The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

 

[bodecea]

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

 

[Skylar]

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.

 

[bodecea]

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.

Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.

Mark

On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.

The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.

There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet.

And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.

Wrong yet again. The basis of marriage is GENDER, not race. Discriminating against races in marriage was clearly wrong. Now, calling two men "married" cannot make it so, biologically. Only the law can be inane enough to do that.

Mark

Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender. There. Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.

 

[bodecea]

For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.

Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.

It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.

You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.

I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..

Mark

Ah...President Clinton, is that you?

 

[bodecea]

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.

Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.

Mark

And the SCOTUS laughed that right out of their court.

 

[Skylar]

In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others. Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!

And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.

Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.

There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, besides the fact that it goes against biological design in the same way any deviancy does.

Mark

Celibacy 'goes against biological design'. Old people ******* 'goes against biological design'. Blow jobs 'go against biological design'. Masturbation 'goes against biological design'.

I wouldn't consider any of them to be 'immoral', 'illogical' or 'abnormal'. And with the possible exception of celibacy, none would be a valid basis to deny someone the right to marry.

The worst thing you can say about homosexuality is that its sexually unproductive. But then you could say the same thing of anyone who uses a condom or birth control.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why can't a man marry a cow?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Give it a rest. You lost ******-hater, and they won.

Really.. ******?

My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.

 

[Skylar]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

Exactly. Its hillarious to hear folks insist that their made up social construct is the only valid made up social construct. And our made up social construct isn't.

We made marriage. It is...whatever we say it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why can't a man marry a cow?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Give it a rest. You lost ******-hater, and they won.

Really.. ******?

My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.

LOL! Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity. Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".

As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.

In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.

In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: FOOD!

 

[80zephyr]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.

Mark

The difference being that marriage is a social construct. It means whatever we decide it means.

 

[bodecea]

Why can't a man marry a cow?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Give it a rest. You lost ******-hater, and they won.

Really.. ******?

My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.

LOL! Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity. Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".

As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.

In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.

In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: FOOD!

Classic de-humanizing those you disagree with.

 

[80zephyr]

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.

I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

Sure it does. Consent is a requisite of any marriage. An actual requirement of the union. Anyone or anything that can't offer consent can't join the union.

Gays can offer consent. And can meet every requirement of marriage. Demonstrating the uselessness of your claims.

 

[bodecea]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people ******* equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.

 

[80zephyr]

Why can't a man marry a cow?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Give it a rest. You lost ******-hater, and they won.

Really.. ******?

My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.

LOL! Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity. Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".

As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.

In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.

In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: FOOD!

Classic de-humanizing those you disagree with.

Your one to talk. Say, why don't you also berate those that are calling us homophobes and ****** haters?

Or does your silence show you are complicit in their beliefs?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.

Mark

The difference being that marriage is a social construct. It means whatever we decide it means.

So is gender. If we say its the same, its the same. Sorta like race.

We can "say" it is marriage, but if we are using commonly accepted terms that have certain definitions, we would be lying.

I assume that doesn't bother you.

Mark