The Homosexual Dilemma

[kaz]

"the person they love" seriously?

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

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

If you take the word "government" out of it, then exactly right. Government is so intrinsic to liberals you just can't imagine something existing without government, can you? Why cannot there be marriage with government left out of it? Why is that so impossible to fathom?

 

[kaz]

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.

Those are retarded examples. SURELY you can see the that?

So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking. In the mean time, you have nothing. The law is applied equally to everyone. That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.

Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages. It's applied equally.

True but irrelevant.

You are the one that ask me to "where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking" and now you say it's irrelevant?

OK, I see what you're saying. What I meant was where gay sex isn't recognized, straights cannot enter into single sex marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

I don't recall you asking me. But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt). Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.

How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.

The age of consent has only been going up...a trend I support and applaud. I'm 100% behind a federal age of consent law setting it at 18. Gays have been marrying in MA for over a decade...any age of consent laws dropping? Is there any push to drop them?

 

[kaz]

"the person they love" seriously?

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

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd. You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage. But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want. You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.

If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it. Then people do have what they want. You want a Catholic marriage? Work out what that means with the Catholic church. A Jewish marriage? Ditto. And so forth. That ... is liberty.

 

[kaz]

"the person they love" seriously?

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

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

Hey it's YOUR argument. You're the one who wants to apply equal rights to everyone. It turns out you don't want that at all, because your arbitrary limitations only desire your political....and possibly personal....cause. You are either advocating for the equal rights of everyone, or you are advocating for the extremely limited rights of two people to engage in a false agreement that you would deny to the rest of the world. Certainly the rest of America.

Bam! Exactly right. What homos want is enough for her, she has no other argument. Her standard is completely arbitrary.

 

[Redfish]

"the person they love" seriously?

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

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd. You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage. But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want. You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.

If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it. Then people do have what they want. You want a Catholic marriage? Work out what that means with the Catholic church. A Jewish marriage? Ditto. And so forth. That ... is liberty.

yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.

But the gay agenda is not about those things, if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights. But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.

 

[kaz]

Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.

Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the **** up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.

You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.

There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.

Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it. I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition? That wouldn't be possible. Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?

Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.

Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other. In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.

 

[Seawytch]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

 

[kaz]

He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd. You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage. But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want. You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.

If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it. Then people do have what they want. You want a Catholic marriage? Work out what that means with the Catholic church. A Jewish marriage? Ditto. And so forth. That ... is liberty.

yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.

But the gay agenda is not about those things, if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights. But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.

True, but why do those things need to be tied to marriage?

- The death tax is evil and should not exist for anyone

- Taxes should be flat

- Parental rights and responsibilities should be tied to genes not paper. With all the babies out of wedlock, this needs to be addressed anyway.

- People should be able to name who they want to make living will decisions for them.

There is a better solution to everything government solves. And people could back up their private marriages with contracts that specific things like I love you and want to spend my life with you, but if I quit my job and have your brats and you dump me for your secretary I want half your shit you rat bastard.

Can you think of anything that marriage solves that can't be solved better without it?

 

[Seawytch]

Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.

Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the **** up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.

You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.

There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.

Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it. I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition? That wouldn't be possible. Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?

Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.

Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other. In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.

I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.

12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters

 

[Redfish]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child

two women or two men are not parents. you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"

 

[Redfish]

Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?

That's what keys has been saying.

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?

Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.

Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd. You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage. But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want. You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.

If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it. Then people do have what they want. You want a Catholic marriage? Work out what that means with the Catholic church. A Jewish marriage? Ditto. And so forth. That ... is liberty.

yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.

But the gay agenda is not about those things, if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights. But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.

True, but why do those things need to be tied to marriage?

- The death tax is evil and should not exist for anyone

- Taxes should be flat

- Parental rights and responsibilities should be tied to genes not paper. With all the babies out of wedlock, this needs to be addressed anyway.

- People should be able to name who they want to make living will decisions for them.

There is a better solution to everything government solves. And people could back up their private marriages with contracts that specific things like I love you and want to spend my life with you, but if I quit my job and have your brats and you dump me for your secretary I want half your shit you rat bastard.

Can you think of anything that marriage solves that can't be solved better without it?

sure, we could change our laws regarding marriage rights, etc. What chance do you give that in congress?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Really? Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages. Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays. If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.

That is an untrue statement.

1. You are referring to "The Hitching Post". The Hitching Post is a commercial business and not a Church. This for profit business previously advertised their services for not only Christian weddings but for other faiths and for CIVIL Ceremonies.

2. It wasn't city officials that threatened the owners of this for profit business. The owners of the business inquired with the city of they would fall under Colorado Public Accommodation laws and as a for-profit business the city responded with "yes", which is true.

3. Another untrue statement is that the owners of the for-profit business were threaten with jail. Public Accommodation laws fall under Civil Code and not Criminal code. The outcome of being found guilty of a violation is a fine of $50-$500 and injunctive relief mandating such discriminatory practices stop and possibly damages to the party discriminated against under Civil Liability.

4. PRIOR to the Same-sex Civil Marriages starting in Idaho, the for profit-business reorganized itself and removed the other fatih's and Civil Ceremony components of it's advertising. They never offered same-sex religious marriage ceremonies and were never required to offer them. However they did advertise to the public that they performed non-religious Civil Weddings also, those would have fallen under the purview of Public Accommodation laws. Since they have not offered Civil Ceremonies since SSCM went into effect in Idaho, there there is not issue.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

poor wytchey. so angry, so conflicted, so confused. Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.

You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.

I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly marry. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full marriage)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?

 

[Seawytch]

Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?

I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.

So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.

Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.

Wait a minute. At the point of a gun? Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?

And how is it going to go unanswered? You going to lynch some people?

Lifestyle ≠ race.

Religion is a lifestyle. If we were to prevent all Protestants from civilly marrying, that would be okay with you? Would that pass Constitutional muster for equal treatment?

Discrimination = Discrimination

OMG, now you are equating religion and homosexuality??????????

I do not equate religion with sexual orientation since sexual orientation is an innate trait and religion is a choice, but the poster I was responding to believes people choose to be gay like they choose religion.

You obviously can't answer the question...let's see if the poster I was responding to can.

 

[Redfish]

poor wytchey. so angry, so conflicted, so confused. Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.

You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.

I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly marry. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full marriage)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?

your anger and confusion are very evident. If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.

As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.

 

[Seawytch]

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

On a different post, someone said they laughed at people like me who thought they knew more about someone than the person. They really must be laughing at you.

No such thing as bisexual.

I didn't say I knew more, I'm merely speculating and trying to understand your thought process. You said you made a conscious choice...you said you made yourself be attracted to women. Did that mean you were attracted to men? Have you ever found a man so attractive that you wanted to kiss him or get to know him better? To hold him close to you at night, spooning naked?

You have made the claim.

I said I chose women just like you chose women. Difference is my choice is normal and your choice is deviant and one you don't have the guts to admit you made. If you homos are so proud of what you are, why aren't you willing to say you chose.

You're obviously missing the part where I said I did not choose. I did not find myself attracted to both men and women and chose only one. I was attracted to only members of the same sex from my earliest memories. There was no choice. The fact that you claim to have made one, leads to only one logical conclusion, that you were attracted to both men and women and chose one. Is that how it went down for you?

 

[Seawytch]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child

two women or two men are not parents. you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"

Fortunately the law and our children disagree with your bigoted opinion.

 

[Redfish]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child

two women or two men are not parents. you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"

Fortunately the law and our children disagree with your bigoted opinion.

biology is not an opinion, nor is it bigoted----------it is fact.

 

[Seawytch]

poor wytchey. so angry, so conflicted, so confused. Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.

You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.

I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly marry. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full marriage)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?

your anger and confusion are very evident. If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.

As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.

So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.

You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are you confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?