SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Statistikhengst]

And we have children too. But if you are so afraid that the species will not continue with legalized gay marriage....you've got some serious knowledge gaps to tackle.

The species of homo sapien will endure, though significantly devolved by the absolute and total lack of any morality, values, or understanding of the Tranditional Way of Human Life. So, in fact, it would be better for the homo sapien to become extinct than to allow this to happen.

Fortunately for us, we don't have to be subject to your personal death wish.

Homo Sapiens will do just fine without the likes of you in the future, thank you very much.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

It's a RWNJ obsession.

 

[g5000]

Aw, Christ. Are the retards blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on fags again?

Homosexuality was accepted from the very beginning by Romans. Some of the early emperors were openly gay. So by Tard Logic™ it took homos over 800 years to bring down the Empire.

The clock has started ticking, homos! You now have only eight centuries to take down Merka!

 

[Katzndogz]

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

 

[Katzndogz]

Aw, Christ. Are the retards blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on fags again?

Homosexuality was accepted from the very beginning by Romans. Some of the early emperors were openly gay. So by Tard Logic™ it took homos over 800 years to bring down the Empire.

The clock has started ticking, homos! You now have only eight centuries to take down Merka!

Oh it won't take that long.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

They don't go into season because sex is not a purely reproductive activity for humans. Biologically humans are designed for non-reproductive sex, and the satisfaction and pleasure they get from it is normal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the Middle Ages it was widely believed that the sin of sodomy included ANY kind of sex that was done for anything other than reproduction.

I don't see civilization going back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

And you are going to be a heterophobe.

 

[deltex1]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Is your chosen religion a lifestyle choice?

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

But several of your fellow gays and lesbians earlier said in this thread that homosexuality was a choice. So which is it?

 

[Syriusly]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to **** him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

 

[Syriusly]

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

 

[Seawytch]

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

But several of your fellow gays and lesbians earlier said in this thread that homosexuality was a choice. So which is it?

Really? Who? Who said they chose to be attracted to someone of the same sex?

When did you choose?

 

[Syriusly]

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species. .

Most people are sexually attracted to the opposite gender, some are not sexually attracted to any gender and some are attracted to the same gender.
Those are the facts.

Now you just have to explain why you want to discriminate based upon those facts.

 

[deltex1]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to **** him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

 

[bodecea]

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

 

[Redfish]

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.

But, since you asked what I think. I think that in most cases homosexuality is a choice. In a very small % it may be a genetic abnormality. Either way, its an abnormal human condition and should not be sanctioned as normal.

 

[bodecea]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to **** him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to **** him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

I don't think anyone should be forced to marry anyone else..........even tho that is a thousand year + tradition.

 

[Redfish]

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

Right, and you are here to tell us that its normal for a human female to have the urge to mate with another human female?

Geez, just accept that you have an illness and seek treatment.

 

[Syriusly]

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.l.

I am not- my position is pretty straight forward- really its immaterial.
Completely irrelevant whether someone's sexual orientation is a choice or something that is innate.

Why do you think it is relevant- and why do you think that justifies discrimination?