Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Pop23]

I had five children not remotely related to heterosexual coupling.

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

The participant could all be gay. When he masturbated in the cup, intending to donate to a female, he participated as a male fertilizing a female.

That is far closer to Hetero than homosexual. Had it been homosexual, there would be, by definition, no children.

As for the "breeder" designation. Proud I am part of that club, as are my offspring and theirs.

By the way, take the debate out of this for a moment. I hope you and your kids are all healthy and happy.

 

[thanatos144]

This isn't a real issue. Homosexuality is not the norm. Some states will have homosexual marriage some won't for a long while yet. Homosexuals will always foist their life choice on your children using tv, music, and schools. Our job is to teach them that no you don't have to be a homosexual if you don't want to.be. vise versa. Not all homosexuals are like the raving assholes that are on this board. So stop letting something so small distract you from whats really important

tapatalk post

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I had five children not remotely related to heterosexual coupling.

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

That's the most convoluted ******* procreation story I have ever seen.

So you're just like us normal people. Except you need three people involved to procreate and a lot of doctor visits and stuff. You can't have a child of you and your partner on your own, ever. You need at least three people involved and a team of doctors in order to make this happen.

So much like a man and woman.

 

[deltex1]

Now the car is the marriage? Make up your mind.

Yes if marriage between a man and a woman is a car then marriage between a man and a man is a different car. It's different because one car is the heteros car (as I said above having opposite plug types) and the other car is the gay car having similar plug types. So what, they are both cars. Just one is different color. They both drive. They both go places. They both can have kids with or without their plugs in the exact same manor. They both can live full lives.

Or are you actually trying to say that the cars can't mingle with other cars? huh? Could you just imagine a world where all the roads are for only one car? ROFL

Duh, the natural benefit of a man / woman couple is procreation (your single minded fixation). Which btw is not a limitation of gay marriages, one might argue that it could be a different type of benefit of gay marriages that they get to swing to get prego, and are not artificially ... emotionally bound to one partner for pregnancies. lol.. jk either way this whole line of tit for tat it's different ... so what arguments is going no where. Gay folks can procreate and should be given legal rights to marriage licenses.

As to the question regarding "papers" required of gays to get same marriage benefits. That was a lie made up by some one earlier in this thread. There are tens of thousands of laws draw up to benefit married couples, every single one of which is a slap in the face of singles, gays, and folks desirous of polygamous marriages who are besmirched by said laws excluding them from said benefits.

You are the one that claimed a marriage between a same sex marriage and a Hetero couple are simply cars of different colors. My example is that they are both modes of transportation, the same sex being a car, the Hetero being a Lear jet. The two are not slightly different, but tremendously different.

You want to discount sex, you have to.

The Hetero marriage would have the burden that the sex act would create a child. The homosexual couple NEVER has that burden EVER.

What is there, roughly 400,000,000 citizens in the United States? All of them exist due to heterosexuality. All of them. Not a single one is the result of homosexuality. All, white, black, red, brown, male, female, heterosexual or Homosexual. All born by the product of heterosexuality. ALL

That's a Lear jet my friend.

I had five children not remotely related to heterosexual coupling.

A man was involved...that is related.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Incorrect.

Although marriage is a fundamental right as a fact of Constitutional law, it is not the primary issue with regard to Utah and other states’ efforts to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

The issue concerns the 14th Amendment’s requirement that each person in the United States is entitled to equal protection of – equal access to – the law, and this includes same-sex couples and marriage law.

Utah’s Amendment 3, for example, was invalidated because it sought to indeed deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights absent a rational basis.

When a state seeks to deny persons their civil liberties it must meet a very heavy burden to justify that prohibition; because Amendment 3 failed to meet this burden, the court struck it down as un-Constitutional, the Amendment lacks objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, and it failed to demonstrate a proper legislative end.

Amendment 3 sought only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, which the states are not allowed to do.

Last, that the word marriage does not appear in the Constitution does not mean it is not a fundamental right; privacy is in fact a fundamental right although the word doesn’t appear in the Constitution, so too is there a right to self-defense and an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right to self-defense, although the words ‘self-defense’ and ‘individual’ are found nowhere in the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[Pop23]

Now the car is the marriage? Make up your mind.

Yes if marriage between a man and a woman is a car then marriage between a man and a man is a different car. It's different because one car is the heteros car (as I said above having opposite plug types) and the other car is the gay car having similar plug types. So what, they are both cars. Just one is different color. They both drive. They both go places. They both can have kids with or without their plugs in the exact same manor. They both can live full lives.

Or are you actually trying to say that the cars can't mingle with other cars? huh? Could you just imagine a world where all the roads are for only one car? ROFL

Duh, the natural benefit of a man / woman couple is procreation (your single minded fixation). Which btw is not a limitation of gay marriages, one might argue that it could be a different type of benefit of gay marriages that they get to swing to get prego, and are not artificially ... emotionally bound to one partner for pregnancies. lol.. jk either way this whole line of tit for tat it's different ... so what arguments is going no where. Gay folks can procreate and should be given legal rights to marriage licenses.

As to the question regarding "papers" required of gays to get same marriage benefits. That was a lie made up by some one earlier in this thread. There are tens of thousands of laws draw up to benefit married couples, every single one of which is a slap in the face of singles, gays, and folks desirous of polygamous marriages who are besmirched by said laws excluding them from said benefits.

You are the one that claimed a marriage between a same sex marriage and a Hetero couple are simply cars of different colors. My example is that they are both modes of transportation, the same sex being a car, the Hetero being a Lear jet. The two are not slightly different, but tremendously different.

You want to discount sex, you have to.

The Hetero marriage would have the burden that the sex act would create a child. The homosexual couple NEVER has that burden EVER.

What is there, roughly 400,000,000 citizens in the United States? All of them exist due to heterosexuality. All of them. Not a single one is the result of homosexuality. All, white, black, red, brown, male, female, heterosexual or Homosexual. All born by the product of heterosexuality. ALL

That's a Lear jet my friend.

Nonsense. Gays get pregnant all the time in this country. Why do you keep denying that fact? Just because two people are married does not mean they can't have sex outside the marriage and / or through doctor assisted means. Again, why do you insist on pretending that if we let gays get married the population number will go down? It's a ridiculous argument you are making, that gays don't want to have kids. It's both false and ridiculous. Singles have kids, polygamists have kids and, shock, gays have kids.

Do not confuse homosexual with homosexuality

Do not confuse heterosexual with heterosexuality

By definition, heterosexuality is the male/female combination

Because a homosexual uses a procedure to replicate heterosexuality does not make the end product the result of the opposite sexuality

And where did you ever see me say that legalizing same sex marriage would make the population fall?

Do everyone a favor and point it out or quit making things up

 

[KNB]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes it is. As a matter of fact, it's explicitly defined. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I don't see the word "privacy" there. Which is the claim being made about marriage that word marriage isn't in the constitution.

 

[Pop23]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

Please grace us with your point.

 

[Pop23]

I had five children not remotely related to heterosexual coupling.

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

You also bring up another interesting point.

To be a non breeder most heterosexuals have to take very expensive steps just to enjoy sex with their partner. Homosexuals don't.

Wow, I call that a huge difference.

 

[KNB]

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

You also bring up another interesting point.

To be a non breeder most heterosexuals have to take very expensive steps just to enjoy sex with their partner. Homosexuals don't.

Wow, I call that a huge difference.

What "expensive steps" must be taken to avoid pregnancy? Oral sex? Anal sex? Pulling out? Those are free, and there are millions of people on the internet all over the world who look like they're enjoying it.

 

[Pop23]

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

You also bring up another interesting point.

To be a non breeder most heterosexuals have to take very expensive steps just to enjoy sex with their partner. Homosexuals don't.

Wow, I call that a huge difference.

What "expensive steps" must be taken to avoid pregnancy? Oral sex? Anal sex? Pulling out? Those are free, and there are millions of people on the internet all over the world who look like they're enjoying it.

Do gay males have to pull out in order not to get there partners pregnant?

Curious people want to know.

 

[GreenBean]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

As a casual student of theology and an agnostic I have to agree that God probably didn't wriite the Bible, however, to snatch your own wording "Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible." Not true at all, not even close to being factual - the Bible states

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

There are many more verses which are speculatiive as to whether they actually relate to homosexuals or not , but this passage from leviticus is nondeniable, in any translation.

 

[GreenBean]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

Genesis 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

Makes more sense than the lesbian procreating.

 

[KNB]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

Makes more sense than the lesbian procreating.

Really? Two women can have a child without a man involved.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Lesbian couples 'could have own baby'

That is a lot more plausible than "women were made from a man's rib".

 

[GreenBean]

I didn't cite them because anybody can google them quite easily and I didn't want to bore everybody silly and they were related to single parents vs kids who have a mom & dad and do not include gay parents. As for your 'peer reviewed' studies, if you will read what I did link, even one of your guys who has reviewed them admits they are too small and too limited to be authoritative or really useful in a comprehensive analysis.

I am NOT bashing single parents or gay parents, here Seawytch. I am making my best reasoned argument in defense of the traditional family and the advantages to children who are blessed with a loving mother and father in the home. I don't know why some seem so gung ho to discredit that advantage.

It doesn't matter what your motivations are, your information is wrong. Children are most advantaged when they have two parents...gender is immaterial. THAT is what the studies show, that two parents are best for children, not straight parents.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Parents

World’s largest study on gay parents finds the kids are more than all right

Does the gender of parents really matter?

Sociologists have demonstrated over and over again that the optimal nurturing environment for young children is in a home where they are raised in a two-parent family headed by a man and a woman .....Fundamental to this is the conviction is that there are just two genders — male and female — and not five, as homosexual activists want us to believe.

Opposite sex parenting gives children examples of both masculinity and femininity in action, and the complementary interaction of these qualities enables them to grow up with a healthy and balanced view of life and relationships.


Sociologist Mark Regnerus was a witness for the state of Michigan,...The author of a controversial 2012 study, Regnerus found that children who grew up in a house where a parent eventually had a same-sex relationship had more difficulties ....

Regnerus was the leader of a study that screened thousands of people, ages 18 to 39, and found roughly 250 who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.

He found they were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals.

The study was financed by the New Jersey-based Witherspoon Institute, which says its mission is to help the public understand the "moral foundations" of democratic societies.

-----------

Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children

Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent, and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval – marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

You also bring up another interesting point.

To be a non breeder most heterosexuals have to take very expensive steps just to enjoy sex with their partner. Homosexuals don't.

Wow, I call that a huge difference.

What "expensive steps" must be taken to avoid pregnancy? Oral sex? Anal sex? Pulling out? Those are free, and there are millions of people on the internet all over the world who look like they're enjoying it.

Then why does it need to be written into law that everyone else has to pay for your birth control. If it's that ******* easy why do I need to pay for it when I have been telling you the entire time it's up to you not to get pregnant. Why if by your own admission is avoiding pregnancy so easy you keep pushing for laws that go counter to that and women are too ******* stupid to understand and need government birth control.

Does Hobby Lobby need a pull out or swallow rule in their company practices instead of a mandate to provide an abortion drug? I'm guessing the Sister's of the Poor would be much better off with the take it in the ass or swallow option instead of the you are forced to pay for abortions thing.

 

[KNB]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

As a casual student of theology and an agnostic I have to agree that God probably didn't wriite the Bible, however, to snatch your own wording "Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible." Not true at all, not even close to being factual - the Bible states

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

There are many more verses which are speculatiive as to whether they actually relate to homosexuals or not , but this passage from leviticus is nondeniable, in any translation.

Not quoted from Jesus or God.

 

[Pop23]

Really? THAT was the most deranged procreation story ever?

How about "The invisible man in the sky created a human male from a patch of sand and then the man removed one of his ribs to make his wife. The man and woman had two sons, Cain and Abel. And then the rest of humanity sprung from there."

Makes more sense than the lesbian procreating.

Really? Two women can have a child without a man involved.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Lesbian couples 'could have own baby'

That is a lot more plausible than "women were made from a man's rib".

You made a weeeeeee mistake my dear, it's still impossible. Someday???

Get back to us when someday becomes today.

Can is present tense. Read your own link, might help you understand better

Someday pigs may indeed be able to fly ( on there own ) and that's roughly the same time your little fantasy will happen.