The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

Mark

You want to get rid of those too, right?

So you're FOR Divorce?

LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.

I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?

I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.

Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.

80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.

 

[Iceweasel]

Exactly the same reasoning. Since both blacks and whites were prohibited from from marrying each other, the laws were 'equal'.

Alas, you need a valid basis for the restriction to exist to begin with. And such a reason exists in neither gay marriage bans nor interracial marriage bans.

Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.

Yes, and you are said evil.

(This is where it gets fun kids... what this 'trick'. Try it for yourself... it provides the means for them to demonstrate their intrinsic evil.)

How so?

It starts with the fact that you think you know what evil actually is. In your case that is anything you fear or that threatens your dogmatic worldview. I've seen it a million times. In no time at all you'll be telling me that Christianity is the One True Faith, when is just happens to be the one you were raised in and you know nothing of any other. You don't ******* think, the first sign that you probably are evil.

 

[Silhouette]

Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.

Oh, it's definitely a religion...more properly a cult. It evangelizes, recruits and punishes heretics (Anne Heche syndrome). It launches inquisitions daily and seeks to usurp any other religion whose edicts are in direct conflict with its dogma of "self, indulgence, deviance" Amen.

You'd better believe it's a religion, because if you mistake it for anything else, you will be burned at the stake...eventually...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so ******* hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

 

[Iceweasel]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.

The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the **** up?

When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.

The game is never over. Ever.

So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then? Okay, see ya.

Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?

No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of ******-haters like yourself. America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.

Few people, if any 'hate the sexually abnormal'. All people of sound mind, merely recognize that sexual abnormality is the consequence of a perversion of human reasoning and that to accept perverse reasoning is to cripple the individual and by logical extension to cripple the viability of the culture that such infects.

You're in effect asking the culture to Normalize Abnormal Reasoning. Such is beyond foolish and has never in the history of humanity provided for anything except a sign of the impending doom of whatever culture that tried it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.

Oh, it's definitely a religion...more properly a cult. It evangelizes, recruits and punishes heretics (Anne Heche syndrome). It launches inquisitions daily and seeks to usurp any other religion whose edicts are in direct conflict with its dogma of "self, indulgence, deviance" Amen.

You'd better believe it's a religion, because if you mistake it for anything else, you will be burned at the stake...eventually...

I was tempted to go there, but kept it simple since the concept of the square pegs going in the square holes is too hard for some here. Yes, if you support traditional marriage you are a heretic but they prefer to use the emotional term "homophobe".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.

No... You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.

The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.

The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.

Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the **** up?

When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.

The game is never over. Ever.

So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then? Okay, see ya.

Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?

No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of ******-haters like yourself. America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.

Few people, if any 'hate the sexually abnormal'. All people of sound mind, merely recognize that sexual abnormality is the consequence of a perversion of human reasoning and that to accept perverse reasoning is to cripple the individual and by logical extension to cripple the viability of the culture that such infects.

You're in effect asking the culture to Normalize Abnormal Reasoning. Such is beyond foolish and has never in the history of humanity provided for anything except a sign of the impending doom of whatever culture that tried it.

Well your society has already rejected your "reasoning" there my little man. Now what do you do?

 

[80zephyr]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.

Mark

Right...we ended marriage discrimination based on race in 1967 (but the prevailing argument that it wasn't discrimination held out for 85 years) and now we are ending it based on gender in 2014-15. I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black person. The discrimination is exactly the same, the justification of the bigots is exactly the same...only the targets have changed. The outcomes will be the same though...the bigots lose.

Anyone that can't see the difference between race and gender when it comes to marriage just isn't thinking properly.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.

No... You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.

The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.

The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.

Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.

This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. If you don't like it then get the **** out. No one is stopping you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.

And our government does just that.

There is nothing in the standard of marriage which discriminates against the sexual deviant. PERIOD.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

If two deviants of the same gender want to join in one legal entity... they're perfectly entitled to do so through the article of incorporation, or some other device established for that purpose.

What that device will NEVER BE, is Marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.

Mark

Right...we ended marriage discrimination based on race in 1967 (but the prevailing argument that it wasn't discrimination held out for 85 years) and now we are ending it based on gender in 2014-15. I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black person. The discrimination is exactly the same, the justification of the bigots is exactly the same...only the targets have changed. The outcomes will be the same though...the bigots lose.

Anyone that can't see the difference between race and gender when it comes to marriage just isn't thinking properly.

Anyone who can't see the similarity doesn't understand legal reasoning and arguments, the arguments your side has used and lost with time and again.

Tell us, when it's legal in all 50 states, June is likely, what will you do then?

 

[AVG-JOE]

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

So what?

I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.

No... You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.

The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.

The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.

Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.

This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. If you do like then get the **** out. No one is stopping you.

THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But, LOL! As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to know it, requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.

Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.

No... You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.

The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.

The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.

Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.

This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. If you do like then get the **** out. No one is stopping you.

THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But, LOL! As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to know it, requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.

Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.

I'll make it simple for you asswipe, we founded the place, it's our nation, fucked as it is, so get out and take for god and guns with you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

So what?

Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are irrelevant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

So what?

Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are irrelevant.

I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.

 

[80zephyr]

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.

Mark

Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.

It's not only outdated, it's not even true. Marriage was never about reproduction. Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.

If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".

There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is. And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period. You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.

Plenty of history? Put some links where your mouth is.

Mark