Homosexual declarations of children of homosexuals brings gay lifestyle into question..

[Aba Incieni]

Did you mean besides dragging people into court and trying to shut down their businesses if they won't pretend that homosexual "marriages" are normal? Or are you trying to ignore that entirely?

Buying a wedding cake is not a perversion. In fact, it's a normal occurrence. What is perverted is the baker who sells to the public refusing to sell a cake to a person because he doesn't approve of the marriage.

The same applies to buying a sandwich.

Force them to, Yes or No?

Wrong. The same thing does NOT apply to a sandwich. Why? Because the baker already has all the stuff he needs to bake a cake and decorate it already in his shop.

However....................a Jewish deli wouldn't have any non kosher items in it, so asking for a bacon cheeseburger in there wouldn't apply. They won't have non kosher items in the store to make the sandwich in question.

The deli owner and falafel makers don't carry bacon because of religious reasons.

But I want it, not only from any deli, but from the most orthodox deli and falafel makers I can find.

We'll force those zealots to do our bidding.

You can't force a business owner to sell things he doesn't want to sell. That is interfering with capitalism, which is something I thought you conservatives were against.

lol...you win.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

It is the plain and obvious truth. Putting children under the care and influence of sick sexual perverts is sexual abuse of those children. Denying it will not change this. Calling people “bigots” for pointing it out will not change it. Demanding that the “rights” of these sick perverts should be given higher precedence than the safety and well-being of children will not change it.

Yes, that's what I mean. caring more about the “rights” of sick sexual perverts than the right or well-being of children. There is truly something seriously wrong with anyone whose priorities are aligned that way.

They see them as second class citizens that shouldn't have children or be treated with respect. Something is really wrong with people that wish to do this to Americans.

Here is the full article the link to:

Almost Half of 'Female' Transgender Inmates Are Sex Offenders: Report

This is from the report by Dr. Nicola Williams:

Here is Dr. Nicola Williams report the link to:

Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous...

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

^^^^ Forgot to include this from the below article:

Almost Half of 'Female' Transgender Inmates Are Sex Offenders: Report

 

[Flopper]

You are asking a loaded question. All Abrahamic religions would certainly not consider acceptance of gays in the community and church as defying their God. In the following link there are over 50 demonstrations that are accepting of homosexuality and transgender identity. So don't try to convince me your beliefs are universally and accepted by all Jews and Christians.

So are gays forcing you to march in gay rights parades? Are you being forced to watch gays making love? Are they screaming at you on street corners that you're going to hell, if you don't accept their beliefs. Are they trying to deny you the right to marry who you chose, to be treated fairly in a court of law, or simply to enjoy the same rights and privileges of the remainder of society? I think you should carefully consider who actually is defying God. Yes, there are verses in Bible that speak against homosexuality but there are far more verses that speak of love and tolerance of others.

List of Christian denominations affirming LGBT - Wikipedia

We aren't discussing acceptance, we are discussing forced labor. Let me ask you again:

Should all Abrahamic religions be forced to labor and defy their God to appease some socio-economic movement?

Again, you are still asking a loaded question. All Abrahamic religions would not consider baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding as defying their God. I know the church I attend certainly would not. Also, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not rule against all Abrahamic religions or any religion. The ruling was against the baker who choose to violate Colorado law. So yes, the baker should be forced to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple if he bakes cakes for the general public. Singling out the gay couple was a violation of the Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual preference.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, not based on whether there was illegal discrimination or not but based on the unfair actions of the commission that made the decision.

Had the court ruled that the baker's denial of service was not illegal discrimination, it would have given legal stance to any store's denial of service to gays, a dream of homophones, to drive gays back into the closet.

Their God calls homosexuality an abomination. If they defy him, they're sinning. Like homos.

Are you saying all Jews and muslims who make sandwiches should be forced to serve bacon and ham? After all, not every Jew or muslim is practicing their faith.

Generalizing a bit, what I'm saying is civil rights laws protect the individual from discrimination based on specific characteristics that a person has little or no control over such as their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. A restaurant owner can serve any food he chooses. He can serve nothing but pork. However, he can not deny service to a customer based on their religion.

The baker didn't deny them anything based on their religion. He doesn't decorate gay cakes for anyone, regardless of race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Just as the Jewish deli and muslim falafel maker don't serve pork to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

First, I was addressing your post about Muslims and Jews.

Exactly what do you think the difference is between a "gay cake" and any other wedding cake? A special gay icing? I think not. The difference is most probably the names on the cake, John and Sam instead of John and Susan and maybe a little statue of a wedding couple on top. As soon as the baker realized it was a same sex marriage, it was a "sorry we don't serve your kind."

 

[EverCurious]

I'd like to jump in on the restaurant example.

I commission artwork. Am I legally required to paint two guys kissing?
I make and sell clothing. Am I legally required to offer "unisex" garments?

 

[Aba Incieni]

We aren't discussing acceptance, we are discussing forced labor. Let me ask you again:

Should all Abrahamic religions be forced to labor and defy their God to appease some socio-economic movement?

Again, you are still asking a loaded question. All Abrahamic religions would not consider baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding as defying their God. I know the church I attend certainly would not. Also, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not rule against all Abrahamic religions or any religion. The ruling was against the baker who choose to violate Colorado law. So yes, the baker should be forced to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple if he bakes cakes for the general public. Singling out the gay couple was a violation of the Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual preference.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, not based on whether there was illegal discrimination or not but based on the unfair actions of the commission that made the decision.

Had the court ruled that the baker's denial of service was not illegal discrimination, it would have given legal stance to any store's denial of service to gays, a dream of homophones, to drive gays back into the closet.

Their God calls homosexuality an abomination. If they defy him, they're sinning. Like homos.

Are you saying all Jews and muslims who make sandwiches should be forced to serve bacon and ham? After all, not every Jew or muslim is practicing their faith.

Generalizing a bit, what I'm saying is civil rights laws protect the individual from discrimination based on specific characteristics that a person has little or no control over such as their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. A restaurant owner can serve any food he chooses. He can serve nothing but pork. However, he can not deny service to a customer based on their religion.

The baker didn't deny them anything based on their religion. He doesn't decorate gay cakes for anyone, regardless of race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Just as the Jewish deli and muslim falafel maker don't serve pork to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

First, I was addressing your post about Muslims and Jews.

Exactly what do you think the difference is between a "gay cake" and any other wedding cake? A special gay icing? I think not. The difference is most probably the names on the cake, John and Sam instead of John and Susan and maybe a little statue of a wedding couple on top. As soon as the baker realized it was a same sex marriage, it was a "sorry we don't serve your kind."

Decorating it with a gay theme.

I don't think the baker should be forced to decorate a cake celebrating Nazis, or the KKK, or Hillary Clinton.

Dats forced labor, right dere.

 

[LittleNipper]

70% of this country thinks these people should have the right to live their lives the way they see fit. Why is it such a problem?

Do you really want to make life hell for these people or what? It isn't right and I think some people need to learn to respect peoples personal liberties.

I believe it is far less than 70%. Many people are scared of saying anything. And frankly, even a little girl doing this I would find rather "TOO MATURE for her own good!" Parents are to do parenting and not allow a child to do whatever. There is nothing wrong with encouraging a child to do makeup for costume parties, and plays, Halloween. But turning a child into someone sexually enticing is hateful to the spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing of a mere child. Why wouldn't that be the problem.

 

[Flopper]

Again, you are still asking a loaded question. All Abrahamic religions would not consider baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding as defying their God. I know the church I attend certainly would not. Also, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not rule against all Abrahamic religions or any religion. The ruling was against the baker who choose to violate Colorado law. So yes, the baker should be forced to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple if he bakes cakes for the general public. Singling out the gay couple was a violation of the Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual preference.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, not based on whether there was illegal discrimination or not but based on the unfair actions of the commission that made the decision.

Had the court ruled that the baker's denial of service was not illegal discrimination, it would have given legal stance to any store's denial of service to gays, a dream of homophones, to drive gays back into the closet.

Their God calls homosexuality an abomination. If they defy him, they're sinning. Like homos.

Are you saying all Jews and muslims who make sandwiches should be forced to serve bacon and ham? After all, not every Jew or muslim is practicing their faith.

Generalizing a bit, what I'm saying is civil rights laws protect the individual from discrimination based on specific characteristics that a person has little or no control over such as their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. A restaurant owner can serve any food he chooses. He can serve nothing but pork. However, he can not deny service to a customer based on their religion.

The baker didn't deny them anything based on their religion. He doesn't decorate gay cakes for anyone, regardless of race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Just as the Jewish deli and muslim falafel maker don't serve pork to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

First, I was addressing your post about Muslims and Jews.

Exactly what do you think the difference is between a "gay cake" and any other wedding cake? A special gay icing? I think not. The difference is most probably the names on the cake, John and Sam instead of John and Susan and maybe a little statue of a wedding couple on top. As soon as the baker realized it was a same sex marriage, it was a "sorry we don't serve your kind."

Decorating it with a gay theme.

I don't think the baker should be forced to decorate a cake celebrating Nazis, or the KKK, or Hillary Clinton.

Dats forced labor, right dere.

No, the baker can do whatever he chooses as long as the level of service he offers is the same for both straight and gay weddings.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Their God calls homosexuality an abomination. If they defy him, they're sinning. Like homos.

Are you saying all Jews and muslims who make sandwiches should be forced to serve bacon and ham? After all, not every Jew or muslim is practicing their faith.

Generalizing a bit, what I'm saying is civil rights laws protect the individual from discrimination based on specific characteristics that a person has little or no control over such as their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. A restaurant owner can serve any food he chooses. He can serve nothing but pork. However, he can not deny service to a customer based on their religion.

The baker didn't deny them anything based on their religion. He doesn't decorate gay cakes for anyone, regardless of race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Just as the Jewish deli and muslim falafel maker don't serve pork to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, country of origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

First, I was addressing your post about Muslims and Jews.

Exactly what do you think the difference is between a "gay cake" and any other wedding cake? A special gay icing? I think not. The difference is most probably the names on the cake, John and Sam instead of John and Susan and maybe a little statue of a wedding couple on top. As soon as the baker realized it was a same sex marriage, it was a "sorry we don't serve your kind."

Decorating it with a gay theme.

I don't think the baker should be forced to decorate a cake celebrating Nazis, or the KKK, or Hillary Clinton.

Dats forced labor, right dere.

No, the baker can do whatever he chooses as long as the level of service he offers is the same for both straight and gay weddings.

He doesn't do gay decorations or KKK cakes. Sorry, no Nazis or Hillarys, either.

Dems have a long history of forced labor. The beat goes on.

 

[Tuatara]

No one is forcing you to that lifestyle. If you cannot accept that others embrace that lifestyle with no harm to you and others then yes you would be considered a bigot.

What a load of dishonest, hypocritical twaddle.

Considering that your idea of "accepting that others embrace that lifestyle" involves forcing us to pretend we agree, lest we lose our livelihoods and savings, I'd say you're disingenuous at best in your insistence that there is "no harm to us", and your line about "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" is the biggest straw man I've seen since Wicker Man.

A strawman argument is when someone attributes a weak argument or a position to you that you did not make and then shoots it down claiming victory. That is not what happened here. The statement that no one is forcing you into a lifestyle is just a statement of fact.

Wrong, Sparkles. When twits like Tuatara gabble on about "no one's forcing to that lifestyle", as though that's actually what people are concerned about, that's absolutely a straw man. I can't think of a single person who's EVER said, "I have a problem with gay people, because I'm afraid they're going to force ME to be gay".

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

 

[LittleNipper]

What a load of dishonest, hypocritical twaddle.

Considering that your idea of "accepting that others embrace that lifestyle" involves forcing us to pretend we agree, lest we lose our livelihoods and savings, I'd say you're disingenuous at best in your insistence that there is "no harm to us", and your line about "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" is the biggest straw man I've seen since Wicker Man.

A strawman argument is when someone attributes a weak argument or a position to you that you did not make and then shoots it down claiming victory. That is not what happened here. The statement that no one is forcing you into a lifestyle is just a statement of fact.

Wrong, Sparkles. When twits like Tuatara gabble on about "no one's forcing to that lifestyle", as though that's actually what people are concerned about, that's absolutely a straw man. I can't think of a single person who's EVER said, "I have a problem with gay people, because I'm afraid they're going to force ME to be gay".

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

 

[Flopper]

A strawman argument is when someone attributes a weak argument or a position to you that you did not make and then shoots it down claiming victory. That is not what happened here. The statement that no one is forcing you into a lifestyle is just a statement of fact.

Wrong, Sparkles. When twits like Tuatara gabble on about "no one's forcing to that lifestyle", as though that's actually what people are concerned about, that's absolutely a straw man. I can't think of a single person who's EVER said, "I have a problem with gay people, because I'm afraid they're going to force ME to be gay".

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

Looking at society it's easy to understand why people would be concerned about the stability of marriage. However the problem is not coming from the gay community. It is compounded by the attitude some of our icons have shown to the institution, a president that has certainly not been a role mode, a former speaker of the House brought divorce papers to his wife while she was in a hospital being treated for cancer, Hollywood stars have children and drag them around the world showing them off and never bother to marry, and others in the entertainment field change marriage partners like a change of scenery.

Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships. Out of that number 1% a year are divorced compared 2% for heterosexual marriages. The reason is pretty simple. Same sex couples have been together far longer than the average heterosexual couple when they marry. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly.
Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | HuffPost

 

[Syriusly]

You are aware lifestyle goes well beyond having sex and children. There are plenty of hetros who have some of the weirdest sex you can imagine and many who never have children. There are also gays who do have children and families. People are all different particularly when it comes to sex. In addition to heterosexuals and homosexuals there're bisexuals, transsexuals, and asexuals and they have varying degrees of sex drive from strong to none.

It is not the label we put on a person that is important. It is the qualities of the person such as, empathy, creativity, passion, being responsible, kindness, leadership, honesty, integrity, and courage. These are the things that are really important, not who you love or how you have sex.

No one cares what people do in the privacy of their homes.

It's when they start forcing their perversions on the rest of us that problems occur.

The SCOTUS agrees. Argue with them.

How exactly are gays forcing their perversions on you?

Do you think all Abrahamic religions should defy their God to appease some socio-political movement?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

By forcing people to defy their God in their labors.

Now you.

You mean like forcing employees to work on the Sabbath?

 

[Syriusly]

You are asking a loaded question. All Abrahamic religions would certainly not consider acceptance of gays in the community and church as defying their God.

The scriptures of all Abrahamic religions have clear guidance from God's prophets condemning homosexuality as an abomination. Acceptance of homosexual behavior is clear defiance and rebellion against God, and clear violation of scripture..

Great- show us the verse in the Old Testament that forbids women having sex with each other.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

It is actually calling the arguments against pedophilia into question.

Of course it is.
Because that is the goal. Normalize pedophilia.

No more than Christianity's goal is to normalize pedophilia.

Stupid ass bigoted comment.

 

[Rustic]

Wrong, Sparkles. When twits like Tuatara gabble on about "no one's forcing to that lifestyle", as though that's actually what people are concerned about, that's absolutely a straw man. I can't think of a single person who's EVER said, "I have a problem with gay people, because I'm afraid they're going to force ME to be gay".

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

Looking at society it's easy to understand why people would be concerned about the stability of marriage. However the problem is not coming from the gay community. It is compounded by the attitude some of our icons have shown to the institution, a president that has certainly not been a role mode, a former speaker of the House brought divorce papers to his wife while she was in a hospital being treated for cancer, Hollywood stars have children and drag them around the world showing them off and never bother to marry, and others in the entertainment field change marriage partners like a change of scenery.

Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships. Out of that number 1% a year are divorced compared 2% for heterosexual marriages. The reason is pretty simple. Same sex couples have been together far longer than the average heterosexual couple when they marry. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly.
Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | HuffPost

Lol
HuffPost. Fake news you stupid ass motherfucker

 

[Syriusly]

How exactly are gays forcing their perversions on you?

Did you mean besides dragging people into court and trying to shut down their businesses if they won't pretend that homosexual "marriages" are normal? Or are you trying to ignore that entirely?

Buying a wedding cake is not a perversion. In fact, it's a normal occurrence. What is perverted is the baker who sells to the public refusing to sell a cake to a person because he doesn't approve of the marriage.

The same applies to buying a sandwich.

Force them to, Yes or No?

Wrong. The same thing does NOT apply to a sandwich. Why? Because the baker already has all the stuff he needs to bake a cake and decorate it already in his shop.

However....................a Jewish deli wouldn't have any non kosher items in it, so asking for a bacon cheeseburger in there wouldn't apply. They won't have non kosher items in the store to make the sandwich in question.

The deli owner and falafel makers don't carry bacon because of religious reasons.

But I want it, not only from any deli, but from the most orthodox deli and falafel makers I can find.

We'll force those zealots to do our bidding.

i am sure you will- Conservatives have been trying to force others to do their bidding for decades.

But the courts threw down your laws telling schools that they couldn't hire gay teachers. And the courts threw down your laws which told people what kind of consensual sex was allowed per your holy book.

Must really piss you off.

 

[Syriusly]

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

Looking at society it's easy to understand why people would be concerned about the stability of marriage. However the problem is not coming from the gay community. It is compounded by the attitude some of our icons have shown to the institution, a president that has certainly not been a role mode, a former speaker of the House brought divorce papers to his wife while she was in a hospital being treated for cancer, Hollywood stars have children and drag them around the world showing them off and never bother to marry, and others in the entertainment field change marriage partners like a change of scenery.

Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships. Out of that number 1% a year are divorced compared 2% for heterosexual marriages. The reason is pretty simple. Same sex couples have been together far longer than the average heterosexual couple when they marry. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly.
Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | HuffPost

Lol
HuffPost. Fake news you stupid ass motherfucker

Hell you voted for the King of Fake News- Donald Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

A strawman argument is when someone attributes a weak argument or a position to you that you did not make and then shoots it down claiming victory. That is not what happened here. The statement that no one is forcing you into a lifestyle is just a statement of fact.

Wrong, Sparkles. When twits like Tuatara gabble on about "no one's forcing to that lifestyle", as though that's actually what people are concerned about, that's absolutely a straw man. I can't think of a single person who's EVER said, "I have a problem with gay people, because I'm afraid they're going to force ME to be gay".

Then what's your problem. How has anyone being gay affected you?

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

And don't forget mixed race marriage also.

You really upset that your dentist uses latex gloves now? You think that HIV is the only disease that the dentist could get from you- or vice versa?

You think that the only thing they test blood for is HIV?

Are you really this stupid and bigoted?

 

[Rustic]

Where did I lose you on the fact that you are NOT going to set the debate parameters around your effing straw man? In what way did my pointing out that it's a straw man translate to you as an acceptance of it?

I'll type this slowly for you, Brain Trust: if you can't argue against people's REAL words and REAL concerns, please sit down, shut up, and stop trying to derail the conversation.

Do not ask me again to address the fallacious words you're trying to shove into others' mouths, because the answer will be the same.

You stated he rejected the lifestyle. This is open to such wide interpretation. You can reject a lifestyle by not participating in it. It's like someone who is against marijuana. They don't have to smoke it. It's not a strawman because you did not state why you how it was personally affecting you. You were asked a question point blank and you did not answer. You are the one concerned about the "no one is forcing you to that lifestyle" comment, yet you chose to ignore about how their lifestyle causes no harm to you then it seems like you are the one that wants to steer this conversation into the first comment. It's also an honest comment as I just don't see why people are so against it when it does not affect them at all. So again, How has anyone being gay affected you?

GAY marriage is just another rung down the ladder to trivializing marriage that has been already hurt by divorce, and premarital sex. Also homosexual behavior brought the entire HIV hysteria --- bringing about the use of latex gloves by dentists.and face shields and major blood testing for donors, and a major jump in healthcare insurance coverage.

Looking at society it's easy to understand why people would be concerned about the stability of marriage. However the problem is not coming from the gay community. It is compounded by the attitude some of our icons have shown to the institution, a president that has certainly not been a role mode, a former speaker of the House brought divorce papers to his wife while she was in a hospital being treated for cancer, Hollywood stars have children and drag them around the world showing them off and never bother to marry, and others in the entertainment field change marriage partners like a change of scenery.

Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships. Out of that number 1% a year are divorced compared 2% for heterosexual marriages. The reason is pretty simple. Same sex couples have been together far longer than the average heterosexual couple when they marry. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly.
Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | HuffPost

Lol
HuffPost. Fake news you stupid ass motherfucker

Hell you voted for the King of Fake News- Donald Trump.

Actually I did not vote for Donald Trump, I wrote in candidate candidate Elmer Fudd... He gets no respect
I knew it didn’t matter because I knew Trump was overwhelmingly win South Dakota