Everything but marriage

[Yurt]

There's nothing stopping you breeders from practically fucking on the streets either. Until you stop, I don't care if the gay people do it at all.

that says it all...the rest explains it all...good lord

I hate sex, and I have to be bombarded with it almost 24/7 thanks to straight people, so yeah, I am going to adapt that term. If it's offensive, tough shit. I fight for gay rights as long as the human livestock still have the right to be offensive, so do they, period.

so gays do not bombard people with "it"...yeah right, open your eyes

as long as you don't care that i think it is a crude and crass thing to say and really doesn't help further your cause at all, in fact, it turns people off from you and whatever cause you may be fighting for...don't like my opinion, tough shit

 

[Luissa]

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There is not a market for homosexauls on television? You obviously do not watch television very much. The difference is they make all the programs directed at homosexuals stay on cable or you have to buy a subscription. Queer as Folk was one of the top rated shows on Showtime for a quite a few years and one of their top rated shows in the history of Showtime.

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

 

[RodISHI]

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

jillian does not like anyone who does not agree with her on this issue. She has made that obviously clear.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

Two men or two women cannot make one baby. It does not work that away. Many do have children from sources other than their homosexual partners.

I have a cousin who is homosexual. He and his beau are raising his sister's child. She died from a drug overdose when the child was less than two years old. My aunt recieved custody of the baby yet in all actuality she is more of an unfit motherly type. That child would be about sixteen years old at this point. The aunt is dying of cancer. I do not believe it would be in the best interest of the child if the state should take that child away from the two people that have cared for him all these years if he is happy and well adjusted even though they are gay. Do I think we should change our laws for these "special" cases, NO.

 

[Nik]

Yes. Incest=genetic defents are likely to occur. Non-incest you need to run tests to determine whether genetic defects are likely to occur.


what are you talking about then?



We've discussed consent, and you've had nothing to say. But, since you are so thick-headed, here it is again.

Lots of people in this country are molested by their parents. Parents have a legally enforceable right over their children until they are 18. Parents are financially supportive of their children often until they are over 18. If a particular situation has a high likelihood of abuse, as do parent/child relationships, we should not legitimize them. When kids hit 18, all their bonds to their parents (including the bond of obeying what the parent says) do not just go away.

That good enough for you?

like i remember every comment YOU make, you really do think you're god

Oy. Thats not what I was expecting, nor is it what I said. But we had a lengthy discussion about it not very long ago.

i already argued that and there is zero proof that there will not be consent when the sibling or child comes of age. it is a novel theory, but it is not a fact, sorry, but you're not god and your opinion is not fact....the law says that when you turn 18, you have the legal ability to consent (assuming all things relevant), that is a fact. the state is then interfering with that person's right to consent....that is another fact.

No, actually, the law says you never have the ability to consent to fuck your dad. And the proof is in the many, many, many individuals who are molested by their parents. If we legitimize child/parent relationships, that will get worse.

don't you see that you are getting involved in the PERSONAL affairs of OTHER people, the very same argument used by pro homosexual marriage, they are telling the contra homosexual marraige crowd to STAY OUT OF THEIR BEDROOM....

Yes, well the difference is consent and genetics. If you don't care about whether people are actually consenting or not, thats your issue. But I've know enough people who were molested as children to think that child/parent relationships should be illegal in any form. Why exactly would you want to legitimize that hellish experience?

you guys can't even see you're arguing against the very arguments used by those who support homosexual marriage. all i would have to do is switch out incest with homosexuality and you guys would be the side arguing against homosexual marraige as you're using virtually the same arguments.

Really? People say gays can't consent? People say their children will have bad genes?

Didn't think so, tool.

See, you could create a very easy hypo to get rid of those problems. But instead you look like a moron trying to explain away very real problems. But I have no problem with polyamory. I have no problem with non parent/child incest. And I don't even really have a problem with bestiality. There is an issue with the animal consenting, but I suppose if we can slaughter them for food, no reason to think we can't rape them too. So scream hypocrite at the top of your lungs if you want, you don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Nik]

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

Two men or two women cannot make one baby. It does not work that away. Many do have children from sources other than their homosexual partners.

I have a cousin who is homosexual. He and his beau are raising his sister's child. She died from a drug overdose when the child was less than two years old. My aunt recieved custody of the baby yet in all actuality she is more of an unfit motherly type. That child would be about sixteen years old at this point. The aunt is dying of cancer. I do not believe it would be in the best interest of the child if the state should take that child away from the two people that have cared for him all these years if he is happy and well adjusted even though they are gay. Do I think we should change our laws for these "special" cases, NO.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I know plenty of gays who have their own biological kids. Not with their partner, obviously, but lots and lots and lots have biological kids.

 

[Yurt]

the law at one time said homosexuals could not consent...using that does not help your argument.

you're appealing to emotion, kind of funny for one who runs around telling others they appeal to authority....you claim it is bad because of "hellish" experiences, dude, you're cracking me up

thanks for playing

 

[KittenKoder]

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

Two men or two women cannot make one baby. It does not work that away. Many do have children from sources other than their homosexual partners.

I have a cousin who is homosexual. He and his beau are raising his sister's child. She died from a drug overdose when the child was less than two years old. My aunt recieved custody of the baby yet in all actuality she is more of an unfit motherly type. That child would be about sixteen years old at this point. The aunt is dying of cancer. I do not believe it would be in the best interest of the child if the state should take that child away from the two people that have cared for him all these years if he is happy and well adjusted even though they are gay. Do I think we should change our laws for these "special" cases, NO.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I know plenty of gays who have their own biological kids. Not with their partner, obviously, but lots and lots and lots have biological kids.

Almost every one of those kids is because they were oppressing their natures and getting married for fear of being attacked by family, friends, and society. So who's fault is it really?

 

[Article 15]

There is not a market for homosexauls on television? You obviously do not watch television very much. The difference is they make all the programs directed at homosexuals stay on cable or you have to buy a subscription. Queer as Folk was one of the top rated shows on Showtime for a quite a few years and one of their top rated shows in the history of Showtime.

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

 

[KittenKoder]

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

Will and Grace is funny, I like that goofy lady with the obnoxious voice.

 

[Yurt]

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

that show cracked me up

jack....2000

 

[Luissa]

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

that show cracked me up

jack....2000

dude it is "just jack" now!

 

[Article 15]

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

that show cracked me up

jack....2000

Jack and Karen pretty much carried that show I think.

 

[RodISHI]

Two men or two women cannot make one baby. It does not work that away. Many do have children from sources other than their homosexual partners.

I have a cousin who is homosexual. He and his beau are raising his sister's child. She died from a drug overdose when the child was less than two years old. My aunt recieved custody of the baby yet in all actuality she is more of an unfit motherly type. That child would be about sixteen years old at this point. The aunt is dying of cancer. I do not believe it would be in the best interest of the child if the state should take that child away from the two people that have cared for him all these years if he is happy and well adjusted even though they are gay. Do I think we should change our laws for these "special" cases, NO.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I know plenty of gays who have their own biological kids. Not with their partner, obviously, but lots and lots and lots have biological kids.

Almost every one of those kids is because they were oppressing their natures and getting married for fear of being attacked by family, friends, and society. So who's fault is it really?

Family and friends. We have gays in our family. Some are assholes and some are not. That does not mean they get any special consideration. The assholes are rejected regardless if they are hetro or homo, assholes are still assholes. Delightful people are still delightful to be around regardless if they are homo or hetro. We all make choices. That is life. It is full of choices we each have to make. Does that mean we all need special considerations for everyone else will accept our choices. No it doesn't.

 

[Luissa]

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

than there is Bravo, Logo, Showtime, and than another channel I cannot remember the name of that is an all gay channel. CBS even has all gay news on LOGO every night.
Cher, Barbara, and Liza wouldn't have any fans if it wasn't for homosexuals.
Some people just have tunnel vision.

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

and you know what is wierd they show it on three different channels now, man there must be no market. I watch it almost every night on Lifetime or Fox depending on the episodes.
I also watch Queer as Folk, love Brian Kinney even though he is gay but not in real life.
They also say Will and Grace did more for homosexuals on television than any other show, for one it was on a major network.

 

[KittenKoder]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I know plenty of gays who have their own biological kids. Not with their partner, obviously, but lots and lots and lots have biological kids.

Almost every one of those kids is because they were oppressing their natures and getting married for fear of being attacked by family, friends, and society. So who's fault is it really?

Family and friends. We have gays in our family. Some are assholes and some are not. That does not mean they get any special consideration. The assholes are rejected regardless if they are hetro or homo, assholes are still assholes. Delightful people are still delightful to be around regardless if they are homo or hetro. We all make choices. That is life. It is full of choices we each have to make. Does that mean we all need special considerations for everyone else will accept our choices. No it doesn't.

Meh, not all families are as accepting though.

 

[Yurt]

That Will and Grace show was mighty popular as well ....

that show cracked me up

jack....2000

Jack and Karen pretty much carried that show I think.

totally agree, those two together...my sides would hurt

 

[WiseOldMan]

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

The anti-gay crowd IS the gay crowd.

You're being played like a fiddle. Don't you know that the Republican leadership is teeming with gay men?

Gay men don't want gay marriage. Sure a few do, but most don't. That's why they use it as an issue.


Open zee eyes.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

I have dirty little secret. After my father died, my mother came out of the "closet" and dated other women. My mother was a lesbian. She died December, 2001. A tragic time for most of us for various reasons. My brother in law has recently declared his wish to become a woman, even though HE has children and is still LAWFULLY married to my sister. I wish he made that clear years ago..but, here we are. I don't think gays are evil. Gays don't need to get married. I sympathise with gays. But I still believe marriage should remain heterosexual. Not to exclude. But, in the end, it's were most of us us come from. I'm not sure how many heterosexuals that have that right either won't marry or never should, but that's besides the point.