The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

We have "redefined marriage" before. In my own lifetime, in fact. There were states who defined marriage as the union of two people of the same race.

The argument of "traditional marriage" doesn't hold water for many reasons. First, the Bible has quite a few versions of marriage. Polygamy and concubines are all over the Good Book.

Secondly, "we've always done it that way" is the last argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression. "We've always had slaves. There were slaves in the bible." Blah blah blah.

Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another. The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority. Simple as that.

The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".

How true.

 

[bodecea]

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

No, it cannot, as that standard is irrelevant to coupling of the same gender, because:

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.​

Maybe your religious definition of marriage but for most of the U.S. and in many countries now.....not exclusive to one man and one woman any more.

Note: Did you know that it's still a legal marriage if one man and one woman and they never have sex? (Marriages of convenience)

 

[bodecea]

Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.


20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.

Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.

The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.

Deflection.
Do you have anything else to add? I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.

Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile. Thanks for playing.

Oh, and yes he was.
Anti-gay group calls for boycott of Harvey Milk stamp MSNBC
Thanks for failing.

Nope. He was not a pedophile. Nice try spreading a lie.

 

[bodecea]

We disagree. its OK to disagree. thats why we vote

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

bullshit, rights are established by voting. the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.

but since you know so much about 'rights" quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"

Oh? No natural rights for you?

 

[kaz]

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.

So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up. I reject that as the crap that it is. I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds. Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play. But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be. That to me is a huge win every time it happens.

If one feels strongly about something, they do something about it. You just like to kvetch?

Begging the question

I'll take that as a yes. Kvetch away.

Still begging the question. I answered your question in my post you quoted. You are free to acknowledge my answer, disagree with it and build on that, but if you just ignore my answer and repeat your assertion as truth, I will just call your post for what it is. Begging the question.

I put my answer in green this time to help you find it since you couldn't find it on your own.

 

[bodecea]

Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?

The State is Irrelevant from Marriage.

However, the community; defined as the sum of a free people who govern themselves... is entitled to establish policy which promotes a healthy, viability... thus where Marriage is recognized as being the core essential to a sound and viable culture, OKA: Civilization, it follows that the policies of such would tend to offer what incentives are available as a means to promote marriage.

Again... read it slowly, to give yourself the best chance to understand it. But when ya fail to do so, just go back to participating in threads which deal with issues within your intellectual means.

We are talking about legal marriage...who do you think gives out marriage licenses?

 

[Syriusly]

And I reiterate - Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria

That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.

And that is why they endanger children.

 

[Syriusly]

After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.

Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.

So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.

No matter how much such equations endangers children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here. You go on Iggy, buh bye.

In debate, an Ignore is admission of defeat.

 

[bodecea]

"A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

"A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".

Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".

Nobody is fooled here.

Abnormal =/= wrong. Sorry about that!

bullshit again, being left handed is abnormal, but its not wrong. Gays are not evil, they are sick.

It used to be considered so, and children were physically forced to go "right handed".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi has fumbled, stumbled, and bumbled along.

In every way, he is a match for Where R My Keys and st. mike.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a deviant with a malignant purpose would post "Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria"

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult? There is no discrimination whatsoever.

Because the right to marry the adult grownup you love is denied. Does not wash, The Rabbi.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The anti-marriage crew is brainwashed or mentally ill.

 

[bodecea]

We disagree. its OK to disagree. thats why we vote

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

bullshit, rights are established by voting. the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.

but since you know so much about 'rights" quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"

Rights are established where God endows those rights. Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT! Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal. Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.

What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.

Simple as that.

Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits? Serious question.

Simply not true by your own admission. The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.

You have a problem with a Public Assess law....the same kind of law that PROTECTS the religious from discrimination in public assess. IF you don't like PA laws, write your Congresscritter to get them changed.

 

[bodecea]

The anti-marriage crew is brainwashed or mentally ill.

And yet.....I have no desire to keep them from legalized marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Only a deviant with a malignant purpose would post "Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria"

Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing. Or even particularly, related, as almost all molesters of children are self identified heterosexual men.

 

[Skylar]

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

bullshit, rights are established by voting. the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.

but since you know so much about 'rights" quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"

Rights are established where God endows those rights. Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT! Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal. Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.

What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.

Simple as that.

Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits? Serious question.

Simply not true by your own admission. The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.

You have a problem with a Public Assess law....the same kind of law that PROTECTS the religious from discrimination in public assess. IF you don't like PA laws, write your Congresscritter to get them changed.

That's the part that many of the opponents of PA laws don't quite get. If a Christian can place their religious beliefs above civil law, so can any Muslim. Or Buddhist. And anyone can deny service to any Christian.

Shall we place Sharia law above civil law in the US? Because in a very real sense, that's what many Christian opponents of PA laws are arguing for.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

That is gender discrimination. UnConstitutional. Quite easy to shoot your argument down legally. Thank you for the "fish in the barrel" presentation.

 

[GreenBean]

And I reiterate - Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria

That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.

And that is why they endanger children.

Sorry Pal "Homophobic Bigots" a/k/a informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are.

Sorry again Buddy Boy "Homophobic Bigots" a/k/a informed free thinkers are not the ones enabling this to happen ignorant simple minded buffoons a/k/a Liberals are .