The Queers are at it again!!!!!!!!

[Emmett]

So because my wife and I weren't able to have children, our marriage of almost 22 years isn't a REAL marriage?

Your taking it out of context. Having children blesses a marriage, That is not to say that marriages are not complete if they do not produce children. I wonder how many unhappy people stayed married just because of the children. The fact that you have been married for 22 years means you have a good marriage.

My point was made to support my argument that same sex couples are not (in my mind) normal. When a man and a woman marry they are involved in a normal "REAL" marriage. The fact that you and your wife may not have had children will not stop the earth from populating itself. If all marriages were gay ones, it would! Thats all my point was.

 

[MissileMan]

Your taking it out of context. Having children blesses a marriage, That is not to say that marriages are not complete if they do not produce children. I wonder how many unhappy people stayed married just because of the children. The fact that you have been married for 22 years means you have a good marriage.

My point was made to support my argument that same sex couples are not (in my mind) normal. When a man and a woman marry they are involved in a normal "REAL" marriage. The fact that you and your wife may not have had children will not stop the earth from populating itself. If all marriages were gay ones, it would! Thats all my point was.

I agree that they aren't normal, but I don't see that as a valid reason to disallow them. As for stopping the population of the world, here's how I think your argument fails. Homosexuals aren't likely to have children anyways. Denying them the right to marry another homosexual isn't going to result in many of them switching teams and entering into a "REAL" marriage and having children. And to add a kick to an already dead horse, the 95% of the world's population that isn't homosexual seems to be doing a fine job of increasing our numbers without the assistance of homosexuals.

 

[liberalogic]

The fact that you and your wife may not have had children will not stop the earth from populating itself. If all marriages were gay ones, it would! Thats all my point was.

And realistically, what are the chances of all marriages being gay?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

If homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would argue that queers and their genes would have died out a while ago. Naturally gay men can't reproduce with another man and thus wouldn't be able to pass the supposed gay gene on to their offspring.

But anyways, I'm a positive person looking for the silver lining so let me give a really quick shout out to hot lesbian women everywhere. I totally support hot chicks eating each other out and broadcasting their homemade tapes over the internets. Any guy who thinks that two beautiful chicks doing each other is gross is overcompensating on the fake moral outrage and probably gay themselves.

 

[Emmett]

I agree that they aren't normal, but I don't see that as a valid reason to disallow them. As for stopping the population of the world, here's how I think your argument fails. Homosexuals aren't likely to have children anyways. Denying them the right to marry another homosexual isn't going to result in many of them switching teams and entering into a "REAL" marriage and having children. And to add a kick to an already dead horse, the 95% of the world's population that isn't homosexual seems to be doing a fine job of increasing our numbers without the assistance of homosexuals.

Ok, "REAL" was the wrong word! As you may have deduced long ago, I am no literary genius. I am a passionate person and I feel strongly about the gay issue. Not because I'm phobic but because I have my beliefs. I don't want my my grandchildren being taught that it is a "NORMAL" lifestyle. I unlike the folks who argue the points in support of gay rights believe gays "learn: the behavior. I don't want mine to learn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I certainly feel I have the right to feel this way. I don't want my little granddaughter reading "Megan has two mommies" or whatever that damn book was. I want her to read Dick and Jane with boring ass Spot the dog, you know what I mean. If they would keep the shit in the closet that is fine woith me. I know they will be confronted with the activity sonetime but I would prefer it not be taught to them and so forth.

As to what I said about ss. I don't want to pay it. I don't want to pay the hospital bills. I don't want to watch men kiss each other, or women and I don't want my kids to either.

Sorry if you took offense in what I said about "REAL" marriage. I didn't mean it that way.

 

[Avatar4321]

If homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would argue that queers and their genes would have died out a while ago. Naturally gay men can't reproduce with another man and thus wouldn't be able to pass the supposed gay gene on to their offspring.

But anyways, I'm a positive person looking for the silver lining so let me give a really quick shout out to hot lesbian women everywhere. I totally support hot chicks eating each other out and broadcasting their homemade tapes over the internets. Any guy who thinks that two beautiful chicks doing each other is gross is overcompensating on the fake moral outrage and probably gay themselves.

Gross? more than likely not. Women are beautiful. Period. doesnt matter what they are doing, women are beautiful. Quite honestly i could live without any sort of girl on girl action in my life. in fact, i rather wish i never even heard of the concept. Especially when one of them is Rosie... that will make me sick.

 

[Emmett]

And realistically, what are the chances of all marriages being gay?

In San Francisco about 90%

 

[Kagom]

If homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would argue that queers and their genes would have died out a while ago. Naturally gay men can't reproduce with another man and thus wouldn't be able to pass the supposed gay gene on to their offspring.

But anyways, I'm a positive person looking for the silver lining so let me give a really quick shout out to hot lesbian women everywhere. I totally support hot chicks eating each other out and broadcasting their homemade tapes over the internets. Any guy who thinks that two beautiful chicks doing each other is gross is overcompensating on the fake moral outrage and probably gay themselves.

Screw your double-standards.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree that they aren't normal, but I don't see that as a valid reason to disallow them. As for stopping the population of the world, here's how I think your argument fails. Homosexuals aren't likely to have children anyways. Denying them the right to marry another homosexual isn't going to result in many of them switching teams and entering into a "REAL" marriage and having children. And to add a kick to an already dead horse, the 95% of the world's population that isn't homosexual seems to be doing a fine job of increasing our numbers without the assistance of homosexuals.

Not the 95% in Europe. Their population numbers, other than immigration, is dwindling.

You have it backwards. They are not "disallowed". It is somewhat semantics, but the homosexual lobby is trying to frame the issue as something they are being denied, and hence make the issue appear to be about civil rights, which it isnt.
The issue is about a privledge. Marriage is for the purpose of benefitting the society as a whole. The society as a whole has to pay for those who marry and create families, so the society as a whole should benefit from it. The benefit, which is why marriage has been instituted in societies, is two fold. Encouraging family creation, and giving children a more likely chance of growing up in a stable and healthy enviorment.
If marriage didnt help keep families together, there would be NO NEED for it whatsoever. Having a family is expensive and difficult. Many married couples would not have married if they did not receive some sort of benefit, other than the "natural" benefits bestowed by nature. And many wouldnt have lasted as long. Married couples with children should be given financial and other benefits by society, for it is their work in raising the kids that benefits the society. There is no benefit to society for same sex marriages.
There is simply no reason in the world that two men should get tax breaks the same as a married couple, and single men cant get those same tax breaks.
In fact, the IRS and the feds should create more tax benefits for married couples with kids.
Also, same sex marriages would be detrimental to many kids, as the family court system is already overburdened which often does not allow judges the time and resources to make good decisions that have effects on kids. Same sex marriages would create even more of a burden on an already overexhausted court, and cause many more poor decisions due to the increased burdens placed upon the family courts, which would hurt, and sometimes even lead to the death of kids.
Merely claiming it is denying them rights or fair or equal treatment is not sufficient enough. The supporters have to come up with some very strong arguements and points on how society as a whole will benefit if same sex marriages were allowed. So far I havent heard any that are even remotely close.
I am not homophobic, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that they aren't normal, but I don't see that as a valid reason to disallow them. As for stopping the population of the world, here's how I think your argument fails. Homosexuals aren't likely to have children anyways. Denying them the right to marry another homosexual isn't going to result in many of them switching teams and entering into a "REAL" marriage and having children. And to add a kick to an already dead horse, the 95% of the world's population that isn't homosexual seems to be doing a fine job of increasing our numbers without the assistance of homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not being disallowed. I have yet to see an argument posted on a message board that supports that. Almost unanimously, we are in agreement that what people do behind closed doors as long as no one is getting hurt is their business.

What I don't agree with, and am never going to agree with, is legislation that caters solely to homosexuals, legitimizing their abnormal behavior as normal.

You also leave out the fact that homosexuals in this Nation have a legal right to adopt children; thereby, artificially perpetuating their lifestyle that would otherwise end with them.

 

[Gunny]

If homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would argue that queers and their genes would have died out a while ago. Naturally gay men can't reproduce with another man and thus wouldn't be able to pass the supposed gay gene on to their offspring.

But anyways, I'm a positive person looking for the silver lining so let me give a really quick shout out to hot lesbian women everywhere. I totally support hot chicks eating each other out and broadcasting their homemade tapes over the internets. Any guy who thinks that two beautiful chicks doing each other is gross is overcompensating on the fake moral outrage and probably gay themselves.

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior whether or not it is two men or two women.

And just to quash your little theory, I'm about as alpha-male as it gets and I don't enjoy watching two women engaging in homosexual acts. Simply stating that it is wrong is hardly as sensational as "fake moral outrage."

 

[Gunny]

Screw your double-standards.

Awwww......feeling left out?

For once, I actually agree with you insofar as the double standard is concerned.

 

[MissileMan]

Homosexuality is not being disallowed. I have yet to see an argument posted on a message board that supports that. Almost unanimously, we are in agreement that what people do behind closed doors as long as no one is getting hurt is their business.

When I said "disallowed" I was referring to legally recognized civil unions, not homosexuality itself.

You also leave out the fact that homosexuals in this Nation have a legal right to adopt children; thereby, artificially perpetuating their lifestyle that would otherwise end with them.

And you leave out the fact that they can create children of their own anytime they wish...I assume most have working equipment just like most heterosexuals.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to adopt homosexuality, so your artifical perpetuation argument is baseless and worthless.

BTW, what percentage of homosexuals were raised in normal, healthy, one-mom/one-dad households?

 

[Gunny]

When I said "disallowed" I was referring to legally recognized civil unions, not homosexuality itself.

Same animal, different name. Homosexuals currently possess every right the US Constitution affords heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and nosexuals.

And you leave out the fact that they can create children of their own anytime they wish...I assume most have working equipment just like most heterosexuals.

I didn't leave it out. It wasn't part of the conversation. I am completely aware that homosexuals can still mate with women if they so choose.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to adopt homosexuality, so your artifical perpetuation argument is baseless and worthless.

BTW, what percentage of homosexuals were raised in normal, healthy, one-mom/one-dad households?

Artificial would be an argument based on completely ignoring logic and common sense. Homosexuals are not going to teach any children they are raising that homosexuality is abnormal behavior, never mind being morally wrong. They're going to teach the children it's perfectly normal.

Logic and common sense also dictate that children raised to believe homosexuality is normal behavior are would be FAR more likely to become homosexual than those raised to beleive it is abnormal behavior.

Your stance is based on literalism and ignoring logic and common sense. Thers is no point to posting a bunch of statistics when the fact is, nobody really knows what they are. The extremes of both sides of the issue present stats to support their respective points of view, and I have yet to see any from either side that are not jaundiced to a point of view rather than factual evidence.

Logical conclusion works for me. All the wordsmithing in the world doesn't change it a bit.

 

[mattskramer]

If marriage didnt help keep families together, there would be NO NEED for it whatsoever. Having a family is expensive and difficult. Many married couples would not have married if they did not receive some sort of benefit, other than the "natural" benefits bestowed by nature. And many wouldnt have lasted as long. Married couples with children should be given financial and other benefits by society, for it is their work in raising the kids that benefits the society. There is no benefit to society for same sex marriages.

There is simply no reason in the world that two men should get tax breaks the same as a married couple, and single men cant get those same tax breaks.

What are your views on Melissa Etheridge and her two children, Bailey Jean and Beckett? Her original partner, Julie Cypher, has an interesting biography. Apparently, she could not decide if she was lesbian or not. (As if it matters).

Anyway, Miss Etheridge and her new partner (spouse), Tammy Lynn Michaels, announced the birth of Michaels’ two children. Since she has children to care for, should she and her partner receive tax benefits?

Melissa Ethridge is also battling breast cancer. What a survivor. Wait – could it be punishment from God for her being a Lesbian – sort of like the way he punished Ryan White for getting AIDS. People said that he or his parents must have been Gay. Otherwise he would not have gotten AIDS – God’s punishment for gay people.

You don’t hear much about her relationships these days. I don’t see much in the news about Elton John and his partner. After Great Brittain allowed gay unions, by listening to the “Doom and Gloom" rhetoric of the religious right, you would think that the British isle would have sunk into the Atlantic ocean by now. Oh. Elton is probably doing just fine.

How is Mr. Cheney’s daughter’s pregnancy coming along?

 

[MissileMan]

Logic and common sense also dictate that children raised to believe homosexuality is normal behavior are would be FAR more likely to become homosexual than those raised to beleive it is abnormal behavior.

IF and ONLY IF people choose to become homosexual, which common sense dictates ISN'T the case.

Your stance is based on literalism and ignoring logic and common sense.

On the contrary. Common sense dictates that if a high percentage of homosexuals were raised in "normal" households, the orientation of the parents has no bearing in the orientation of the children.

 

[mattskramer]

On the contrary. Common sense dictates that if a high percentage of homosexuals were raised in "normal" households, the orientation of the parents has no bearing in the orientation of the children.

How did Dick Cheney’s daughter and Newt Gingrich’s daughter become gay? I don’t know to what extent parenting, environment, or genetics determines one’s sexual orientation but I do think that there are so many variables that one’s parenting is probably a very minor influence. I’m 40 years old and I doubt that my parents expected me to turn out the way that I did – despite their best intentions.

 

[OCA]

I know Gunny has mentioned this already but I didn't see anyone reply. They are asking for the same rights as heterosexuals, but what's wrong with that argument is that THEY DO currently have those very same rights. What they are really asking for is altering the rights to receive additional benefits. As men, we ALL have identical rights. And you women ALL have identical rights. As for getting married, we ALL have identical rights.

The only change would be a change ADDING the right for same sex couples to 'benefit' from their abnormalities.

A fucking man! Queers are born with every inalienable right that everyone else has under the constitution, by all evidence in the case of man+man they choose to smoke poles and bugger each other in the ass, woman+woman they choose to snack on bush and tag each other with plastics, both no matter what argument 1 comes up with to the contrary are abnormal and unnatural to the millionth extreme.

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR QUEERS! Thankfully in about 20+ states so far common sense has won out on this issue and this foul shit is banned.

 

[Gunny]

What are your views on Melissa Etheridge and her two children, Bailey Jean and Beckett? Her original partner, Julie Cypher, has an interesting biography. Apparently, she could not decide if she was lesbian or not. (As if it matters).

Anyway, Miss Etheridge and her new partner (spouse), Tammy Lynn Michaels, announced the birth of Michaels’ two children. Since she has children to care for, should she and her partner receive tax benefits?

Melissa Ethridge is also battling breast cancer. What a survivor. Wait – could it be punishment from God for her being a Lesbian – sort of like the way he punished Ryan White for getting AIDS. People said that he or his parents must have been Gay. Otherwise he would not have gotten AIDS – God’s punishment for gay people.

You don’t hear much about her relationships these days. I don’t see much in the news about Elton John and his partner. After Great Brittain allowed gay unions, by listening to the “Doom and Gloom" rhetoric of the religious right, you would think that the British isle would have sunk into the Atlantic ocean by now. Oh. Elton is probably doing just fine.

How is Mr. Cheney’s daughter’s pregnancy coming along?

That didn't last long at all. Can't you even keep your word?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A fucking man! Queers are born with every inalienable right that everyone else has under the constitution, by all evidence in the case of man+man they choose to smoke poles and bugger each other in the ass, woman+woman they choose to snack on bush and tag each other with plastics, both no matter what argument 1 comes up with to the contrary are abnormal and unnatural to the millionth extreme.

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR QUEERS! Thankfully in about 20+ states so far common sense has won out on this issue and this foul shit is banned.

What's wrong with altering the rights for the changing times? The gay community is vast and powerful. I find it sad so many people waste time on this relatively unimportant issue when there are so many crisis in the world. In our short life times is it really important to invest such energy into a cause that really is unimportant? For gods sake gain some perspective in the world. What if I told you I was gay, still want to be on staff with a gay guy?

OCA unless your a scientist of somekind you have very little credibility when it comes to claiming what is and what is not natural.

I have a feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. However if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it?