The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, whose goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

 

[bodecea]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others. How hard is that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not. Bodecea, you will find the least of the far right crowd, Where R, has appeared. I intend to go about my other chores tonight since he understands neither Revelation 3 nor Peter. Let him stumble about and see where he goes.

 

[Redfish]

Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.

Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.

The USA has had marriage equality for years. A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.

A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.

 

[Redfish]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others. How hard is that?

Gay marriage harms society by putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.

Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.

The USA has had marriage equality for years. A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.

A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.

You don't speak for the legislature or for God.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gay marriage harms society by putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.

Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others. How hard is that?

Gay marriage harms society by putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.

Incorrect.

That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, it in no way justifies denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

 

[Carla_Danger]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others. How hard is that?

Gay marriage harms society by putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.

If you don't like it, don't it. How hard is that?

 

[GreenBean]

The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene. There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Pathology of Homosexuality

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Here's some stuff for thought:
How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology. It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ? Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella

- The True.Origin Archive -

Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?

I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility. The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to - if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?

And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .

What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment. I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.

Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming. What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance. For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically).

Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene". It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies. The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:​

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).​

In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). ​

However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:

Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR

Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.​

Can some gay people change their orientation? Apparently. But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.

What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation

One major study I am aware of looked for associations re :transmission of homosexuality via the maternal side . They found a inordinate amount of queer brothers that shared the same DNA "markers,"on the X chromosome. They claim the possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance - which was about 1 in 10M .

The study was conducted by Gene Hammer - a geneticist and a propagandist which is evidenced by his films and campaigns re: HIV and AIDS. He has produced a number of propaganda films for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender perverts - it is not known if he himself is a pervert or just a useful idiot.

No qualified researcher has dared to challenge his findings -at least not publicly anyway - it is an unwritten law in the scientific community that "Thou shalt not speak out against LGBT" under penalty of Academic Death. Nor have very many endorsed his findings or has any qualified researcher been able to duplicate them.

The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

They were only tracked for 5 years in most cases - the success rates are comparable to that of substance abusers - naturally there are relapses.

The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.

Don't even go there the APA is not a Scientific organization - it is a laughing stock that lost any vestiges of credibility long ago - it has even been censured by the US congress.

Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association and one of the people who led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness speaking to an audience of fellow professionals in 2005, stated the profession of Mental Health, psychology, psychiatry is dominated by social-activist groups. Dr. Cummings stated that he has had a life long commitment to promoting diversity, and has been appalled to see activists commandeer organizations such as the APA to further their own social agenda.

As per Dr. Cummings, when the APA conducts research, they do so only "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only predictably favorable outcomes are permissible."

Dr. Rogers Wright - co author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm

stated that "psychology has been ultra-liberal" Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," he offered a tediously referenced description of ethics and morals breeches in recent legal cases that have led to landmark changes in family-law policy.

Dr. Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has stated said that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is one group which has been highly critical of the APA and it's perversion of the Truth. [See: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...y-disorder-from-dsm-v-on-janet-mefford-show/]

 

[GreenBean]

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Here's some stuff for thought:
How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology. It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ? Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella

- The True.Origin Archive -

Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?

I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility. The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to - if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?

And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .

What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment. I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.

Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming. What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance. For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically).

Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene". It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies. The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:​

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).​

In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). ​

However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:

Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR

Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.​

Can some gay people change their orientation? Apparently. But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.

What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation

One major study I am aware of looked for associations re :transmission of homosexuality via the maternal side . They found a inordinate amount of queer brothers that shared the same DNA "markers,"on the X chromosome. They claim the possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance - which was about 1 in 10M .

The study was conducted by Gene Hammer - a geneticist and a propagandist which is evidenced by his films and campaigns re: HIV and AIDS. He has produced a number of propaganda films for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender perverts - it is not known if he himself is a pervert or just a useful idiot.

No qualified researcher has dared to challenge his findings -at least not publicly anyway - it is an unwritten law in the scientific community that "Thou shalt not speak out against LGBT" under penalty of Academic Death. Nor have very many endorsed his findings or has any qualified researcher been able to duplicate them.

The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

They were only tracked for 5 years in most cases - the success rates are comparable to that of substance abusers - naturally there are relapses.

The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.

Don't even go there the APA is not a Scientific organization - it is a laughing stock that lost any vestiges of credibility long ago - it has even been censured by the US congress.

Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association and one of the people who led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness speaking to an audience of fellow professionals in 2005, stated the profession of Mental Health, psychology, psychiatry is dominated by social-activist groups. Dr. Cummings stated that he has had a life long commitment to promoting diversity, and has been appalled to see activists commandeer organizations such as the APA to further their own social agenda.

As per Dr. Cummings, when the APA conducts research, they do so only "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only predictably favorable outcomes are permissible."

Dr. Rogers Wright - co author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm

stated that "psychology has been ultra-liberal" Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," he offered a tediously referenced description of ethics and morals breeches in recent legal cases that have led to landmark changes in family-law policy.

Dr. Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has stated said that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is one group which has been highly critical of the APA and it's perversion of the Truth. [See: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...y-disorder-from-dsm-v-on-janet-mefford-show/]

Yo Coyote ! - you never answered the question

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 193 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'll take your non reply as a Yes ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yo, right wing sillies: does not matter whether genetic or choice.

Don't mattah none, you all.

Only the 14th matters.

And guess what?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Incorrect.

That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective...

That is LUDICROUS!

There is no more objective standard than the standard of the human physiological design.

That design provides that the human sexuality norm is comprised of two complimenting genders.

Not only does Homosexuality DEVIATE FROM THAT NORM: IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THE NORM AS IS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE SEXUALITY SUBJECT IS CONTAINED TO "HUMAN BEINGS".

In fact: Hetero-sexual pedophilia is LITERALLY a smaller deviation from that standard than homosexuality.

Therefore, Homosexuality is a FAR greater indicator of sexual abnormality, and that homosexual pedophilia is so massively disproportionate than hetero-sexual pedophilia, demonstrates such PERFECTLY.

Setting to lie, the APA 'feelings' that homosexuality is not a function of a mental disorder, as it is the purest presentation of precisely that.

 

[Seawytch]

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse. The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.

Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.

See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.

Mark

It hasn't sunk in yet that the same method they used for interpreting the 14th Amendment to protect gay marriage will also be used with not dissimilar methods to protect pedophilia and just about anything else. It's a recipe for anarchy to apply such myopic exegesis to the Constitution as to render it a document that allows just about anything, rather than a document that limits the power of government in our lives and protects a few essential rights.

So you don't understand that they can make that argument with or without gays? Either they have a valid argument or they don't, gays have nothing to do with it.

Did you know that when the 14th was written, there was a guy that tried to stop it because he was sure it would lead to interracial marriage becoming legal?

Again, gays have been marrying for over a decade. Are siblings marrying? Is the age of consent being lowered? Where is this "slippery slope" you're sure is going to happen?

 

[Seawytch]

You go first, stop advocating your views. Then talk.

People aren't allowed to advocate their views now? Or only uppity gays?

She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views. I keep saying fine, you go first. And you ask me that question?

Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.

No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)

strawman

What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?

That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".

 

[Seawytch]

Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?

The current prevailing wisdom when it comes to intersexed children (hermaphrodite is not used anymore) is to wait to allow their sexuality to develop before any surgeries are performed. It used to be doctors would just cut...and then the child would grow up and end up being gay because they lopped the wrong parts.

 

[kaz]

People aren't allowed to advocate their views now? Or only uppity gays?

She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views. I keep saying fine, you go first. And you ask me that question?

Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.

No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)

strawman

What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?

That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".

Strawman.

They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.

They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often. You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?" I never said that nor anything like it. So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.

You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question. Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.

In both cases, you ignored what I actually said. Then you whine I don't address your non-response. You want an actual response from me? Give me an actual response to my point.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

 

[Seawytch]

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

"the person they love" seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.

If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.

Anyone that limits them is a bigot.

Mark

Do you fall in love with more than one woman at a time or do you limit yourself to just one? Why do you think that just because someone is bisexual that they will automatically fall in love with both sexes simultaneously?

Current marriage law does not allow for more than one spouse. If you believe that should change, I wish you luck with your struggle.

 

[Seawytch]

She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views. I keep saying fine, you go first. And you ask me that question?

Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.

No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)

strawman

What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?

That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".

Strawman.

They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.

They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often. You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?" I never said that nor anything like it. So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.

You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question. Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.

In both cases, you ignored what I actually said. Then you whine I don't address your non-response. You want an actual response from me? Give me an actual response to my point.

I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.