Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[Bullypulpit]

Bullshit. What's the point to playing cut and paste with unverified statistics? What does that prove? That you can type a word into a search engine?

You're just one of those typical libs that wants to smother the simple truth with a bunch of twisted, out of context BS.

Rather than smother the truth, you simply ignore it at your convenience.

 

[Gunny]

Sex with an animal and sex between two consenting adults regardless of gender are not, despite your puerile attempts to state otherwise, equivalent.

That homosexuality is not "normal" is nothing more than an opinion, and unless you have facts to support it, the argument does not stand.

Sticking your damned dick in where it doesn't belong is abnormal behavior, period. All attempts to portray it as anything else are bullshit.

And again, paragraph #2 is bullshit. The facts are real simple. All you have to do is compare genitalia of the respective genders, and the functions of each. Add to that the history of mankind, and I think it sums it up quite simply. Simple enough for even YOU to understand. You just don't want to.

 

[Gunny]

Rather than smother the truth, you simply ignore it at your convenience.

Fact is, YOU are the one ignoring fact and truth in favor so some bullshit argument attempting to pass off abnormal behavior as normal.

 

[mattskramer]

I see you haven't gotten a new argument. Smking cigarettes and drinking is legal, and accepted as normal behavior by the majority. Bobby pumping Billy in the butt is not.

So. I see that you don’t have a new argument. You merely gave an example of the “appeal to the people” falacy otherwise called the “argumentum ad populum”. Answer me this. If the majority ever disagrees with you on an issue, could the majority be wrong?

 

[dilloduck]

Sex with an animal and sex between two consenting adults regardless of gender are not, despite your puerile attempts to state otherwise, equivalent.

That homosexuality is not "normal" is nothing more than an opinion, and unless you have facts to support it, the argument does not stand.

What is your basis for calling homosexuality "normal"?

 

[mattskramer]

Because they arent traditional couples. They dont provide the same benefits traditional couples do. And because they are trying to force it on the people against their will. Thats called Tyranny. Although its not surprising that you support it.

Besides, even if the government granted same gender couples the ability to marry, they would not receieve the same privileges, rights, or responsibilities because the government cant give them the ability to create life together. You can only create life with a man and a woman.

Sheesh. This is so easy that it is getting boring. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Okay. What benefits do traditional couples provide that gay couples don’t provide – biological children?

First of all, have you ever heard of adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm banks?

Secondly, is every child a benefit to society? Consider the irresponsible parents who create baby after baby just to surrender it to the state because they are too poor or irresponsible to care for it. Consider the children who grow to be criminals or “public enemies”.

Thirdly, should couples who choose not to have children or couples who, due to some biological deficiency, can’t have children be allowed to get married?

The argument that gay couples should not get married because they supposedly don’t provide a societal benefit (biological children) is really one of the lamest arguments.

 

[mattskramer]

Your tired arguments hold no water. Basically all you are claiming is that gays should have "equal" rights through marriage. You actually give us no compelling reason why gays should have the "right" to marry. Marriage is basically about children and the family biological unit. Gays don't have biological children. On the other hand, polygamists actually do beget children....yet we don't give them the right to marry either. Have you any clue why not? Why should gays have marriage rights when polygamists don't?

Almost everything on that list can be obtained by gays via other routes that marriage. Since gays don't normally have children, they don't need to stay home to take care of the children, they can go to work and get their own SS. Regarding filing tax returns, haven't you ever heard of the marriage penalty? That is one BS list of grievances.

Most of what I hear from those who oppose gay marriage is “children children children”. Read message number 66 and come up with something new.

In addition:At least most of the items I listed do require, at the very least, civil unions for gays. Otherwise the gay couple must “jump through hoops” not required of my heterosexual married couples.

 

[MissileMan]

The only reason government recognizes marriage is because of procreation. Because it creates a benefit for society - The most stable environment to perpetuate the species.

If you think the goverment's involvement with marriage is anything other than financial, you're a fool. The goverment is involved only so they can charge couples for a marriage license and so they can have a legal definition of the relationship in case of divorce.

 

[MissileMan]

Bullshit. What's the point to playing cut and paste with unverified statistics? What does that prove? That you can type a word into a search engine?

You're just one of those typical libs that wants to smother the simple truth with a bunch of twisted, out of context BS.

Avatar stated as fact that homosexuality is something one isn't born with and can be changed. It's perfectly reasonable to ask him to support that claim because as far as I know, there is no concrete evidence either way.

 

[mattskramer]

The following is a rebuttal to that lame argument that if we allow civil unions for gay couples, we should allow people to marry farm animals. It can be attacked from several angles.

Other animals are not equal to people. Therefore they are not entitled to equal rights. Think for a moment. We put animals in cages so that people way observe them more easily (zoo). We force them to do tricks for the amusement and enjoyment of spectators (circus). We climb on their backs, prod them with our heels, and challenge them to throw us off (rodeo). We sedate them, put electrodes and probes in them, and force them to take experimental drugs and chemicals (research labs). We eat them. We even hunt them to mount them in our house as trophies.

Yet, there are things that people are not allowed to do with animals. They are not allowed to douse dogs with gasoline and throw lit matches on them to see how they respond. We are not allowed to throw animals from tall building to see what happens when they hit the ground. We are not allowed to tie pets up and abandon them to starvation. We even have government-supported organizations that will aid in arresting people who “mistreat” animals.

What should we be allowed to do with animals and what should we be prohibited from doing with animals – it is such a subjective question. Many societies, and even different people within the same society, have different opinions. Not long ago, the general consensus was that people from different races should not get married. Perhaps in the distant future, as time and experience strengthens our reasoning skills, we might conclude that people and sheep should be allowed to get married.

That being said, let us consider inter-species marriage. People get married for a variety of reasons. One reason is to receive the benefits of marriage that I previously mentioned. How can a farm animal:

· obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
· make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
· take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner;
· choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
· obtain domestic violence protective orders.

Some benefits simply don’t apply for animals that would be married to people.

Can’t you see that there are several differences between gay marriage and interspecies marriage? Yet, there is really only one difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. Gay couples can’t create a baby on their own – big deal.

Nice try but one simply can’t equate gay marriage with interspecies marriage.

 

[Dr Grump]

Bullshit. What's the point to playing cut and paste with unverified statistics? What does that prove? That you can type a word into a search engine?

You're just one of those typical libs that wants to smother the simple truth with a bunch of twisted, out of context BS.

For a start I ain't a lib. And I ain't a bigot either.... Homosexual behaviour is normal to those people. You have no right to impose your will on them. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. Since when does the "majority" opinion mean it is the right opinion.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What is your basis for calling homosexuality "normal"?

What is your basis for considering it abnormal? Homosexual behavior exists in nature, and exists within the human species as well. Many societies throughout history have recognized a "third" sex, i.e. homosexuals, and allowed them to live their lives as anyone else in those societies.

 

[Gunny]

So. I see that you don’t have a new argument. You merely gave an example of the “appeal to the people” falacy otherwise called the “argumentum ad populum”. Answer me this. If the majority ever disagrees with you on an issue, could the majority be wrong?

Being as my argument is superior to all the bullshit rhetoric you post, why should I get a new one?

Your last question is irrelevant. The majority is quite correct this time, backed by logic and common sense. Something you appear incabable of adding to your same-old, worn-out argument.

 

[Gunny]

Avatar stated as fact that homosexuality is something one isn't born with and can be changed. It's perfectly reasonable to ask him to support that claim because as far as I know, there is no concrete evidence either way.

And the opposition is stating the opposite; which, he has not backed by fact. Demanding someone provide evidence to support an opinion when they can't even support their own opinion to the contrary is pretty damned lame.

 

[Gunny]

The following is a rebuttal to that lame argument that if we allow civil unions for gay couples, we should allow people to marry farm animals. It can be attacked from several angles.

Other animals are not equal to people. Therefore they are not entitled to equal rights. Think for a moment. We put animals in cages so that people way observe them more easily (zoo). We force them to do tricks for the amusement and enjoyment of spectators (circus). We climb on their backs, prod them with our heels, and challenge them to throw us off (rodeo). We sedate them, put electrodes and probes in them, and force them to take experimental drugs and chemicals (research labs). We eat them. We even hunt them to mount them in our house as trophies.

Yet, there are things that people are not allowed to do with animals. They are not allowed to douse dogs with gasoline and throw lit matches on them to see how they respond. We are not allowed to throw animals from tall building to see what happens when they hit the ground. We are not allowed to tie pets up and abandon them to starvation. We even have government-supported organizations that will aid in arresting people who “mistreat” animals.

What should we be allowed to do with animals and what should we be prohibited from doing with animals – it is such a subjective question. Many societies, and even different people within the same society, have different opinions. Not long ago, the general consensus was that people from different races should not get married. Perhaps in the distant future, as time and experience strengthens our reasoning skills, we might conclude that people and sheep should be allowed to get married.

That being said, let us consider inter-species marriage. People get married for a variety of reasons. One reason is to receive the benefits of marriage that I previously mentioned. How can a farm animal:

· obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
· make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
· take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner;
· choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
· obtain domestic violence protective orders.

Some benefits simply don’t apply for animals that would be married to people.

Can’t you see that there are several differences between gay marriage and interspecies marriage? Yet, there is really only one difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. Gay couples can’t create a baby on their own – big deal.

Nice try but one simply can’t equate gay marriage with interspecies marriage.

Wow. Lookit all the bullshit. Sticking your crank in the wrong thing is sticking your crank in the wrong thing. What wrong thing it is is irrelevant.

 

[GotZoom]

What is your basis for considering it abnormal? Homosexual behavior exists in nature, and exists within the human species as well. Many societies throughout history have recognized a "third" sex, i.e. homosexuals, and allowed them to live their lives as anyone else in those societies.

If you are going to say that if a behavior exits in nature, then it is ok for humans, we're all in trouble.

 

[Gunny]

For a start I ain't a lib. And I ain't a bigot either.... Homosexual behaviour is normal to those people. You have no right to impose your will on them. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. Since when does the "majority" opinion mean it is the right opinion.

I do not believe I have ever imposed my will on a homosexual in regard to their sexual orientation. What they do in private isn't my concern. What they do in public IS, and society as a whole, not just I, has enforced its will on its inhabitants since the beginning of time.

With few exceptions, homosexuality has been considered abnormal behavior, even by societies that turned a blind eye to it, since the beginning of time.

The argument that it is "normal behavior to them" is pretty lame. There really is no argument. All facts. logic, common sense, and history point to the fact it is NOT normal behavior. I guess if you throw all that out the window, you might have a point.

 

[Gunny]

If you are going to say that if a behavior exits in nature, then it is ok for humans, we're all in trouble.

You mean my "fox in teh henhouse" routine is out?

It's a bogus argument. Animals do react to stimuli. They do not reason right from wrong. That is what is supposed to set us apart from them. Their behavior is not homosexual because their is no cognitive thought process telling them they want to have sex with bobby instead of suzy.

And unlike the weak, flawed humans that are allowed to permeate a society provided them by the strong, jacked-up in the head animals that can't mate with the opposite gender die off, and take their hosed-up genetics with them.

Not us. We allow them to adopt so they can raise a whole crop of little pole-smoking recruits.

 

[GotZoom]

You mean my "fox in teh henhouse" routine is out?

It's a bogus argument. Animals do react to stimuli. They do not reason right from wrong. That is what is supposed to set us apart from them. Their behavior is not homosexual because their is no cognitive thought process telling them they want to have sex with bobby instead of suzy.

And unlike the weak, flawed humans that are allowed to permeate a society provided them by the strong, jacked-up in the head animals that can't mate with the opposite gender die off, and take their hosed-up genetics with them.

Not us. We allow them to adopt so they can raise a whole crop of little pole-smoking recruits.

I'm thinking about animals that eat feces. This is something that happens all the time in nature.

I guess we need to start accepting this behaviour in humans now.

 

[Gunny]

I'm thinking about animals that eat feces. This is something that happens all the time in nature.

I guess we need to start accepting this behaviour in humans now.

Don't think they aren't out there and the same nimrods attempting to justify abnormal behavior now, will jump right on their bandwagon when they start screaming discrimination because it isn't served in 5 star restaurants.