news on the real reason for homosexual marriage need.

[sitarro]

Check out the link I posted. It has all the accepted theories. Here's a good one for you:



Guess that makes me prejudiced too!

Isn't it funny how many conspiracy theories there are for the white man trying to get rid of the black man, the latest being New Orleans? And yet, the biggest fans at basketball, football and baseball games are generally white even with most of the players being black. When Tiger won the Masters in the deep, deep south, he received a standing ovation from an all white crowd, most of his fans by a huge percentage, are white. Most of the William sister's fans in tennis are white. And as sad as it is, white kids are emulating black rap assholes in huge numbers..... watch for how many backward and sideways baseball hats you see on white kids listening to loud obnoxious noise coming from there tacky looking cars.

I have always tried to judge individuals on their actions. Even with that, stereotypes are there for a reason and are usually pretty funny.

 

[Gunny]

Okay okay. Anyway, of what relevance is this stuff? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that AIDS originated in homosexuals and that these homosexuals spread it to heterosexuals. Shame on these homosexuals for what they did. Okay. Now what? All we have is a hypothetically agreed to statement. In and of itself, it does it mean that we should not allow gay marriage? No, for there is no proof that gay marriage will increase promiscuity. Does it mean that we need to register people as gay/straight and keep such groups apart – segregation? – Well?

Gay marriage allows for special laws designed to cater to an aberrant minority's behavioral problem. It legitimizes their aberrant sexual behavior as acceptable and/or normal; which, it is neither.

It would be, in effect, the majority suffering the tyranny of the minority.

Gays currently have exactly the same rights I do (more if you count the fact that they can be victims of a "hate crime" and I cannot). I see no reason to make special laws that cater to their aberrance.

 

[mattskramer]

The glasses were designed to fit on the bridge of the nose not the other way around....no wonder you don't have a problem doing a guy in the ass, you don't know anything about design. Your last statement is so stupid it doesn't deserve a response.

Okay. Good point. I admit that it was a poor comparison. Okay. Consider oral sex. The penis was not designed for the mouth and the mouth was not designed for the penis. The tongue was not designed for the vagina and the vagina was not designed for the songue. I guess that the only type of sex that should be allowed, in order to protect people, is straight monogmous intercourse.

I guess I could have given his name....Branell...you could have guessed his skin color from that. I mentioned that he was black and nonproductive because he fit the standard stereotype so perfectly, I thought that it was both sad and funny. A black "gay" male working in government for HUD, you couldn't make that up. I also find homosexual blacks funny anyway, it just seems so out of place. Was he homosexual??????? He spoke with a lisp, walked like a woman, wore really faggy shoes, talked about his ass hurting every Monday after weekends he described as "getting real busy at the bath house", and he tried to convert young college kids like me to his lifestyle.... he told me "he just loved young white boys". When I would tell him I was straight he would respond with the standard "how do you know until you try it" bullshit. We are suppose to respect the idea that they are born homosexual and yet they think they can convert normal people to what they claim to be born with..... hypocritical?

I met a guy while I was alone at work. He walked into the office. He was a stocky white man who spoke very clearly. There was no lisp. He asked if I wanted to have sex with him. I declined. He walked away. It was as simple as that. He never visited me again. I guess that we are all influenced by our experiences.

I might be different than some people in the "gay rights/equal rights/special rights" crowed. I think that homosexual behavior can be changed. One can be conditioned to be gay or straight. Yet, just as a "left-handed person can be conditioned to use his right hand (and vice versa) I don't think that such conditioning is necessary. Gays can be converted to be straight, through time and effort. Straight people can be converted to be gay through time and effort. Yet the stress and strain of conversion is not necessary. It is okay to be gay and it is okay to be straight.

Are you saying that you like anal sex and that doesn't make you a homosexual?

Please don't pull a "Pale Rider". Don't make it personal. I'm a happily married heterosexual. Also, I don't like anal sex. Still, I think that a man can enjoy anal sex and not be gay. Consider the "strap on” or simple anal play without there being deep penetration.

 

[mattskramer]

Gay marriage allows for special laws designed to cater to an aberrant minority's behavioral problem. It legitimizes their aberrant sexual behavior as acceptable and/or normal; which, it is neither.

I already went over this. If you consider being allowed to wed the adult human being of your choice as a “special” law, then I suppose that it is a special law. I don’t see it that way. While I think that there should be limits about what we allow people to do, I think that marriage should not be limited to heterosexual couples. Though perhaps not codified into law, it used to be understood that you do not wed outside of your race or outside of your religion. Things change. In reply to your next statement, even if it gay marriage becomes legal, why must you accept it? Abortion is legal. Do you have a position against abortion? Do you think that abortion is wrong? Just because something is legal or illegal does not mean that you have to think that it is right or wrong.

It would be, in effect, the majority suffering the tyranny of the minority.

Suffer!?! Really, how much would you suffer if you happen to learn that the couple that lives in the house 5 houses down the road, Adam and Steve, are legally married? Oh the pain of it all. Come on. Get real. I bet that you would suffer half as much as those Atheists activists suffer when they see “In God We Trust” on their currency.

Gays currently have exactly the same rights I do (more if you count the fact that they can be victims of a "hate crime" and I cannot). I see no reason to make special laws that cater to their aberrance.

Anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. Years ago, I was teased and bullied for being too thin. I think that if someone of any class, race, religion, etc. thinks that he was a victim of a hate crime, he can bring charges and possibly win. Gay couples do not have equal rights. They do not have the same type of access to things that married couples have access to. Now, if you think that marriage being limited to heterosexuals constitutes equal rights for all, we simply agree to disagree on the definition of equal rights.

 

[Gunny]

I already went over this. If you consider being allowed to wed the adult human being of your choice as a “special” law, then I suppose that it is a special law. I don’t see it that way. While I think that there should be limits about what we allow people to do, I think that marriage should not be limited to heterosexual couples. Though perhaps not codified into law, it used to be understood that you do not wed outside of your race or outside of your religion. Things change. In reply to your next statement, even if it gay marriage becomes legal, why must you accept it? Abortion is legal. Do you have a position against abortion? Do you think that abortion is wrong? Just because something is legal or illegal does not mean that you have to think that it is right or wrong.

Marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples for the simple reason that heterosexuality is normal behavior while homosexual behavior is not.


Suffer!?! Really, how much would you suffer if you happen to learn that the couple that lives in the house 5 houses down the road, Adam and Steve, are legally married? Oh the pain of it all. Come on. Get real. I bet that you would suffer half as much as those Atheists activists suffer when they see “In God We Trust” on their currency.

This isn't about "Adam and Steve" living down the road. This is about giving legal legitimacy to an aberrant minority. It's about catering to the ones who want to flaunt their homosexuality in your face. Adam and Steve are ALREADY living down the road, but I don't want to see it nor hear about it, and I damned sure don't want to her how their aberrant behavior is "normal," when it just plain isn't.

Anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. Years ago, I was teased and bullied for being too thin. I think that if someone of any class, race, religion, etc. thinks that he was a victim of a hate crime, he can bring charges and possibly win. Gay couples do not have equal rights. They do not have the same type of access to things that married couples have access to. Now, if you think that marriage being limited to heterosexuals constitutes equal rights for all, we simply agree to disagree on the definition of equal rights.

Baloney. You have a legal precedence in mind when stating "anyone can be victim of a hate crime"?

Gay couples have every right provided by the Constitution that I do. Those rights should not be altered to cater to aberrant behavior.

Amending a law to allow homosexuals to marry other homosexuals provides homosexuals with a special right that applies only to them. You would call that equal?

 

[mattskramer]

Marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples for the simple reason that heterosexuality is normal behavior while homosexual behavior is not.

Where have you been? I destroyed that old argument long ago. Normalcy is relative and practically irrelevant. Okay. Is it normal to smoke? Imagine rolling some dry leaves in a paper tube, lighting one end of the cylinder, and inhaling smoke from the other end – smoke that is understood to be toxic. Such behavior is not normal. It is not even healthy. Yet, should we outlaw it? Many behaviors are not normal but they are allowed. Is it normal to use an encyclopedia as a booster seat in the kitchen? Books were never intended to be used booster seats. Yet, if you have a child, a tall table, and small chairs but you do not have the proper tools with which to help a child reach the table, books seem to help.

There is the similar argument call “natural law”. There is the notion that we should not allow gay marriage because homosexual activity is not natural. Well, chemotherapy drugs and radiation treatment is not natural but such things seem to be good for cancer patients. Cancer – hmmm – it seems to be a natural part of the aging process. If one does not die of anything else, it is highly likely that he will develop cancer some day – if he lives to be 130.

Anyway, the old notion that we should not allow gay marriage because homosexual behavior is not natural or normal is full of holes.

This isn't about "Adam and Steve" living down the road. This is about giving legal legitimacy to an aberrant minority. It's about catering to the ones who want to flaunt their homosexuality in your face. Adam and Steve are ALREADY living down the road, but I don't want to see it nor hear about it, and I damned sure don't want to her how their aberrant behavior is "normal," when it just plain isn't.

Awwww. You poor child. May I suggest that you put cotton in your ears and wear blinders? There are many things that I see in the neighborhood that I don’t like. There are things I find that I think should be illegal. As I said before, just because something is legal or illegal does not mean that you must think of it as good or bad or right or wrong. What are your thoughts on abortion? It is legal so it must be okay. Right?

You have a legal precedence in mind when stating "anyone can be victim of a hate crime"?

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime.
The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797). In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list.

Again, I said that anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. People who hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestants can attack such people. The WASPs that were attacked would then be, by definition, victims of a hate crime.

Gay couples have every right provided by the Constitution that I do. Those rights should not be altered to cater to aberrant behavior.

Gay couples have every right provided by the Constitution that you as an unmarried individual do. A gay person does not have the same rights with respect to his partner as you would have with respect to your spouse.

Amending a law to allow homosexuals to marry other homosexuals provides homosexuals with a special right that applies only to them. You would call that equal?

Yes. I’ll explain. I think that people should have the right to marry the adult human being of their choice even if the people are of the same sex or opposite sex. Heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the people of their choice who, by definition, are people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are not allowed to get married to the people of their choice who, by definition, are people of the same sex. Therefore, if we amend the laws to allow for gay marriage, such would be the legal extension of equal rights.

 

[theHawk]

Hey maybe AIDS/HIV is natural selection at work. So gays are more likely to get the disease, that must mean nature is trying to weed them out. Why aren't our Darwinian Liberals embracing this as an example of EVOLUTION at work?

 

[sitarro]

Let homosexuals go to their favorite homosexual lawyer and set up a civil union, whatever, most people will take it for the farce that it is and will have as little respect for it as the "loving" couple does.

We, who care about the language, don't want stupid little groups perverting it anymore.......they don't get to use that word for what they want to do.

 

[007]

Please don't pull a "Pale Rider". Don't make it personal. I'm a happily married heterosexual. Also, I don't like anal sex. Still, I think that a man can enjoy anal sex and not be gay. Consider the "strap on” or simple anal play without there being deep penetration.

You are one sick mother ******* pervert.

Your arguements are so damn convoluted, mangled and bizzare, filled with utter nonsense, that I think at this point, you should feel extremely lucky that the good people of this board have shown you the curtesy to reply.

I won't put you ignore, because you're not enough of anything to deserve it. You're intellectually twisted, morally bankcrupt, and extremely perverted. I'll do my best to skip over anything you write here. It's painfully evident by now that none of what you have to say is WORTH reading. It's jibberish, psychobabble, and perverse.

 

[mattskramer]

Let homosexuals go to their favorite homosexual lawyer and set up a civil union, whatever, most people will take it for the farce that it is and will have as little respect for it as the "loving" couple does.

We, who care about the language, don't want stupid little groups perverting it anymore.......they don't get to use that word for what they want to do.

Please clarify your comment. Do you mean that you would be willing to compromise and allow for “Civil Unions” on a local or state level provided that the term “Marriage” is not used. If so, I think that I would settle for that too.

 

[sitarro]

Please clarify your comment. Do you mean that you would be willing to compromise and allow for “Civil Unions” on a local or state level provided that the term “Marriage” is not used. If so, I think that I would settle for that too.

I don't care, they already have the ability to go to a lawyer and have their property left to their cat. That won't be enough for them because that isn't what they want. This isn't about love or hospital visitation rights,that is a smoke screen, it is about acceptance of their lifestyle as equal to normal heteosexual lifestyles. They think that coercing people to allow them to Marry will make them feel better about themselves and force the normal population to accept what they do to each other. They also want it be easier for them to screw up the life of an impressionable young child by adopting them.

That is what I don't agree with.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't care, they already have the ability to go to a lawyer and have their property left to their cat. That won't be enough for them because that isn't what they want. This isn't about love or hospital visitation rights,that is a smoke screen, it is about acceptance of their lifestyle as equal to normal heteosexual lifestyles. They think that coercing people to allow them to Marry will make them feel better about themselves and force the normal population to accept what they do to each other. They also want it be easier for them to screw up the life of an impressionable young child by adopting them.

Okay. Though we may not agree on all of the facets of the "Gay marriage” debate, I think that we are getting somewhere on this. I see some compromise and some mutual understanding.

Technically, if you die without a will – in testate – there is a small difference in the way that your estate is treated. If you are married, a fair portion will go to your spouse. If you have been in a “gay relationship” (not recognized as a marriage or even as a civil union) it is highly likely that your partner will received nothing from the estate. Why should gay couples have remember to have a will to make sure that one partner receives part of the estate when the other partner dies, but married heterosexual couples need not have as much of a concern. I know that it is a small difference, but it is a difference that can be “equalized” by simply allowing for “Civil Unions”.

As I keep saying, laws can’t force people to think that certain things are right. I think that abortion laws, as they stand today, are wrong. Even if law establishes “gay marriage”, you don’t have to accept gay lifestyles and equal to heterosexual lifestyles. You are even free to speak out against it just as, today, people speak out in support of it.

Anyway, I guess that we agree to disagree. At least it is nice to see that you don’t care if we establish “civil unions”. I don’t know what the “gay community” really wants. If it wants total acceptance, I doubt that they will ever receive it, no matter what the laws say and I don’t really care. I doubt that laws change people’s hearts to any great extent. But, hey, civil unions are okay. I’d settle for that.

Adoption is another facet that we can address. I think that, with proper screening, many orphans would thrive better if they are moved into a loving and caring home run by a homosexual than if they are left in an orphanage. You may be surprised to read that I think that the ideal family for a child is one run by a happily married, responsible couple consisting of a man and a woman. If that is not available, a child may thrive in a home run by a happily “civil unionized” responsible couple consisting of two adults of the same sex - particularly if the homosexual couple is well screened. It would be worse, on average, to have a child live out his childhood in an orphanage.

 

[Gunny]

Where have you been? I destroyed that old argument long ago. Normalcy is relative and practically irrelevant. Okay. Is it normal to smoke? Imagine rolling some dry leaves in a paper tube, lighting one end of the cylinder, and inhaling smoke from the other end – smoke that is understood to be toxic. Such behavior is not normal. It is not even healthy. Yet, should we outlaw it? Many behaviors are not normal but they are allowed. Is it normal to use an encyclopedia as a booster seat in the kitchen? Books were never intended to be used booster seats. Yet, if you have a child, a tall table, and small chairs but you do not have the proper tools with which to help a child reach the table, books seem to help.

I have to wonder where YOU'VE been. While I've seen your argument on more than occasion, it destroys nothing.

Normal is not relative when it comes to biological function. There's normal, and abnormal. Hence, homosexuality, which performs no biological function, is abnormal.

You can throw twisted definitions and dishonest analogies out until pigs fly, and it STILL won't change actual fact.

There is the similar argument call “natural law”. There is the notion that we should not allow gay marriage because homosexual activity is not natural. Well, chemotherapy drugs and radiation treatment is not natural but such things seem to be good for cancer patients. Cancer – hmmm – it seems to be a natural part of the aging process. If one does not die of anything else, it is highly likely that he will develop cancer some day – if he lives to be 130.

Anyway, the old notion that we should not allow gay marriage because homosexual behavior is not natural or normal is full of holes.

No one, at least I am not saying homosexuality is not "good" fro homosexuals. That doesn't alter the fact that it is aberrant sexual behavior, plain and simple. The male and female of any given species is designed to perform a specific function where sex is concerned, and they are not designed to perform that function on the same gender. Pretty simple actually.

Trying to parallel abnormal behavior with medicine is just bullshit, dude.



Awwww. You poor child. May I suggest that you put cotton in your ears and wear blinders? There are many things that I see in the neighborhood that I don’t like. There are things I find that I think should be illegal. As I said before, just because something is legal or illegal does not mean that you must think of it as good or bad or right or wrong. What are your thoughts on abortion? It is legal so it must be okay. Right?

Ridiculous. Homosexuality is wrong. It's been pointed out to you by just about every member of this board, and legitimate reasons have been given' yet, you continue with your same old BS agument as if no one has said a thing.

We're all wasting our breath. YOUR cup runneth over.


Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime.
The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797). In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list.

Again, I said that anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. People who hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestants can attack such people. The WASPs that were attacked would then be, by definition, victims of a hate crime.

You can say what you like, and so can the law. Again, please show the legal precedent where a white male has been awarded anything as victim of a hate crime.

Using the law as your backup means nothing if that law is not enforced fairly, across the board; which, it is not.


Gay couples have every right provided by the Constitution that you as an unmarried individual do. A gay person does not have the same rights with respect to his partner as you would have with respect to your spouse.

Incorrect. The Constitution does not protect my rights, whatever they may be, as a married person. It protects my rights as an individual; which, are the same rights gays have.


Yes. I’ll explain. I think that people should have the right to marry the adult human being of their choice even if the people are of the same sex or opposite sex. Heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the people of their choice who, by definition, are people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are not allowed to get married to the people of their choice who, by definition, are people of the same sex. Therefore, if we amend the laws to allow for gay marriage, such would be the legal extension of equal rights.

The law does not allow ANYONE to marry the human being of their choice. It allows a man to marry a woman and vice-versa, period. We ALL have that right, equally.

 

[Gunny]

I don't care, they already have the ability to go to a lawyer and have their property left to their cat. That won't be enough for them because that isn't what they want. This isn't about love or hospital visitation rights,that is a smoke screen, it is about acceptance of their lifestyle as equal to normal heteosexual lifestyles. They think that coercing people to allow them to Marry will make them feel better about themselves and force the normal population to accept what they do to each other. They also want it be easier for them to screw up the life of an impressionable young child by adopting them.

That is what I don't agree with.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sitarro again

.

Well-said.

 

[mattskramer]

Normal is not relative when it comes to biological function. There's normal, and abnormal. Hence, homosexuality, which performs no biological function, is abnormal.

Just because something is abnormal is not a reason to outlaw it. Also, one need not outlaw a thing, condition, or behavior just because it performs no biological function. Choosing to not have children serves no biological function. Are we to force couples to have children? My small toe serves no useful purpose. Are we to remove it? Doing handstands serves no biological purpose though some people like to do handstands. Are we to outlaw such abnormal, unnatural, activity that performs no biological function?

Keep trying.

… it is aberrant sexual behavior, plain and simple. The male and female of any given species is designed to perform a specific function where sex is concerned, and they are not designed to perform that function on the same gender. Pretty simple actually.

For the first sentence – so what? For the second sentence - just what is that function – procreation. Is sexual activity to be limited to child production? Let’s say goodbye to oral sex, masturbation, and all other forms of sex. Oh, I bet that those heterosexual couples that can’t have kids are throwing a fit about your comment. LOL. Besides, so what if those body parts are not "designed" to perform that function on the same gender?

Trying to parallel abnormal behavior with medicine is just bullshit, dude.

LOL. Oh, nice logical rebuttal. LOL. No. It is not bullshit. It is a sound parallel. That which is natural is simply that which is. Mother nature is no determinant of what is right or wrong or good or bad. It is as simple as that.

Ridiculous. Homosexuality is wrong. It's been pointed out to you by just about every member of this board, and legitimate reasons have been given' yet, you continue with your same old BS agument as if no one has said a thing.

Wrong again. Oh, I get irrelevant comments from different members. I get leaps in logic. Unsubstantiated claims and opinions. I also get more than my share of name-calling. One person, I forget who, made the comment that he thought that gays should not be allowed to get married because, no gay couple would ever be able to produce a child on their own while, except for rare exceptions, heterosexual couples can have children. I thought that it was an insignificant point. Even taking that into consideration, I still think that civil unions should be allowed.

You can say what you like, and so can the law. Again, please show the legal precedent where a white male has been awarded anything as victim of a hate crime. Using the law as your backup means nothing if that law is not enforced fairly, across the board; which, it is not.

I’m not aware of any complaint having been made by a white male. Nor am I aware of any corresponding award being given. I answered the question to the extent that the law exists and that charges are allowed. As far as “bean counting” goes, I don’t know the statistics. As time and interest allows, I might do some research.

The Constitution does not protect my rights, whatever they may be, as a married person. It protects my rights as an individual; which, are the same rights gays have.

You are correct in that individual-to-individual, gays have the same rights that you have. Yet, consenting adults should be allowed to get married to the adults of their choice regardless of the other peoples’ sex. The law allows special consideration for married couples. Since marriage is only allowed for people of the opposite sex, gay couples are not provided this consideration.

The law does not allow ANYONE to marry the human being of their choice. It allows a man to marry a woman and vice-versa, period. We ALL have that right, equally.

I agree and I think that the law should be changed.

 

[Gunny]

Just because something is abnormal is not a reason to outlaw it. Also, one need not outlaw a thing, condition, or behavior just because it performs no biological function. Choosing to not have children serves no biological function. Are we to force couples to have children? My small toe serves no useful purpose. Are we to remove it? Doing handstands serves no biological purpose though some people like to do handstands. Are we to outlaw such abnormal, unnatural, activity that performs no biological function?

Keep trying.

Nothing to try. You're just blowing air, attempting to dishonestly literalize, as usual. I don't recall suggesting outlawing anything.

I suggest YOU quit trying. You just make yourself look like a fool.



For the first sentence – so what? For the second sentence - just what is that function – procreation. Is sexual activity to be limited to child production? Let’s say goodbye to oral sex, masturbation, and all other forms of sex. Oh, I bet that those heterosexual couples that can’t have kids are throwing a fit about your comment. LOL. Besides, so what if those body parts are not "designed" to perform that function on the same gender?

Not even a good deflection. "So what?" is in response to YOUR continual attempts to passm off abnormal as normal. Just a response. Don't make a statement or as a question if you can't handle the response any better than this.


LOL. Oh, nice logical rebuttal. LOL. No. It is not bullshit. It is a sound parallel. That which is natural is simply that which is. Mother nature is no determinant of what is right or wrong or good or bad. It is as simple as that.

Bullshit. Medicine serves mankind. Homosexuality serves nothing but individual, deviant, sexual gratification.


Wrong again. Oh, I get irrelevant comments from different members. I get leaps in logic. Unsubstantiated claims and opinions. I also get more than my share of name-calling. One person, I forget who, made the comment that he thought that gays should not be allowed to get married because, no gay couple would ever be able to produce a child on their own while, except for rare exceptions, heterosexual couples can have children. I thought that it was an insignificant point. Even taking that into consideration, I still think that civil unions should be allowed.

I'm not wrong. "Unsubstantiated claims and opinions." The same thing YOU throw out. Your literalizing to suit your argument does not somehow make it any more legitimate.
I’m not aware of any complaint having been made by a white male. Nor am I aware of any corresponding award being given. I answered the question to the extent that the law exists and that charges are allowed. As far as “bean counting” goes, I don’t know the statistics. As time and interest allows, I might do some research.

Then don't make the statement that "anyone can," when "anyone" CAN'T.

You are correct in that individual-to-individual, gays have the same rights that you have. Yet, consenting adults should be allowed to get married to the adults of their choice regardless of the other peoples’ sex. The law allows special consideration for married couples. Since marriage is only allowed for people of the opposite sex, gay couples are not provided this consideration.

And again, marriage is allowed for people of the opposite sex because it is a NATURAL, normal relationship. Homosexuality is not.

And again, laws should not be altered nor invented to cater specifically to aberrant minorities when they suit the majority just fine.


I agree and I think that the law should be changed.

You are wrong in wanting to change laws to cater to aberrant minorites. What law is next? Duck-fuckers? And there ALWAYS is a "next" law. This whole issue began with allowing the cretins to come out of the closet to begin with.

WHERE exactly, does it stop?

 

[Otter_Creek]

What law is next? Duck-fuckers? And there ALWAYS is a "next" law.

We've sadly had proof of just this very thing slipping up on society for quite some time now.
Just listen to this song, you'll hear what I mean....
(windows media or compatable)

Dial up speed: http://www.bobrivers.com/asx/TT_1026_1.asx

Higher speeds:http://www.bobrivers.com/asx/TT_1026_2.asx

 

[mattskramer]

Nothing to try. You're just blowing air, attempting to dishonestly literalize, as usual. I don't recall suggesting outlawing anything..

Then clarify for me. Be as specific as you can be. What was your point in saying that There's normal, and abnormal. Hence, homosexuality, which performs no biological function, is abnormal. For the sake of argument, I’ll say that homosexuality is abnormal. So is the wearing of plaid pants with striped shirts and polka-dot ties. What is your point if it is not that abnormal behavior that serves no biological function should be outlawed? What can you tell me about oral sex? Would you consider it to be abnormal and performs no biological function? If so, what should we do about it?

Not even a good deflection. "So what?" is in response to YOUR continual attempts to passm off abnormal as normal. Just a response. Don't make a statement or as a question if you can't handle the response any better than this.

Okay. I’ll spell it out for you. You said … it is aberrant sexual behavior, plain and simple I ask you as clearly as I can why that comment is important. Assuming that homosexuality is aberrant, should it be outlawed for that reason? Should gay marriage be denied for that reason? Just because something deviates from the norm or expected is not a reason to outlaw it. See my later comments in this post. Many things may be classified as aberrant, and even unhealthy, but they are still allowed.
You said, The male and female of any given species is designed to perform a specific function where sex is concerned, and they are not designed to perform that function on the same gender. Who said that we must strictly use things for what they were supposedly designed? An encyclopedia was not designed to be a booster seat but it can serve as one. The penis was not designed for “oral sex” but is it not to be used for such? Are you advocating that we outlaw oral sex?!? Does that help you understand my question of “So what”?

Bullshit. Medicine serves mankind. Homosexuality serves nothing but individual, deviant, sexual gratification.

Clarify your point. Activities serve different segments of society in one way or another for one reason or another. Otherwise they would not be done. Again, you seem to prove my point that practically everything is relative. How does baseball serve mankind? Does it serve a biological purpose? Does it produce babies? Consider the brutal sport of boxing. People get hurt when they engage in that activity but it is allowed. It is all a matter of degrees. Consider the activity of oral sex or mutual masturbation. Those activities alone won’t produce a baby. They serve nothing but individual sexual gratification. What about fetishes – pornography, dominatrix, bondage, sadomasochism and other activities? They serve nothing but individual deviant sexual gratification. Therefore, should they be outlawed?

I'm not wrong. "Unsubstantiated claims and opinions." The same thing YOU throw out. Your literalizing to suit your argument does not somehow make it any more legitimate.

You are wrong. I have clearly and soundly, through logic and reason, refuted every argument that has been given by people opposing gay marriage. I have even given reasons why gay marriage might benefit society. I have replied to hype and emotion laden rhetoric with calm and cool statements. I have responded to every single angle opposing gay marriage that was thrown at me.

There was only 1 point that was made for which I could not provide an good rebuttal. I still think that it is an insignificant point. Gays will never be able to produce a child on their own. Yet, with few exceptions, heterosexual couples can produce a child on their own. That is the ONLY point to which I don’t have a counter-point except to say that, all things considered, I don’t think that it is a significant issue.

Then don't make the statement that "anyone can," when "anyone" CAN'T.

Anyone can file a claim for a hate crime just as anyone can file a lawsuit. I simply don’t know if any white male has filed such a claim.

And again, marriage is allowed for people of the opposite sex because it is a NATURAL, normal relationship. Homosexuality is not. And again, laws should not be altered nor invented to cater specifically to aberrant minorities when they suit the majority just fine.

Again, natural law makes a fallacious argument. See
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

Mother nature does not tell us what is right or wrong. She does not tell us what is good or bad. She merely tells us what naturally exists. Floods are natural and they can hit good people just as easily as they can hit bad people. Should we use artificial means to attempt to prevent floods or should we let nature run its course?

What is natural about smoking? It is not only unnatural but it is also unhealthy. Yet, we allow it. Does it serve mankind? Well, it does serve smokers who seem to enjoy cigarettes. Aspirin is not natural. It is not even necessary for survival but is serves a portion of the population that has headaches. Skydiving is not natural. It serves no biological function. Yet we allow it, perhaps, because it serves that part of mankind that likes to skydive. Gay marriage or civil unions would serve that small portion of the population that wants committed relations with people of the same sex and receive, as a couple, all of the benefits that married heterosexuals receive.

What law is next? Duck-fuckers? And there ALWAYS is a "next" law. This whole issue began with allowing the cretins to come out of the closet to begin with.

WHERE exactly, does it stop?

Well, I suppose that you are right about some things. There is always the next law. Let us look at history: See
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12375res20040713.html

At various times in the past, marriage has meant something different than what it means today: Marriage used to be a forced union of two individuals for economic or political gain, but now it is a free choice of two people who love each other. Women who married used to lose all ability to act for themselves, instead becoming the property of their husbands, while now wives are not property but can act independently. Marriage used to be restricted along racial and religious lines, while now people of different races and religions are free to marry. Marriage used to be a permanent bond from which there was no escape, but now we allow divorce. In short, what has remained constant about marriage is that it is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise.

http://www.lcr-mi.org/gaymarriage.htm

If marriage had not changed throughout human history - An adult man would be allowed to marry a 12 year-old girl. Someone could be forced into a marriage arranged by their parents. A person would not be allowed to marry someone of another race. Men could treat their wives as property to be disposed of at will. A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives. A person could not marry someone of a different religion. A person could not marry someone from a different economic class. It would be impossible to divorce, no matter how physically or emotionally abusive your spouse.

Now, I think that there should be limits to contain behaviors. There are understood limits to the first amendment. I can’t fully practice my religion in America if it calls for human child sacrifice. The issue is not whether or not to allow people to do everything. The issue is where to draw the line. As for duck *******, I don’t think that such behavior should be allowed since ducks can’t give informed consent. Yet, worse things have been done to ducks. As I said, there are very few absolutes. Issues are so relative and views are so subjective. There is so little “rhyme or reason”. We put electrodes in monkeys for scientific experiments. We slice open frogs in high school biology classes. We pierce fish mouths and play tug-of-war with fish via a fishing line. Yet, if we drop cats from the tops of tall buildings, we can be arrested for cruelty to animals.

 

[Gunny]

Then clarify for me. Be as specific as you can be. What was your point in saying that There's normal, and abnormal. Hence, homosexuality, which performs no biological function, is abnormal. For the sake of argument, I’ll say that homosexuality is abnormal. So is the wearing of plaid pants with striped shirts and polka-dot ties. What is your point if it is not that abnormal behavior that serves no biological function should be outlawed? What can you tell me about oral sex? Would you consider it to be abnormal and performs no biological function? If so, what should we do about it?

I'm saying that one can be homosexual, or wear stripes with polka dots and be abnormal. That doesn't make it against the law. Neither should laws be enacted that specifically cater to those abnormalities.


Okay. I’ll spell it out for you. You said … it is aberrant sexual behavior, plain and simple I ask you as clearly as I can why that comment is important. Assuming that homosexuality is aberrant, should it be outlawed for that reason? Should gay marriage be denied for that reason? Just because something deviates from the norm or expected is not a reason to outlaw it. See my later comments in this post. Many things may be classified as aberrant, and even unhealthy, but they are still allowed.
You said, The male and female of any given species is designed to perform a specific function where sex is concerned, and they are not designed to perform that function on the same gender. Who said that we must strictly use things for what they were supposedly designed? An encyclopedia was not designed to be a booster seat but it can serve as one. The penis was not designed for “oral sex” but is it not to be used for such? Are you advocating that we outlaw oral sex?!? Does that help you understand my question of “So what”?

You're kidding, right? Mr Ultra-literalist all of a sudden wants to say things don't necessarily have to be used for what they are designed for? GMAFB.

I didn't say they did. I used it as an example of abnormalcy. Refer to my last response to address the rest of your paragraph.

I also explained myself to which you replied "So what." Well, backatcha. My EXACT response to your lack of concern for the destruction of morality in thi ssociety. Just because you could give a rat's ass what's going on around you or in which direction the society in which you live is heading, doesn't mean others don't.

Clarify your point. Activities serve different segments of society in one way or another for one reason or another. Otherwise they would not be done. Again, you seem to prove my point that practically everything is relative. How does baseball serve mankind? Does it serve a biological purpose? Does it produce babies? Consider the brutal sport of boxing. People get hurt when they engage in that activity but it is allowed. It is all a matter of degrees. Consider the activity of oral sex or mutual masturbation. Those activities alone won’t produce a baby. They serve nothing but individual sexual gratification. What about fetishes – pornography, dominatrix, bondage, sadomasochism and other activities? They serve nothing but individual deviant sexual gratification. Therefore, should they be outlawed?

You're just grasping arbitrarily at straws now. Baseball players, boxers and/or practitioners of oral sex are not trying to have specific laws cater to their behavior.

You are wrong. I have clearly and soundly, through logic and reason, refuted every argument that has been given by people opposing gay marriage. I have even given reasons why gay marriage might benefit society. I have replied to hype and emotion laden rhetoric with calm and cool statements. I have responded to every single angle opposing gay marriage that was thrown at me.

Hate to break it to you (as in, don't look now) but ...NOT. Not even close. If you call dishonest literalization, deflections and outright fantasy "logic and reason," I guess you're right. Otherwise, you haven't defeated anyone I've ever seen.

You've frustrated people with your wordsmithing games and made them quit bothering to respond to you, but little more.

There was only 1 point that was made for which I could not provide an good rebuttal. I still think that it is an insignificant point. Gays will never be able to produce a child on their own. Yet, with few exceptions, heterosexual couples can produce a child on their own. That is the ONLY point to which I don’t have a counter-point except to say that, all things considered, I don’t think that it is a significant issue.

I've never used that as a reason in my argument.

Anyone can file a claim for a hate crime just as anyone can file a lawsuit. I simply don’t know if any white male has filed such a claim.

Anyone can apply to the United Negro College Fund for a grant too, but guess what you ain't going to get if you ain't black.


Again, natural law makes a fallacious argument. See
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

Mother nature does not tell us what is right or wrong. She does not tell us what is good or bad. She merely tells us what naturally exists. Floods are natural and they can hit good people just as easily as they can hit bad people. Should we use artificial means to attempt to prevent floods or should we let nature run its course?

What is natural about smoking? It is not only unnatural but it is also unhealthy. Yet, we allow it. Does it serve mankind? Well, it does serve smokers who seem to enjoy cigarettes. Aspirin is not natural. It is not even necessary for survival but is serves a portion of the population that has headaches. Skydiving is not natural. It serves no biological function. Yet we allow it, perhaps, because it serves that part of mankind that likes to skydive. Gay marriage or civil unions would serve that small portion of the population that wants committed relations with people of the same sex and receive, as a couple, all of the benefits that married heterosexuals receive.

Again, grasping arbitrarily at straws that serve no purpose to this argument and making dishonest, irrelevant comparisons. BTW ... aspirin IS natural. It's white willow bark. Look it up.

If gay marriage offends the majority, who do not wish special laws enacted taht cater to aberrant behavior, it is the majority's right to vote to enact laws that do not legitimize by law such behavior.


Well, I suppose that you are right about some things. There is always the next law. Let us look at history: See
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12375res20040713.html

At various times in the past, marriage has meant something different than what it means today: Marriage used to be a forced union of two individuals for economic or political gain, but now it is a free choice of two people who love each other. Women who married used to lose all ability to act for themselves, instead becoming the property of their husbands, while now wives are not property but can act independently. Marriage used to be restricted along racial and religious lines, while now people of different races and religions are free to marry. Marriage used to be a permanent bond from which there was no escape, but now we allow divorce. In short, what has remained constant about marriage is that it is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise.

http://www.lcr-mi.org/gaymarriage.htm

If marriage had not changed throughout human history - An adult man would be allowed to marry a 12 year-old girl. Someone could be forced into a marriage arranged by their parents. A person would not be allowed to marry someone of another race. Men could treat their wives as property to be disposed of at will. A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives. A person could not marry someone of a different religion. A person could not marry someone from a different economic class. It would be impossible to divorce, no matter how physically or emotionally abusive your spouse.

Now, I think that there should be limits to contain behaviors. There are understood limits to the first amendment. I can’t fully practice my religion in America if it calls for human child sacrifice. The issue is not whether or not to allow people to do everything. The issue is where to draw the line. As for duck *******, I don’t think that such behavior should be allowed since ducks can’t give informed consent. Yet, worse things have been done to ducks. As I said, there are very few absolutes. Issues are so relative and views are so subjective. There is so little “rhyme or reason”. We put electrodes in monkeys for scientific experiments. We slice open frogs in high school biology classes. We pierce fish mouths and play tug-of-war with fish via a fishing line. Yet, if we drop cats from the tops of tall buildings, we can be arrested for cruelty to animals.

Well guess what, Einstein, you finally sais something I can agree with. There should be limits to contain behaviors.

I think you just lost your argument at your own hand.:chains:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The issue is where to draw the line. As for duck *******, I don’t think that such behavior should be allowed since ducks can’t give informed consent. .

Ok. What about a retarded girl who can only squeal and say "**** me"? Is that your idea of a hot date?