Board Libs Concerning Homosexuality

[OCA]

This thread is specifically addressed to the board libs who know who they are and I politely ask all others to hang back from replying until the libs have had a chance to answer.

The task is thusly: if it is your intention that gays( whom shall forward be referred to by me as HLCP:homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist) should be allowed to marry then you must consider what they do to be normal and not a perversion, please attempt to explain, factually based of course, as to just how what they involve theirselves in is as normal as heterosexuality is and always has been considered to be natural and normal. Also please explain since you consider it to be normal and not a choice as to where the gene is that HLCP groups have been pouring billions of dollars and many decades into finding without any success.

Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[007]

This thread is specifically addressed to the board libs who know who they are and I politely ask all others to hang back from replying until the libs have had a chance to answer.

The task is thusly: if it is your intention that gays( whom shall forward be referred to by me as HLCP:homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist) should be allowed to marry then you must consider what they do to be normal and not a perversion, please attempt to explain, factually based of course, as to just how what they involve theirselves in is as normal as heterosexuality is and always has been considered to be natural and normal. Also please explain since you consider it to be normal and not a choice as to where the gene is that HLCP groups have been pouring billions of dollars and many decades into finding without any success.

Thanks for your cooperation.

*waiting*

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Ok, I'll bite. Whether or not it turns out to be genetic is irrelevant. It shouldn't matter whether or not it is biological or not. What an individual wants to do is not the business of others regardless of how perverse it may be, unless it infringes on the rights of others. How anyone can deny that is beyond me. So, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live? Last I recalled this was the "land of the free." Let people choose or be who they are (whichever it may be). Whether you agree with it or not, they still have the right to do so.

Any speculation on the "gay" gene is just that.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, I'll bite. Whether or not it turns out to be genetic is irrelevant. It shouldn't matter whether or not it is biological or not. What an individual wants to do is not the business of others regardless of how perverse it may be, unless it infringes on the rights of others. How anyone can deny that is beyond me. So, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live? Last I recalled this was the "land of the free." Let people choose or be who they are (whichever it may be). Whether you agree with it or not, they still have the right to do so.

Any speculation on the "gay" gene is just that.

Once again, the gay 'marriage' issue has nothing to do with granting permission to engage in certain behavior. The insitute of marriage as a government contract is not a way of allowing somebody certain rights, but instead an endorsement of a lifestyle choice that provides a stabilizing factor to society. A stable marriage carries certain governmental perks, and has issues such as inheritance streamlined, because a heterosexual marriage provides both a source of a new generation of citizens and a stable family unit that produces productive members of society. A gay marriage provides none of this for society, so while a gay couple is free to live in the same house, file for power of attorney and inheritance rights, and have (icky) sex all they want, there is no reason for the government to sponsor such behavior. Maybe they could streamline the legal process of granting another power of attorney and default inheritance, but if so, it would just be out of the kindness of their hearts, not some human rights issue.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Once again, the gay 'marriage' issue has nothing to do with granting permission to engage in certain behavior. The insitute of marriage as a government contract is not a way of allowing somebody certain rights, but instead an endorsement of a lifestyle choice that provides a stabilizing factor to society. A stable marriage carries certain governmental perks, and has issues such as inheritance streamlined, because a heterosexual marriage provides both a source of a new generation of citizens and a stable family unit that produces productive members of society. A gay marriage provides none of this for society, so while a gay couple is free to live in the same house, file for power of attorney and inheritance rights, and have (icky) sex all they want, there is no reason for the government to sponsor such behavior. Maybe they could streamline the legal process of granting another power of attorney and default inheritance, but if so, it would just be out of the kindness of their hearts, not some human rights issue.

They did streamline it: It's called marriage. Look the whole issue is not over the marriage between a man, a woman, and God. The debate is about the state issued marriage, which connotes the civil benefits that you listed, and more. Honestly... I think the easiest way is to just change state marriage between anyone to a civil union (which more adequately describes it anyways) and then to allow couples to seek marriage before God wherever they want to.

 

[dilloduck]

They did streamline it: It's called marriage. Look the whole issue is not over the marriage between a man, a woman, and God. The debate is about the state issued marriage, which connotes the civil benefits that you listed, and more. Honestly... I think the easiest way is to just change state marriage between anyone to a civil union (which more adequately describes it anyways) and then to allow couples to seek marriage before God wherever they want to.

Marriage, like many other words, is taken. When you were in high school did you petition for all the boys to use the girls bathroom too?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Marriage, like many other words, is taken. When you were in high school did you petition for all the boys to use the girls bathroom too?

So is bigot, but hey who's counting?

 

[007]

They did streamline it: It's called marriage. Look the whole issue is not over the marriage between a man, a woman, and God. The debate is about the state issued marriage, which connotes the civil benefits that you listed, and more. Honestly... I think the easiest way is to just change state marriage between anyone to a civil union (which more adequately describes it anyways) and then to allow couples to seek marriage before God wherever they want to.

And why is it that homo's, and liberals, have a quest to alter all that has been? All that is natural? All that is holly? Why is it that queers feel the need to defile marriage? This PUSH towards all that is unholy by the left is sickening! Will the left not be happy until a father can sexually molest his 10 year old daughter in the name of sexual education? Or a lezbo mother fondling her adopted 10 year old daughter to "enlighten" her, to indoctrinate her? This whole homo/lezbo business is vile, wicked and ugly. Why you people feel the need to endorse this sickness as something that normal people should accept and advocate is beyond reason, beyond rational, beyond sane.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

And why is it that homo's, and liberals, have a quest to alter all that has been? All that is natural? All that is holly? Why is it that queers feel the need to defile marriage? This PUSH towards all that is unholy by the left is sickening! Will the left not be happy until a father can sexually molest his 10 year old daughter in the name of sexual education? Or a lezbo mother fondling her adopted 10 year old daughter to "enlighten" her to indoctrinate her? This whole homo/lezbo business is vile, wicked and ugly. Why you people feel the need to endorse this sickness as something that normal people should accept and advocate is beyond reason, beyond rational, beyond sane.

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

 

[007]

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

Slippery slope my ass junior. It's your progression. Not mine. Get with the program and answer my questions, or shut the fuck up. You have no game.

 

[manu1959]

Ok, I'll bite. Whether or not it turns out to be genetic is irrelevant. It shouldn't matter whether or not it is biological or not. What an individual wants to do is not the business of others regardless of how perverse it may be, unless it infringes on the rights of others. How anyone can deny that is beyond me. So, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live? Last I recalled this was the "land of the free." Let people choose or be who they are (whichever it may be). Whether you agree with it or not, they still have the right to do so.

Any speculation on the "gay" gene is just that.

i agree..... they may choose to do and be whatever the like....however .... they may not choose to be married as a man and a women .....which is currently the law..... when they are in fact a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a boy and his dog or a cowboy and his cowboy....

 

[PsuedoGhost]

i agree..... they may choose to do and be whatever the like....however .... they may not choose to be married as a man and a women .....which is currently the law..... when they are in fact a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a boy and his dog or a cowboy and his cowboy....

If you can make a valid reason as to why they should not be allowed at least the legal benefits of marriage without resorting to the following arguments:

1 - Its unnatural.

2 - It's against historical precedence.

3 - It's wrong.

Then I might consider what you have to say.

 

[manu1959]

If you can make a valid reason as to why they should not be allowed at least the legal benefits of marriage without resorting to the following arguments:

1 - Its unnatural.

2 - It's against historical precedence.

3 - It's wrong.

Then I might consider what you have to say.

1. tell me why gay sex is natural and biologically correct.....
2. tell what gay historical marriage legal precedence exists to support gay marriage
3. tell me why gay marriage is right

then i might consider what you have to say but since you don't

that said…..they are not a man and woman union therefore they should not be allowed to marry....tis the law....tis not up to me to prove anything.....tis up to you to disprove the law

by the way, I don’t gff if yall marry or not…..not me ya have to convince though

 

[PsuedoGhost]

1. tell me why gay sex is natural and biologically correct.....
2. tell what gay historical marriage legal precedence exists to support gay marriage
3. tell me why gay marriage is right

then i might consider what you have to say but since you don't

that said…..they are not a man and woman union therefore they should not be allowed to marry....tis the law....tis not up to me to prove anything.....tis up to you to disprove the law

by the way, I don’t gff if yall marry or not…..not me ya have to convince though

1 - Natural and biologically correct, scientific evidence and evidence of homosexuality in other animals. If a so called "gay" gene exists then it would be concrete evidence of biological nature of homosexuality. Oh man, that would be the day... The end of this whole debate as every homosexual person in the United States would be suing every possible person for discrimination...

2 - The historical precedence has no merit because other practices throughout history have been shunned in modern times due to the obvious unfair nature regarding them. Keep in mind homosexual behavior was documented well before Christ in the Roman and Greek civilizations and probably long before that as well.

3 - Your opinion.

Besides, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on me to disprove those claims. So go ahead and prove to me why those three arguments might be quasi-legitimate.

 

[Hobbit]

If you can make a valid reason as to why they should not be allowed at least the legal benefits of marriage without resorting to the following arguments:

1 - Its unnatural.

2 - It's against historical precedence.

3 - It's wrong.

Then I might consider what you have to say.

Allowing the special priviledges to the homosexual lifestyle is essentially an endorsement of that lifestyle. When the government endorses or subsidizes something, there seems to be more of it. Just look at poverty since welfare ramped up. Now, even in the marriages issued in Massachussetts, gay relationships are unstable and promiscuous. According to many studies, few gays are monogamous, and domestic violence is higher among gay couples. Domestic violence creates very unproductive citizens and is a drain on the legal system. Promiscuous relationships spread disease, even if they're incapable of producing children, and since gays, even in permanent or semi-permanent relationships, tend to be far more promiscuous than straights, they spread STDs quite fast, driving up the cost of health care.

Given the above reasons, I believe it would be to the detriment of society for the government to issue an official endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle via 'marriage.'

Natural has nothing to do with it. Carrots and opium are both natural. One is good for you and one isn't.

Historical precedance may not be able to stand on its own at times, but there's usually a reason for doing the same thing for thousands of reasons. It's definitely worth the effort to investigate such reasons. For many years, nobody understood why the kosher rules were so important until science discovered that until the days of modern food safety technology, going kosher prevented dozens of horrible diseases.

"It's wrong" is never a good excuse. There's always a why. Even God has reasons for all of his rules. We just haven't yet discovered them all.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Allowing the special priviledges to the homosexual lifestyle is essentially an endorsement of that lifestyle. When the government endorses or subsidizes something, there seems to be more of it. Just look at poverty since welfare ramped up.

That is higly debateable. Just because something is legalized does not mean there is likely to be more of it, or to be more widespread. Take prohibition for example... The prevalence of poverty now is more to do with the changing nature of our society. We are no longer a society based upon providing entry level services and advancing to the ranks of management. In order to go anywhere remotely reasonable in terms of salary you MUST have a college degree. Many of those who are impoverished do not have a high school education and the vast majority have no higher education. Just some food for thought. As we advance farther into a high tech service oriented society, we are leaving behind those who do not pursue degrees of higher education...

However, it is nearly impossible to support yourself on minimum wage. Even if you do manage to make it there is no way you can retire. So what then... Either way society winds up paying for the low class eventually. Something has to be done, but what? It's obvious that welfare doesnt work for the vast majority of people. Should we pay for them to go back to school so that they can get a better job? I recognize that there is a problem with the system, but what should we do in place of that system? We cannot as a society just abandon them or else we face them devolving into even worse crime to sustain themselves. How do we solve the problem?

Now, even in the marriages issued in Massachussetts, gay relationships are unstable and promiscuous. According to many studies, few gays are monogamous, and domestic violence is higher among gay couples. Domestic violence creates very unproductive citizens and is a drain on the legal system. Promiscuous relationships spread disease, even if they're incapable of producing children, and since gays, even in permanent or semi-permanent relationships, tend to be far more promiscuous than straights, they spread STDs quite fast, driving up the cost of health care.

Cite?

Given the above reasons, I believe it would be to the detriment of society for the government to issue an official endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle via 'marriage.'

I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I will still respect it.

Natural has nothing to do with it. Carrots and opium are both natural. One is good for you and one isn't.

Depends on your definition of good. Heh. (Let's not turn this into a debate about drugs please).

Historical precedance may not be able to stand on its own at times, but there's usually a reason for doing the same thing for thousands of reasons. It's definitely worth the effort to investigate such reasons. For many years, nobody understood why the kosher rules were so important until science discovered that until the days of modern food safety technology, going kosher prevented dozens of horrible diseases.

It isn't surprising that many ancient practices are rooted in some sort of common sense. People naturally learn after having had enough people die from eating something. Trends establish themselves and people learn.

History is also chalk full of examples of what not to do.

"It's wrong" is never a good excuse. There's always a why. Even God has reasons for all of his rules. We just haven't yet discovered them all.

Very true.

 

[007]

If you can make a valid reason as to why they should not be allowed at least the legal benefits of marriage without resorting to the following arguments:

1 - Its unnatural.

2 - It's against historical precedence.

3 - It's wrong.

Then I might consider what you have to say.

Like I said, you got no game. You got Hobbit to bite on your crap, just because he's under the impression he's able to talk reason to someone.

But you're asking to CHANGE the status quo. YOU are the one in DEFENSE of a SICKNESS, and you act as though it's OUR job to DEFEND preserving an eons old institution against vile change.

Well NO, it's NOT our job to defend it. It's YOUR JOB to tell us all WHY we NEED to CHANGE.

And even I will engage in this discussion, if you don't use one of the following pathetic excuses...

1). It doesn't hurt anyone.

2). It's fags right.

3). It's none of my business

Like I said already, without a VALID response from you, "and why is it that homo's, and liberals, have a quest to alter all that has been? All that is natural? All that is holly? Why is it that queers feel the need to defile marriage? This PUSH towards all that is unholy by the left is sickening! Will the left not be happy until a father can sexually molest his 10 year old daughter in the name of sexual education? Or a lezbo mother fondling her adopted 10 year old daughter to "enlighten" her, to indoctrinate her? This whole homo/lezbo business is vile, wicked and ugly. Why you people feel the need to endorse this sickness as something that normal people should accept and advocate is beyond reason, beyond rational, beyond sane."

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Like I said, you got no game. You got Hobbit to bite on your crap, just because he's under the impression he's able to talk reason to someone.

But you're asking to CHANGE the status quo. YOU are the one in DEFENSE of a SICKNESS, and you act as though it's OUR job to DEFEND preserving an eons old institution against vile change.

Well NO, it's NOT our job to defend it. It's YOUR JOB to tell us all WHY we NEED to CHANGE.

And even I will engage in this discussion, if you don't use one of the following pathetic excuses...

1). It doesn't hurt anyone.

2). It's fags right.

3). It's none of my business

Like I said already, without a VALID response from you, "and why is it that homo's, and liberals, have a quest to alter all that has been? All that is natural? All that is holly? Why is it that queers feel the need to defile marriage? This PUSH towards all that is unholy by the left is sickening! Will the left not be happy until a father can sexually molest his 10 year old daughter in the name of sexual education? Or a lezbo mother fondling her adopted 10 year old daughter to "enlighten" her, to indoctrinate her? This whole homo/lezbo business is vile, wicked and ugly. Why you people feel the need to endorse this sickness as something that normal people should accept and advocate is beyond reason, beyond rational, beyond sane."

Dear Pale Rider:

Please refrain from debating topics which could possibly give you an aneurysm. I'd hate to see your lively manner cease to exist on this board.

Thanks,

PseudoGhost

P.S. If you could also stop using logical fallacies in your arguments that would be nice.

P.P.S. Oh, and if you could tone the hatred down a notch or too it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Hobbit]

That is higly debateable. Just because something is legalized does not mean there is likely to be more of it, or to be more widespread. Take prohibition for example... The prevalence of poverty now is more to do with the changing nature of our society. We are no longer a society based upon providing entry level services and advancing to the ranks of management. In order to go anywhere remotely reasonable in terms of salary you MUST have a college degree. Many of those who are impoverished do not have a high school education and the vast majority have no higher education. Just some food for thought. As we advance farther into a high tech service oriented society, we are leaving behind those who do not pursue degrees of higher education...

However, it is nearly impossible to support yourself on minimum wage. Even if you do manage to make it there is no way you can retire. So what then... Either way society winds up paying for the low class eventually. Something has to be done, but what? It's obvious that welfare doesnt work for the vast majority of people. Should we pay for them to go back to school so that they can get a better job? I recognize that there is a problem with the system, but what should we do in place of that system? We cannot as a society just abandon them or else we face them devolving into even worse crime to sustain themselves. How do we solve the problem?

Cite?

I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I will still respect it.

Depends on your definition of good. Heh. (Let's not turn this into a debate about drugs please).

It isn't surprising that many ancient practices are rooted in some sort of common sense. People naturally learn after having had enough people die from eating something. Trends establish themselves and people learn.

History is also chalk full of examples of what not to do.

Very true.

The stats on gays and STDs, promiscuity, and increased domestic violence are readily available and have been posted on this board many times. If I were more awake, I'd post them again.

As for the first part, we could debate welfare for weeks, but let's not. One thing you failed to grasp in the first part of the post is that having gay marriage is not the legalization of an action, except the action of issuing a liscence. The illegal actions are not of the gay people, but of the government officials issuing documents. Right now, gays are free to engage in all acts unique to homosexuality...period. Allowing marriage liscences to be issued to gays is a government endorsement of their lifestyle. It's already allowed. A marriage liscence legalizes no behavior. What it does is grant benefits to the two parties by sheer virture that they are married. The fact that the state recognizes hetero marriage and grants married couples a few concessions is an endorsement of that lifestyle and is intended to promote that lifestyle in America's citizens. The state has several good reasons to endorse that lifestyle, as it benefits society. However, there is no such benefit from endorsing the gay lifestyle. While it would be pretty invasive to outlaw the gay lifestyle, it would also be a tad bit foolish to endorse it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The stats on gays and STDs, promiscuity, and increased domestic violence are readily available and have been posted on this board many times. If I were more awake, I'd post them again.

Ohh... they exist, and don't you think they don't, because they do. However, if I showed you it would so awesome that your head would explode. So you see, I'm not doing this because I can't, it's because I don't want to hurt you.

I don't really mean it, but at least now you should be awake enough to go find those figures and (hopefully) links.