldn't care, and don't care that they are not.

But you, insist that sexual acts between consenting adults should be regulated by the gov't. I'm hoping you are not calling yourself a conservative, because that is about as intrusive as big gov't gets.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just like brothers and sisters have the same right correct?

No skin off my nose.

Of course not their is no reason what so ever for you too say you oppose Brothers and sisters matting each other on a discussion board, but as soon as people start to make an issue of it and demand those rights you will object too it.

Now you claim to know what he will object to IF it comes about? lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No skin off my nose.

Of course not their is no reason what so ever for you too say you oppose Brothers and sisters matting each other on a discussion board, but as soon as people start to make an issue of it and demand those rights you will object too it.

Now you claim to know what he will object to IF it comes about? lol

I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course not their is no reason what so ever for you too say you oppose Brothers and sisters matting each other on a discussion board, but as soon as people start to make an issue of it and demand those rights you will object too it.

Now you claim to know what he will object to IF it comes about? lol

I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.

So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you claim to know what he will object to IF it comes about? lol

I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.

So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

 

[BDBoop]

I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.

So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

 

[WinterBorn]

I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.

So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

No, you go beyond that. Not only do you not want to do it, you want the gov't to prosecute those who do.

I think your idea that anyone having oral sex should be prosecuted is hilarious. You are gonna have most of the population being prosecuted.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

But you also want to prosecute them for having sex! And anyone else for having any sort of oral or anal sex, whether they are husband and queer, wife and wife, or husband and wife.

 

[BDBoop]

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

You have no say.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and ******* another man You bet I am closed minded.

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

Gay couples with children are families too, whether the gov't recognizes them as married or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

Gay couples with children are families too, whether the gov't recognizes them as married or not.

So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters from marring each other.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

You have no say.

So why the objection of Brothers and sisters getting married?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

But you also want to prosecute them for having sex! And anyone else for having any sort of oral or anal sex, whether they are husband and queer, wife and wife, or husband and wife.

Why do you object too brothers and sisters getting married?

 

[WinterBorn]

Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.

Gay couples with children are families too, whether the gov't recognizes them as married or not.

So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters from marring each other.

Different topic. Allowing gaysto marry will not automatically allow brothers and sisters to marry. There are still laws on the books against close relatives marrying.

The "slippery slope" argument has never been valid.

 

[BDBoop]

Already answered, answered, answered, answered, answered, answered and answered.

The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out.

But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"

Well, unlike with homosexuality (of which there is mountains and mountains of evidence that it is an unchangeable, pre-determined trait (as agrees every major psychological association in North America and Europe) there is no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation that limits them to only being attracted to their family members, or to animals. There are no groups of people campaigning for the right to sleep with animals or their own family. In fact, there has never been any movement to do such. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that such people exist.

So what exactly do you think should happen to gay people? If you say "make them straight" then you must know that is impossible if you do any research into objective science ("Scientists" who work for strongly religious groups are not in any way objective and can "prove" a myriad of things that are false). "Ex-gays" have been proven to be false time and time again, and by the omission of leaders who used to run such organizations (look up Exodus, the original ex-gay group).

So, since they can't change their sexuality, now what? Force them into a life of abstinence? Kill them? Really, what should be done with them?

Has any harm come upon you, or anyone you know, as a result of same-sex attraction? Has the moral foundation of the US crumbled as homosexuality has become more accepted in the last few decades? Is anyone hurt when two people of the same sex love each other? Can anything harmful be blamed specifically on same sex attraction?

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Oh yeah, they were wrong back then, but you're not wrong this time. They're totally different. Yeah, right...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Already answered, answered, answered, answered, answered, answered and answered.

The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out.

But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"

Well, unlike with homosexuality (of which there is mountains and mountains of evidence that it is an unchangeable, pre-determined trait (as agrees every major psychological association in North America and Europe) there is no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation that limits them to only being attracted to their family members, or to animals. There are no groups of people campaigning for the right to sleep with animals or their own family. In fact, there has never been any movement to do such. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that such people exist.

So what exactly do you think should happen to gay people? If you say "make them straight" then you must know that is impossible if you do any research into objective science ("Scientists" who work for strongly religious groups are not in any way objective and can "prove" a myriad of things that are false). "Ex-gays" have been proven to be false time and time again, and by the omission of leaders who used to run such organizations (look up Exodus, the original ex-gay group).

So, since they can't change their sexuality, now what? Force them into a life of abstinence? Kill them? Really, what should be done with them?

Has any harm come upon you, or anyone you know, as a result of same-sex attraction? Has the moral foundation of the US crumbled as homosexuality has become more accepted in the last few decades? Is anyone hurt when two people of the same sex love each other? Can anything harmful be blamed specifically on same sex attraction?

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Oh yeah, they were wrong back then, but you're not wrong this time. They're totally different. Yeah, right...

The discussion is about a person right too marry whom every they want too. Damn those consenting brothers and sisters for throwing a can of worms into the mix.

The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out.

But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"

Well, unlike with homosexuality (of which there is mountains and mountains of evidence that it is an unchangeable, pre-determined trait (as agrees every major psychological association in North America and Europe) there is no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation that limits them to only being attracted to their family members, or to animals. There are no groups of people campaigning for the right to sleep with animals or their own family. In fact, there has never been any movement to do such. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that such people exist.

So what exactly do you think should happen to gay people? If you say "make them straight" then you must know that is impossible if you do any research into objective science ("Scientists" who work for strongly religious groups are not in any way objective and can "prove" a myriad of things that are false). "Ex-gays" have been proven to be false time and time again, and by the omission of leaders who used to run such organizations (look up Exodus, the original ex-gay group).

So, since they can't change their sexuality, now what? Force them into a life of abstinence? Kill them? Really, what should be done with them?

Has any harm come upon you, or anyone you know, as a result of same-sex attraction? Has the moral foundation of the US crumbled as homosexuality has become more accepted in the last few decades? Is anyone hurt when two people of the same sex love each other? Can anything harmful be blamed specifically on same sex attraction?

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Oh yeah, they were wrong back then, but you're not wrong this time. They're totally different. Yeah, right...

The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out. But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"

the worst case scenarios? That would be gays wanting to marry then family members allowed to marry yes once you start giving rights you cannot restrict others of the same right.

Well, unlike with homosexuality (of which there is mountains and mountains of evidence that it is an unchangeable, pre-determined trait (as agrees every major psychological association in North America and Europe) there is no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation that limits them to only being attracted to their family members

Smooth move there ajax way to slide around the issue. Gays are gay by choice their is no gay gene,

There are no groups of people campaigning for the right to sleep with animals or their own family. In fact, there has never been any movement to do such. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that such people exist.

Do they have too campaign for the right or would their action say that's what they want?

A Brother & Sister Want To Get Married? Find Out The Whole Story On Eddie & Jobo’s What Are You In For?

A Man and His Horse
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

What group of people was first hit when aids was first report in America?

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Playing the race card? So you support brothers and sisters getting married?

You were saying?