Gays

[deciophobic]

"At its base level homosexuality is a vile, disgusting and dispicable act needing at the very least condemnation and at the most friendly intervention and help."

well people (men and women) don't seem to mind how "vile, disgusting and dispicable" it is when they are watching gay pornos. they seem to love it then.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...If marriage is defined byt he Constitution as only being between a man and a woman, will proof of gender be required? What if the woman isn't really a woman, but a transgendered individual?

Or will it not matter since the individual will have all of the the physical attributes of a woman except for the ability to reproduce?

 

[eric]

Yes proof of gender will be required, just like proof that you are not related is now !! Easy enough !

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...If marriage is defined byt he Constitution as only being between a man and a woman, will proof of gender be required? What if the woman isn't really a woman, but a transgendered individual?

Or will it not matter since the individual will have all of the the physical attributes of a woman except for the ability to reproduce?

The person you describe should be shot.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by eric
Yes proof of gender will be required, just like proof that you are not related is now !! Easy enough !

Thanks Eric.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit

How's about the greatest good for all?

Ummm???, what about this?

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by deciophobic
"At its base level homosexuality is a vile, disgusting and dispicable act needing at the very least condemnation and at the most friendly intervention and help."

well people (men and women) don't seem to mind how "vile, disgusting and dispicable" it is when they are watching gay pornos. they seem to love it then.

speak for yourself.....

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The person you describe should be shot.

instututionalized at the least....fucking frankinsten assholes

 

[Bullypulpit]

...Gotta love that rapier-like wit and those snappy rejoinders!


<b>"The person you describe should be shot." - jimnyc</b>

<b>"instututionalized at the least....fucking frankinsten assholes" - jon_forward</b>

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Gotta love that rapier-like wit and those snappy rejoinders!


<b>"The person you describe should be shot." - jimnyc</b>

<b>"instututionalized at the least....fucking frankinsten assholes" - jon_forward</b>

I would be insulted if this didn't come from a lowlife who has been relegated to cleaning piss for a living.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Gotta love that rapier-like wit and those snappy rejoinders!


<b>"The person you describe should be shot." - jimnyc</b>

<b>"instututionalized at the least....fucking frankinsten assholes" - jon_forward</b>

Bully..even the little boy in 'Kindergarten Cop" got it right...a man has a penis...a woman has a vagina...you are born, and you die the same sex...anything else is perverted,sick and wrong..

 

[DKSuddeth]

oh come on y'all. I KNOW you'd like to stick something up al frankens ass just to hear him scream, wouldn't ya!!! :sausage:

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
oh come on y'all. I KNOW you'd like to stick something up al frankens ass just to hear him scream, wouldn't ya!!! :sausage:

a foot in his ass would probably make him scream yes, but i need a condom for it!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Bully..even the little boy in 'Kindergarten Cop" got it right...a man has a penis...a woman has a vagina...you are born, and you die the same sex...anything else is perverted,sick and wrong..

Good argument...Clear, lucid reasoning backed up by solid facts.

Not gonna find that here!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Good argument...Clear, lucid reasoning backed up by solid facts.

Not gonna find that here!

Better argument than "it's completely natural to shove your penis in another mans bunghole. Who are we to argue. Penguins do it. Squirrels do it. Equal protection. Blah blah blah."

You want a clear, lucid, concise response? IT'S A FILTHY LIFESTYLE BETTER RESERVED FOR THE ANIMALS.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Better argument than "it's completely natural to shove your penis in another mans bunghole. Who are we to argue. Penguins do it. Squirrels do it. Equal protection. Blah blah blah."

You want a clear, lucid, concise response? IT'S A FILTHY LIFESTYLE BETTER RESERVED FOR THE ANIMALS.

animals are not able to REASON right from wrong.....people are......

 

[Avatar4321]

"animals are not able to REASON right from wrong.....people are......"

yet despite the fact that animals are not able to reason, they still know who their mates are.

 

[montyfowler]

I love talking about this issue. Because you can beat the Liberal position with there own vodoo stick.

As many of you know, I am a Christian and much of what I have to say here is bolstered by my faith. Well here is one area where I feel comfortable talking from a purely secular humanist perspective. Here goes.

BIOLOGY
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There is not a shred of scientific evidence, either direct or indirect, that supports the notion that homosexual behavior has a basis in genetics. The simple fact that the longterm behavior is not observed anywhere else in nature, serves as prima facia evidence that homosexuality is a learned response. Although brief acts of same sex copulation have been observed in apes and odontocetes, these behaviors have only been observed duing periods of male dominance rituals, where the act of same sex copulation is seen as an expression of Alpha-male dominance, and not a true sexual preference.

If homosexuality is not a naturally occuring state, then how can it be the basis for a law or laws that give protected status to its practicioners? In order for a person to qualify for a protected class status, logic would dictate that the person not have the opportunity to opt-in to the protected class. But that is exactly what homosexuals can do. They can make a lifestyle choice that gives them protected class status. That should be viewed as an afront to anyone who is genuinely entitled to protection as a member of a minority or protected class.

SOCIETY
As with biology, human culture is driven by societal evolution over time. The basic unit of human culture is the family. Throughout all of human history a family has been defined as a man and a woman who made a public commitment to each other to procreate and participate in the larger societal unit. No culture in all of history has viewed same sex partnerships as anything other than aberrant behavior. Why is this?

Quite simply because the very nature of such a relationship is contrary to the overarching human imperative: procreation. In our earliest civilizations, any union that did not yield offspring was deemed by the society at large as a waste of resources. That is why all of the worlds cultures had provisions for bigamy/poligamy, even when it was in stark contrast to the dominant religion. Like biologoical evolution, societal evolution will always favor and protect those behaviors and modes that encourage procreation and diversification of the gene pool.

There is nothing in the classic Darwinian model of evolution that would allow homosexual behavior to promulgate throughout generations since it yields no benefit for the species. Indeed, the genetic expression of such a behvior would likely not survive one generation, as there would be no offspring resulting from such behavior, assuming no heterosexual contact was made by the genetic vector.

I would love to hear some rational responses from those in favor of gay marriage. Specifically, how does sanctioned gay marriage benefit society? I understand how it benefits the individual...but what about the larger question?

 

[_dmp_]

wow...this is the best thread EVER!!!

Seriously though - For the LAST F'ING TIME:

The expression is "Couldn't care less". NOT "Could care less". 'Could' care less implies a level of caring exists. "Couldn't" implies there is NO level of caring which exists lower than the amount of caring one possesses."


THIS is one of the best replies I read:

My question is how is it not a choice? Since when is anyone forced to do something they dont choose to do? That would be like saying smoking, drinking and drugs arent a choice either. Yeah someone might be addicted to them but you can choose to stop too.

No one forces these people to engage in sexual activities with the same sex. they choose to. To argue that sexual preference is something you are born with is illogical. (especially considering the word preference connotates choice). If homosexuality was genetic, it would be eliminated from the human gene pool within a generation or two because the genes that survive are the ones that get passed to the next generation. Kinda hard to do that with two men or two women.

Besides, Id still like to be told why if we to concede it was natural, that it somehow makes it good. Hatred, Intolerance, and violence are all natural too. That doesnt mean they are good.

Being natural also doesnt explain why you no longer have a choice. Its natural to be attracted to the opposite gender. That doesnt mean we have no choice and that we have to engage in relations with them. We choose to (and it is a very good choice in certain circumstances).

This is an important political issue. Not only because marriage is vital for the survival of civilization but becausethe way these activists are trying to force society to legitimize their actions is by circumventing the Constitutional and Legislative system of government. Here we are, a majority who oppose this, who are being force my a very small minority of judges and civil servants who have sworn to uphold our constitution and political system but do the exact opposite. It should be the activists who are trying to change society through the legislative bodies and the Constitutional process and not the people trying to preserve our way of life to stop people from circumventing the law! People should be outraged at this.

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Nah...Just those who can't take off their blinkers and think for themselves. And I will keep prayin' for y'all.

Praying to whom? You can't pray to a God I recognize, so keep your damn prayers to yourself It bothers me that somebody could mention 'praying' and yet be so clearly ANTI-God.

 

[MtnBiker]

Judge rules against gay students in Lubbock
Associated Press


LUBBOCK - A federal judge today ruled against a group of gay high school students who sued the Lubbock school district after they were prohibited from meeting on campus.

The Lubbock Gay Straight Alliance claimed in its July lawsuit that the district violated students' constitutional rights and a law forbidding discrimination against groups meeting on campuses of schools receiving federal funds.

U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings ruled in his summary judgment order that "the local school officials and parents are in the best position to determine what subject matter is reasonable and will be allowed on LISD campuses."

The judge ruled that the group's goals violate well-known policies at Lubbock High School and the district,and that the case has nothing to do with denial of student rights.

He found that the decision not to allow the group to meet on campus is "an assertion of a school's right not to surrender control of the public school system to students and erode a community's standard of what subject matter is considered obscene and inappropriate."

link