# The definitive word on "gay"marriage



## sitarro

As only he can do, Thomas Sowell writes about how truly silly the whole concept of "gay"marriage is, read and weep Jili, grump, hagard ,kagom, matts and any of the other illogical nonthinkers out there.... you have no comeback to his logic.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081606.php3

Gay marriage

By Thomas Sowell


 Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other  and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?


----------



## dmp

Excellent piece - and I hear he shoots pics w/ a Canon DSLR, too!


----------



## 007

sitarro said:


> They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.



One of the best lines I've heard as of yet.


----------



## Kagom

Read it and didn't weep.  I'm more than used to this rhetoric.



> They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.



While it IS true that marriage has been strictly man-woman, that's the Abrahamic concept of marriage that's been practiced.  But I would like you to go here: http://sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.htm and scroll down to "Gay Marriage in the Bible" (disregard the Johnathon/David crap) and look through.  It's an interesting viewpoint on marriage in the Biblical times.  BUt all that aside, other cultures have practiced gay marriage, including the Egyptians.  The above link also talks about other cultures and homosexuality in general.



> Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.



I liked this paragraph.  Why?  Because right off it tells you this person believes homosexuality isn't a thing similar to race.  It tells you this person's bias in believing it's a choice and an action.  To a degree it is in as much as  the person chooses to follow their natural attraction.  The rest, however, is within a person's nature.  To be attracted to someone of the same sex isn't necessarily something a person can choose freely.  A ban on gay marriage is still a discrimination against people.



> There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.



I may have read this wrong, but basically this is saying since homosexuals can't naturally produce offspring, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.  So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of this.  But if we were to go on that belief alone, we'd need to revoke the marriages of all barren couples because they can't produce children and therefore cannot contribute to society.



> In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
> 
> Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?



I like the alimony statement.  It's a good point in so far as recouperating one spouse for their investement.  But the second one I don't like.  It's bogus.  There are plenty of wives who fuck their husbands over and still get the alimony when they shouldn't get a dime.  Though, sadly, we can't investigate things enough to determine the worthiness of alimony, it's still something courts should consider.



> And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?



Again, I will bring up the barren couple shield because it does have truth to it.  If we throw in the idea of procreation being a reason for marriage, then we must revoke the marriages of barren couples for that reason.  Alimony is a tricky issue, I must admit.  But I figure that we'd determine it the same way as we do with heterosexual couples who break up in marriage.


----------



## dmp

Kagom said:


> BUt all that aside, other cultures have practiced gay marriage, including the Egyptians.  .




You REALLY believe that?  Dude, everytime I read you here on the board wagging and jumping and defending the destructive lifestyle you've chosen, my heart breaks a little bit.  It's like a captain going down with a ship.  You know you hate your sin; but instead of dealing with fixing yourself, you pretend it's NORMAL and GOOD.

:-/


----------



## Kagom

dmp said:


> You REALLY believe that?  Dude, everytime I read you here on the board wagging and jumping and defending the destructive lifestyle you've chosen, my heart breaks a little bit.  It's like a captain going down with a ship.  You know you hate your sin; but instead of dealing with fixing yourself, you pretend it's NORMAL and GOOD.
> 
> :-/


dmp, I know how you feel.  I honestly do.  I'm not going to dabble into my life story or anything, but I do know how you feel and why you feel the way you do.

And yes, I do believe it.  As for defending my "destructive" lifestyle, why wouldn't I defend it?  It's who I am and it plays a role in my life.  I feel that it isn't wrong or destructive and a rather normal part of life.  We disagree on that and we always will.

Are you a mind-reader, dmp?  Because that's a load of tripe if I've ever read anything.  You don't know what goes on in my head nor would you be able to ever GUESS what goes on in my head.


----------



## archangel

Kagom said:


> dmp, I know how you feel.  I honestly do.  I'm not going to dabble into my life story or anything, but I do know how you feel and why you feel the way you do.
> 
> And yes, I do believe it.  As for defending my "destructive" lifestyle, why wouldn't I defend it?  It's who I am and it plays a role in my life.  I feel that it isn't wrong or destructive and a rather normal part of life.  We disagree on that and we always will.
> 
> Are you a mind-reader, dmp?  Because that's a load of tripe if I've ever read anything.  You don't know what goes on in my head nor would you be able to ever GUESS what goes on in my head.





in your head what was programmed...get a grip dude....or is that dudette?
You were lied to..and now ya must pay the price...if ya are still willing to go down that road...lifes a bitch and some parents make it worse...by saying ya are cool or whatever!


----------



## Kagom

archangel said:


> in your head what was programmed...get a grip dude....or is that dudette?
> You were lied to..and now ya must pay the price...if ya are still willing to go down that road...lifes a bitch and some parents make it worse...by saying ya are cool or whatever!


Ya know, I found this really cool archangel decoder ring and then it broke.  I guess it was made in China.

Programmed?  Yes, because I'm really a cyborg with a 55 terabyte drive for a brain.  And I'm Microsoft friendly.  Yeah, total programming of this brain o' mine.

I haven't been lied to by anyone.  I make my own decisions after careful examination of what's said.


----------



## sitarro

dmp said:


> Excellent piece - and I hear he shoots pics w/ a Canon DSLR, too!



So Canon gave him a set up also.... I have to give it to them, they have some of the best marketing people out there.


----------



## dmp

Kagom said:


> Are you a mind-reader, dmp?  Because that's a load of tripe if I've ever read anything.  You don't know what goes on in my head nor would you be able to ever GUESS what goes on in my head.



I know people's hearts, generally, betrayed by what they say - or type


----------



## Kagom

dmp said:


> I know people's hearts, generally, betrayed by what they say - or type


Not all.  I'm not exactly like any other person you'll meet.  I've said nothing to give away any kind of feeling of resentment for being who I am.


----------



## dmp

Kagom said:


> Not all.  I'm not exactly like any other person you'll meet.  I've said nothing to give away any kind of feeling of resentment for being who I am.



Right. You're special...just like everyone else


----------



## Kagom

dmp said:


> Right. You're special...just like everyone else


If everyone else includes Dan Akroyd and Albert Einstein, then yes I am!


----------



## sitarro

I felt this couple of lines were some of my favorites.....

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other  and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled."

Makes you wonder why the "gay marriage" advocates are pushing it on society so hard when the simple solution is to go to a homosexual lawyer and set up what ever legal restrictions you want on your relationship. But in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in any traditional sense, it is all about getting a symbolic "OK" to the lifestyle that they know deep inside is neither equal or natural in any way.The hypocrisy in the homosexual community is overwhelming. There is the criticism of those who are normal(breeders) and yet they want the acceptance of those they criticize. The whole point of marriage is to join two people into one for a lifetime, nothing about this is natural to the homosexual lifestyle. As much as homosexuals would like to pretend that they aren't different in the way they live their lives, they are. Never have seen a "heterosexual pride" parade with promiscuous people acting out sexual positions on floats.

Homosexuals like to use the worst of heterosexual marriages as a reason why they should be allowed to marry, I think the comparison should be with marriages like my parents who raised 6 kids and were married for 57 years when my father died 3 years ago, at 83, my mother is still very much married to her man. As for the hetero couples that are "barren"(?????), they are still able to provide a stable healthy environment to raise children.

Marriage has always been an institution to provide a stable homelife for the procreation of children. It isn't another social experiment that will destroy everything special about it, there are already enough heterosexuals doing that.


----------



## Reneer

All quotes from http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081606.php3.



> Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.



Actually, most homosexuals that I know simply want equal treatment under the law. To have their union legally recognized by the state, which would afford them the same rights that any heterosexual couple would have when they sign a marriage certificate with witnesses present to the signing.



> Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.



Actually, the state asserts an interest in all (currently heterosexual only) unions. Let's take my state, Michigan, as an example. The marriages that are prohibited under Michigan Marriage Law only have to do with marriages that may lead to inbreeding. Any other marriage (excepting homosexual) is just fine, and affords the couple all the benefits of marriage under United States Code.



> In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.



That is incorrect. Most gay marriage advocates talk about equality under the law, not about expansion of rights. Note how in his own article Mr. Sowell talks about the "equal protection of the laws" given to people by the Constitution.



> They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.



Simply because an institution existed for an extended period of time in some form does not mean that it should continue to exist in that form indefinitely. Simply because marriage has existed between men and women for hundreds of years does not mean it should continue to do so. To use 'tradition' as an argument to 'stay the course' with marriage falls directly under the appeal to tradition fallacy.



> Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.



Going with that logic, gay marriage is also discrimination against people, because it bans marriage because of the 'particular people' involved, who are both of the same sex.



> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.
> 
> There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.



Then 'those laws' should be revoked from couples who cannot bear children or do not wish to bear children or adopt children. Gay couples can, if their marriage is allowed, adopt children, just like infertile couples do. If the couple has a child that they are supporting, then they should get the benefits that go along with supporting a child, no matter if the couple is homosexual or heterosexual.



> Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.



I do not see how this would be affected by one member of a couple simply restricting their involvement in the workforce, regardless if they are considered the 'wife' or not. Supporting the family is supporting the family, no matter who does it.



> In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
> 
> Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?



Whoever has custody of the children / has been supported by the other financially should be given alimony. If both of the parties was financially independent, then no alimony should be given (unless children are involved.)



> And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?



Because of the fact that there are heterosexual marriages that do not produce children, and because of the fact that Mr. Sowell's 'asymmetries' applying to a particular gender are definitely out-dated in this day and age when men are 'stay at home dads' and mom goes out to work as the CEO of a company.


----------



## mattskramer

(YAWN) 
Ive gone over all of the arguments before.  There is nothing new here. I dont have time to hit every sentence. Here are a couple of simple rebuttals.



> Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.
> 
> The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.



Let's make more discrimination against actions.  There should be no interfaith marriages. Aren't there high divorce rate between couple that have different religious faiths.  Also, let us prevent Backs from getting married to Whites. 

Yes.  People discriminate against some actions but we don't discriminate against other actions.  It looks like we have no argument here. I simply don't see that we should discriminate against marriage between people of the same sex. 



> Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.



Wrong.  Interracial marriage is an action.  It is the action of choosing a partner (one who happens to be of a different race) and creating a union (a marriage)



> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.



So what. Tradition is not an indication of right or wrong. 



> There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.



Okay.  Let us then outlaw marriage for those heterosexual couple that can't or won't have children. Besides.  If a gay couple it can adopt or use a surrogate parent.

-------------------------------------------

It is the same tired rhetoric merely worded differently.  It has been soundly rebutted time after time.


----------



## OCA

Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.

You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!


----------



## Kagom

OCA said:


> Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.
> 
> You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!


Uh huh.  Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals.  Okay, have fun with that.


----------



## Reneer

OCA said:


> Lol, apparently the courts don't agree with any of the bullshit that Fagom, Rudolph The Reindeer and of course the mutual masturbator himself Matts spout...........all the constitutional challenges to queer marriage bans have been defeated in the states that have passed such measures.
> 
> You guys are losing this issue to obtain "special rights" and for legitimization of a perversion of choice, I love it!



And yet you offer no rebuttal to my breakdown of Mr. Sowell's article and why it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You boast of homosexuals losing 'special rights' but homosexuals do not want 'special rights.' You call it a perversion of choice, yet the medical community does not consider it so. You say that the issue is being lost, but I say there are still bastions of tolerance even in those states with Constitutional Amendments.


----------



## sitarro

Kagom said:


> Uh huh.  Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals.  Okay, have fun with that.



Losing the battle? Is that what you addicts are calling it today? Are you really going to try to tell us with a straight(oops) face that when you lay there in the dark with another man's unit in your mouth, somewhere deep in the back of your mind your conscious isn't saying to you....WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING???!!!

If being a homosexual is so tough and you wouldn't wish that lifestyle on anyone, why would you want to promote it? Why would you want to tell kids that it isn't a perverted lifestyle? You were just born with a defect that makes you abnormal and that's OK, just keep it to yourself and you won't be round up and quarantined from society. They are doing it to tobacco smokers so man pole smokers shouldn't be far away.:funnyface


----------



## Kagom

sitarro said:


> Losing the battle? Is that what you addicts are calling it today? Are you really going to try to tell us with a straight(oops) face that when you lay there in the dark with another man's unit in your mouth, somewhere deep in the back of your mind your conscious isn't saying to you....WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING???!!!
> 
> If being a homosexual is so tough and you wouldn't wish that lifestyle on anyone, why would you want to promote it? Why would you want to tell kids that it isn't a perverted lifestyle? You were just born with a defect that makes you abnormal and that's OK, just keep it to yourself and you won't be round up and quarantined from society. They are doing it to tobacco smokers so man pole smokers shouldn't be far away.:funnyface


Yes, that's what I'm going to call it.  It feels totally appropriate.

Have I ever wondered what am I doing?  No.  The thought's never occurred to me ever.  I see no reason to, unless the guy was someone I didn't know or something, which would be really odd...but that'd be too personal to get into!

Why would I promote it?  I'm promoting tolerance of it.  Why tell them that?  Because I don't feel it is.  You have to understand that the reason no one'd choose to be gay is because of all the ostracization that comes along with it.  If that weren't there, it'd be completely different to say.  I do keep it to myself for the most part, but if I were to come across someone that I'd like to spend the rest of my life with and get some health benefits, it's different.  I deserve the same rights as you would with your wife.

Cigarettes kill people by putting toxins and tar into their lungs.  And it costs a lot of money.  However, tobacco by itself is not as lethal unless it's also laced with a plethora of nasty things.  However, equating homosexuality to smoking cigarettes is pathetic and petty in logic.


----------



## Nienna

Pale Rider said:


> One of the best lines I've heard as of yet.



That was a good point, and I liked this point, also:


> The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.


----------



## 007

Reneer said:


> You call it a perversion of choice, yet the medical community does not consider it so.



Bullshit. It's common knowledge that the APA was under siege by the queer community, even from the inside....



> *NARTH Report Shows Gay Activist Influence on Mental Health Organizations*
> 
> Says society that promotes homosexuality results in more self-identified homosexuals
> 
> By Gudrun Schultz
> 
> ENCINO, California, February 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)  A new paper by a leading psychiatrist documents the control gay activists exert over mental health organizations in the U.S.
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines the influence of gay organizations on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, which has lead them to abandon scientific accuracy and authentic research in order to support the political goals of the homosexual community.
> 
> His paper, The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research And Jurisprudence To Be Subverted In Lockstep With The Political Aims Of Their Gay Sub-Components, was published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). (See complete text of Dr. Satinovers paper here: http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf)
> 
> Dr. Satinover details the homosexual activist campaign to force the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders. The campaign used disruption and misrepresentation to accomplish their goal, achieved in 1973. Activists within the APA combined forces with gay organizations to present to the APA incomplete and biased research supporting the normalcy of homosexuality which neglected to analyze the data or offer any challenge.
> 
> The APAs decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was presented to the public as based upon a solid scientific foundation, though this foundation was in fact lacking...The APA and others have so often repeated the same falsehoods that the public and even the Supreme Court now take for granted that science has demonstrated that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variant of human sexuality if it is fixed early in life and does not change writes Dr. Satinover.
> 
> He goes on to detail how advocates of homosexuality within the scientific community appear to willfully bypass excellent research (some of it their own) that clearly links homosexuality and psychopathology.
> 
> Dr. Satinover extensively outlines research that suggests the impulse to homosexuality (which most frequently manifests itself during adolescence) will spontaneously decrease over time, and will eventually disappear, unless it is given support and encouragement.
> 
> the reality is that since 1994for ten yearsthere has existed solid epidemiological evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a homosexual identity is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors, he states (his emphasis.)
> 
> He concludes by noting that the factors influencing the sexual development of young people are largely contained in the social and family context. Therefore, a society that promotes homosexuality will result in increasing numbers of people who identify themselves as homosexuals.
> 
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020902.html


----------



## Kagom

lol

Silly Pale with his NARTH sources.  They're incredibly biased and bullshitted in and of themselves.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Uh huh.  Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals.  Okay, have fun with that.



No, you're losing the battle because the more people see and hear about homosexuality, the LESS they want to hear. It's sick and perverted, and rightly so turns most normal people's stomach. They want you to just go away and shut the hell up. Get back in your closet. Lie to yourself, not us. We know what right from wrong is, and two men having sex together is about as sick of an act against all that is normal and moral as one can get.

You may not admit to yourself, or to us kag, that you're lying to yourself, but we all know you are. That's what dmp was saying. You're ship is sinking, and you're on it, but you're going to go down with the ship even knowing it's sinking. But to you, even as the water edges up to your neck, you still think everything is OK. That's *lying to yourself* kag, big time.

I don't need you to admit it to me. I know you're doing it. I know the thruth.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> lol
> 
> Silly Pale with his NARTH sources.  They're incredibly biased and bullshitted in and of themselves.



I'd have bet my LIFE that you'd instantly go... "oh that's all just bullshit, blah, blah, blah", even though the article is racked with unrefutable facts.

You're predictable.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> No, you're losing the battle because the more people see and hear about homosexuality, the LESS they want to hear. It's sick and perverted, and rightly so turns most normal people's stomach. They want you to just go away and shut the hell up. Get back in your closet. Lie to yourself, not us. We know what right from wrong is, and two men having sex together is about as sick of an act against all that is normal and moral as one can get.
> 
> You may not admit to yourself, or to us kag, that you're lying to yourself, but we all know you are. That's what dmp was saying. You're ship is sinking, and you're on it, but you're going to go down with the ship even knowing it's sinking. But to you, even as the water edges up to your neck, you still think everything is OK. That's *lying to yourself* kag.
> 
> I don't need you to admit it to me. I know you're doing it. I know the thruth.


Mhmm...you done yet, man?  You've yet to make any real point and you were so close to actually making one.  You come off as only an angry and abrasive person, really.  As for lying to myself: I see no need to lie to myself about anything, my sexuality in particular.  You all can tell me that you somehow magically know how I think and feel about things, though you're wrong so horribly.  Feel free, it's the freedom of speech you get to enjoy.



Pale Rider said:


> I'd have bet my LIFE that you'd instantly go... "oh that's all just bullshit, blah, blah, blah", even though the article is racked with unrefutable facts.
> 
> You're predictable.


Of course I'm going to criticize your source, especially it coming from NARTH.  Unrefutable?  I doubt that considering the only sources on there are all pro-family, pro-conservative, and anti-gay peoples.  You automatically disqualify yourself in the area of fact giving with this bogus tripe.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Mhmm...you done yet, man?  You've yet to make any real point and you were so close to actually making one.  You come off as only an angry and abrasive person, really.  As for lying to myself: I see no need to lie to myself about anything, my sexuality in particular.  You all can tell me that you somehow magically know how I think and feel about things, though you're wrong so horribly.  Feel free, it's the freedom of speech you get to enjoy.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm going to criticize your source, especially it coming from NARTH.  Unrefutable?  I doubt that considering the only sources on there are all pro-family, pro-conservative, and anti-gay peoples.  You automatically disqualify yourself in the area of fact giving with this bogus tripe.




You're so full of shit kag, are your eye's brown? If not, you're just a quart low after that last post.

Two words kag... *reparative therapy*...

quotes from *ex*-homo's...



> As one 23-year old client explained:
> 
> "I've had these feelings and these urgings, but the idea of being of gay person is just ridiculous...it's such a strange lifestyle, on the fringes of society...it's something I could never be a part of."
> 
> Another young man said:
> 
> "I have never believed I had homosexual tendencies because I was 'born that way.' It is quite an insult to my dignity and a gross disservice to my quest for growth to be told that I have no hope for change."
> 
> Said another:
> 
> "*To me, embracing a homosexual lifestyle has been like living a lie.* I have found it to be a painful, confusing and destructive force in my life. Only since I have started to look at what is behind these homosexual feelings have I really begun to find peace."
> 
> 
> http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> You're so full of shit kag, are your eye's brown? If not, you're just a quart low after that last post.
> 
> Two words kag... *reparative therapy*...
> 
> quotes from *ex*-homo's...


OMG!  YOU KNOW I HAVE BROWN EYES?  LET'S ACCESSORIZE!

Reparative therapy is a bunch of bullshit wrapped up in a tortilla with the words "Truth" stamped in with lead based paint.

NARTH proves nothing.  They're full of shit and bias results and research.  I've heard far more horror stories from people who go through the ex-gay process than I hear success.  In fact, I rarely hear anything about successes outside of the ex-gay movement's bullshit.


----------



## Reneer

Pale Rider said:


> No, you're losing the battle because the more people see and hear about homosexuality, the LESS they want to hear. It's sick and perverted, and rightly so turns most normal people's stomach. They want you to just go away and shut the hell up. Get back in your closet. Lie to yourself, not us. We know what right from wrong is, and two men having sex together is about as sick of an act against all that is normal and moral as one can get.
> 
> You may not admit to yourself, or to us kag, that you're lying to yourself, but we all know you are. That's what dmp was saying. You're ship is sinking, and you're on it, but you're going to go down with the ship even knowing it's sinking. But to you, even as the water edges up to your neck, you still think everything is OK. That's *lying to yourself* kag.
> 
> I don't need you to admit it to me. I know you're doing it. I know the thruth.



The source you cite, NARTH, is extremely biased. It's like having a white supremicist group do a study on black crime.

And you may know the 'thruth,' Pale, but it isn't just the APA that challanges NARTH. Try WHO too. They publish something called the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) and guess what? Homosexuality isn't listed as a mental disease. Surprise surprise. So now I'll just bet you'll tell me that the homosexual lobby got to WHO too, sometime during the creation of the European Union.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> OMG!  YOU KNOW I HAVE BROWN EYES?  LET'S ACCESSORIZE!
> 
> Reparative therapy is a bunch of bullshit wrapped up in a tortilla with the words "Truth" stamped in with lead based paint.
> 
> NARTH proves nothing.  They're full of shit and bias results and research.  I've heard far more horror stories from people who go through the ex-gay process than I hear success.  In fact, I rarely hear anything about successes outside of the ex-gay movement's bullshit.



Kag, at this point, you're not much more than just commical to me. You make me laugh, even though you do sound like a broken record.


----------



## 007

Reneer said:


> The source you cite, NARTH, is extremely biased. It's like having a white supremicist group do a study on black crime.
> 
> And you may know the 'thruth,' Pale, but it isn't just the APA that challanges NARTH. Try WHO too. They publish something called the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) and guess what? Homosexuality isn't listed as a mental disease. Surprise surprise. So now I'll just bet you'll tell me that the homosexual lobby got to WHO too, sometime during the creation of the European Union.



And who are you? Kag's lesbian sister?


----------



## Reneer

Pale Rider said:


> And who are you? Kag's lesbian sister?



Ha ha. I'm someone who's giving you counter-examples to your NARTH sources. Mind telling me why both the APA and WHO counter what NARTH says?


----------



## 007

Reneer said:


> Ha ha. I'm someone who's giving you counter-examples to your NARTH sources. Mind telling me why both the APA and WHO counter what NARTH says?



You've totally ignored what I posted. The APA *did* list homosexuality as a mental disorder up until 1973, when under intense pressure from outside, and inside the orginization by the fags, they buckled, without as much as a reason "why". They said they'd "study" it, but never have. It's common knowledge that they changed it because of the pressure.

I'm searching for the article, which I posted here, that say's that the president of the APA, once again, sees homosexuality as a mental illness. Of course this has stirred up a fire storm of hate filled attacks on him by the queers, but that can be expected. They don't want to lose any territory that they've gained, even if it is the "truth".

I find you people that "defend" this sickness odd. Why you champion something so vile, perverted, and disusting is beyond me. Unless of course you ARE queer, like kag. Then it's obvious why he lies to himself. He HAS to, to keep doing what he's doing. He's weak, and needs to feel good about himself. One day when he's more mature, maybe more of a "man", if I can use that term, he'll admit to himself that he's sick and get help.


Found it...


----------



## Reneer

Pale Rider said:


> You've totally ignored what I posted. The APA *did* list homosexuality as a mental disorder up until 1973, when under intense pressure from outside, and inside the orginization by the fags, they buckled, without as much as a reason "why". They said they'd "study" it, but never have. It's common knowledge that they changed it because of the pressure.
> 
> I'm searching for the article, which I posted here, that say's that the president of the APA, once again, sees homosexuality as a mental illness. Of course this has stirred up a fire storm of hate filled attacks on him by the queers, but that can be expected. They don't want to lose any territory that they've gained, even if it is the "truth".
> 
> I find you people that "defend" this sickness odd. Why you champion something so vile, perverted, and disusting is beyond me. Unless of course you ARE queer, like kag. Then it's obvious why he lies to himself. He HAS to, to keep doing what he's doing. He's weak, and needs to feel good about himself. One day when he's more mature, maybe more of a "man", if I can use that term, he'll admit to himself that he's sick and get help.



Wow you're good. You question my sexuality, again go after Kagom, explain why you distrust the APA (but provide no sources as to why the APA is wrong) and yet you still didn't even try to answer my question. I'll repeat it: why does WHO and APA both have a position on homosexuality-as-mental-illness that is 100% counter to your NARTH sources? Perhaps it may be that the WHO and APA are correct? Or can you find a reason that both are mistaken on the issue of homosexuality?


----------



## 007

Reneer said:


> Wow you're good. You question my sexuality, again go after Kagom, explain why you distrust the APA (but provide no sources as to why the APA is wrong) and yet you still didn't even try to answer my question. I'll repeat it: why does WHO and APA both have a position on homosexuality-as-mental-illness that is 100% counter to your NARTH sources? Perhaps it may be that the WHO and APA are correct? Or can you find a reason that both are mistaken on the issue of homosexuality?



Oh you're good too... at pumping out psychobabble. But then all liberals are.

I've answered your 'question' in more ways than one. You're ignoring it so... here's your picture...


----------



## Reneer

Pale Rider said:


> Oh you're good too... at pumping out psychobabble. But then all liberals are.
> 
> I've answered your 'question' in more ways than one. You're ignoring it so... here's your picture...



Psychobabble? What have I said that could possibly be construed as so-called 'psychobabble'?

And no, you haven't answered my question. One last time: Why does WHO and the APA, two completely different organizations, have the same viewpoint on homosexuality that is contradictory to NARTHs? You've explained your reasoning for disregarding the APA, now please tell me why WHO is also wrong about homosexuality while NARTH is right.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> Kag, at this point, you're not much more than just commical to me. You make me laugh, even though you do sound like a broken record.


You're more of a broken record than me, Pale.  I at least don't make a habit of posting bullshitted, cockamaney biased sources to make a point.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kagom said:


> You're more of a broken record than me, Pale.  I at least don't make a habit of posting bullshitted, cockamaney biased sources to make a point.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kagom again.


----------



## CockySOB

Pale Rider said:


> No, you're losing the battle because the more people see and hear about homosexuality, the LESS they want to hear.



That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly.  Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war.  Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind.  In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.  

*sigh*


----------



## Kagom

CockySOB said:


> That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly.  Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war.  Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind.  In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.
> 
> *sigh*


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CockySOB again.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

CockySOB said:


> That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly.  Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war.  Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind.  In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.
> 
> *sigh*



Yes, your post makes sense, however, the "gay war" is a hoax. 

Leftist socialist communists are the ones who are leading the "gay movement".  They could care less about "acceptance" of the gays.  Instead they want to create as much havoc as they can with our American system because their goal is to breakdown our society and country and take over.  This is the REAL war.  

The stupid gays don't even realize they are just puppets of the Left.  Just look at how gays will support Islam and attack Christianity because the Left leads them to do so.  How stupid is that?  Christians aren't out to kill gays but Muslims are.  Totalitarian new world orders will not tolerate gays if they are not useful to them.  Doesn't America come first before gay "marriage"?  What's your take on that Kagom?  When are gay Americans going to wake up to reality and stop being simpering selfish fools?


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Bullshit. It's common knowledge that the APA was under siege by the queer community, even from the inside....



Yadda yadda yadda.  Now the APA is under siege by the anti-gay community.


----------



## musicman

mattskramer said:


> Yadda yadda yadda.  Now the APA is under siege by the anti-gay community.



The constant, then - it would seem - is the APA, as an organization whose opinion of what is and isn't mental illness is up for grabs.

Q: What is the APA's position on homosexuality today?

A: I don't know - where is the political pressure coming from?

Hard science, indeed! Sounds like the whole organization is being run by the Clintons.


----------



## musicman

CockySOB said:


> That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly.  Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war.  Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind.  In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.
> 
> *sigh*



You're so right. This is why I seldom get into discussions on homosexual rights or abortion policy anymore; to my mind, it always boils down to the same question: whose call should it be? If the answer is anything besides, "the people", I know I'm dealing with a tyrant who distrusts the principle of representative government. If you're convinced of the rightness of your viewpoint, change minds, and leave the shysters out of it.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> You're so right. This is why I seldom get into discussions on homosexual rights or abortion policy anymore; to my mind, it always boils down to the same question: whose call should it be? If the answer is anything besides, "the people", I know I'm dealing with a tyrant who distrusts the principle of representative government. If you're convinced of the rightness of your viewpoint, change minds, and leave the shysters out of it.



What's wrong with the libertarian route of each person deciding for themselves when their actions affect no one but themselves?


----------



## musicman

ScreamingEagle said:


> Yes, your post makes sense, however, the "gay war" is a hoax.
> 
> Leftist socialist communists are the ones who are leading the "gay movement".  They could care less about "acceptance" of the gays.  Instead they want to create as much havoc as they can with our American system because their goal is to breakdown our society and country and take over.  This is the REAL war.
> 
> The stupid gays don't even realize they are just puppets of the Left.  Just look at how gays will support Islam and attack Christianity because the Left leads them to do so.  How stupid is that?  Christians aren't out to kill gays but Muslims are.  Totalitarian new world orders will not tolerate gays if they are not useful to them.  Doesn't America come first before gay "marriage"?  What's your take on that Kagom?  When are gay Americans going to wake up to reality and stop being simpering selfish fools?



Bullseye! Those who will not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> What's wrong with the libertarian route of each person deciding for themselves when their actions affect no one but themselves?



Not a thing. Can that freedom apply to communities, as well?


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> Not a thing. Can that freedom apply to communities, as well?



It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality.



I believe you. I find that disturbing. You are a bright, articulate person who distrusts the fundamental precepts of representative government. I like you - I enjoy chatting with you - but I consider your mindset misguided and dangerous.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no?



What's wrong with that, if that's what they want? Isn't it natural to want to be among kindred spirits? With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us.



Do you believe diversity should be enforced, if necessary?



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"...



In a representative republic, that "government" which "insinuates" itself into "certain issues" is called "the will of the people". The only time I see anyone being forced to do anything is when the central government overflows its constitutional banks and attempts to insinuate ITself in the people's business. 



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that term deals with the creation of the Electoral College - without which there truly would be a "tyranny of the majority". Voting outside large metropolitan areas would be pointless.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

jillian said:


> It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.



You prefer tyranny of the minority?


----------



## jillian

ScreamingEagle said:


> You prefer tyranny of the minority?



Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

jillian said:


> Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?



You poor misled libs and your foolish "choices"....heads up here!.....a majority vote is NOT tryranny.


----------



## jillian

ScreamingEagle said:


> You poor misled libs and your foolish "choices"....heads up here!.....a majority vote is NOT tryranny.



And if the majority oppresses the minority? That's not tyranny? You poor widdle righties always seeking the authoritarian approach.

Are you so far to the right that you think libertarians are liberals?


----------



## mattskramer

jillian said:


> Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?



Sufficient things considered, I think that we have a good balance in America with three branches of government and a system of checks and balances.  We have a representative democracy with several layers (local, state, and federal jurisdiction).  Moderation is almost always the key.


----------



## archangel

and all we hear is Gay-Gay-Gay issues...really getting old...unless y'all mean  Happy-Happy-Happy as the definition applies! Okay now... ya can smack me cause' I have no idea of what I am talikng about...just a Red Neck I guess...who deserves a spanking!:fifty:


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> And if the majority oppresses the minority? That's not tyranny? You poor widdle righties always seeking the authoritarian approach.



I think it's just the opposite. Any true oppression of the rights of minorities must submit itself to correction according to the protections of the U.S.Constitution. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for the left. It is THEY who seek to impose the authoritarianism of central government run amok.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Are you so far to the right that you think libertarians are liberals?



If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.



The problem is, people should be able to segregate themselves if they want to.  That is ALSO part of "freedom."  

I would hardly call enforced multi-culturalism as any form of "freedom."  Sounds more like the authoritarianism you claim to not care for.

The minority not having to suffer the tyranny of the majority does not automatically swing 180 so that the majority has to suffer the tyranny of the minority; which, more and more seems to be the case.


----------



## musicman

I'm going to augment and amplify my statement a bit. I'm doing this because I find it extraordinary that the left has been able to hijack language and discourse to the point where the right are portrayed as "authoritarian".

If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community - preferring instead the edicts of a brutish, unelected authority which happens, in this case, to agree with YOU -  I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian, and me an authoritarian.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> I think it's just the opposite. Any true oppression of the rights of minorities must submit itself to correction according to the protections of the U.S.Constitution. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for the left. It is THEY who seek to impose the authoritarianism of central government run amok.



I think that's kind of disingenuous. You can't realistically say that when people don't want the government to interfere with individual liberties that that they "seek to impose authoritarianism".



> If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.



I'm not a libertarian, though there is a great deal that the libertarian party stands for that I agree with. And "self-representing communit[ies]" aren't what's embodied in the libertarian platform, because when you talk about self representing communities, you are actually talking about government calling the shots in our personal lives.

This is from the Libertarian Party Platform:



> We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
> 
> Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.



http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml


Interestingly enough, Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative, probably wouldn't be welcome among today's brand of extremists. He was pro-choice, pro-individual rights and truly supported smaller government, at least when it came to its interference in the lives of individuals.


----------



## jillian

Oh...and MM, the libertarian party on the issue of separation of church and state:



> Issue:  Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.
> 
> Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
> 
> Solution:  In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.



and on the issue of reproductive rights:



> The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
> Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.



and on gay marriage:



> I.9 Sexuality and Gender
> 
> The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
> 
> The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.
> 
> Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.
> 
> Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation.  Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual



http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freereli


----------



## musicman

musicman said:
			
		

> If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.






jillian said:


> I think that's kind of disingenuous. You can't realistically say that when people don't want the government to interfere with individual liberties that that they "seek to impose authoritarianism".



I'm sorry - could you clarify?



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> I'm not a libertarian, though there is a great deal that the libertarian party stands for that I agree with. And "self-representing communit[ies]" aren't what's embodied in the libertarian platform, because when you talk about self representing communities, you are actually talking about government calling the shots in our personal lives.



Ummm...yeah - "the government" being US. The shots being called by US. You seem to not be hearing the part about a community being made up of individuals, all of whom have rights. When one person wishes to thwart the will of all the individuals who make up his community - in the name of his individual rights - how's he going to do that? Who's going to wield the club? Central government, THAT'S who. Mission accomplished; freedom squashed.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> Oh...and MM, the libertarian party on the issue of separation of church and state:
> 
> 
> 
> and on the issue of reproductive rights:
> 
> 
> 
> and on gay marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freereli



Interesting. Irrelevant to me, as a conservative, but interesting.


----------



## Gunny

musicman said:


> I'm going to augment and amplify my statement a bit. I'm doing this because I find it extraordinary that the left has been able to hijack language and discourse to the point where the right are portrayed as "authoritarian".
> 
> *If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community - preferring instead the edicts of a brutish, unelected authority which happens, in this case, to agree with YOU -*  I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian, and me an authoritarian.



"_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to musicman again._"

Agreed.


----------



## musicman

GunnyL said:


> "_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to musicman again._"
> 
> Agreed.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> Interesting. Irrelevant to me, as a conservative, but interesting.



Actually, those ARE conservative values... came down from good ole Barry, himself...

What you guys are is something quite different, hence my belief that today's republicans are anything but conservative.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> Actually, those ARE conservative values... came down from good ole Barry, himself...
> 
> What you guys are is something quite different, hence my belief that today's republicans are anything but conservative.



Ah, yes - we're EXTREMISTS. Tell me - who said this?:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".


----------



## Gunny

musicman said:


>



I find current political idealism fascinating what with everyone shifting around and jockeying for a piece of the spectrum.  Equally fascinating is the denial from those who refuse to acknowledge traditional definitions as tenets of their beliefs if it doesn't suit them to.

Last I checked, an all-powerful, controlling central government was a tenet of fascism.  

Libertarianism requires great individual responsibility; which, would never work with , and is in direct opposition to liberalism.  Liberals just like to cherry-pick through the parts they like.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Actually, those ARE conservative values... came down from good ole Barry, himself...
> 
> What you guys are is something quite different, hence my belief that today's republicans are anything but conservative.



You're partly correct.  A good portion of today's conservatives are _yesterday's_ liberals.  We got left out on the curb in the rain by our party when it shifted far-left.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> Ah, yes - we're EXTREMISTS. Tell me - who said this?:
> 
> "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".



I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.

BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.
> 
> BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.



I disagree.  There is no other way to defend liberty but with everything you have.  If it isn't worth that, you will lose it.


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> I find current political idealism fascinating what with everyone shifting around and jockeying for a piece of the spectrum.  Equally fascinating is the denial from those who refuse to acknowledge traditional definitions as tenets of their beliefs if it doesn't suit them to.
> 
> Last I checked, an all-powerful, controlling central government was a tenet of fascism.
> 
> Libertarianism requires great individual responsibility; which, would never work with , and is in direct opposition to liberalism.  Liberals just like to cherry-pick through the parts they like.




Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.

Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.
> 
> BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.



Damn - you lost your warm and fuzzy feelings for Barry Goldwater in a hurry, didn't you? Hope you didn't get whiplash!


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.
> 
> Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live.



I like my cherries with a constitutional flavor to them.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> I like my cherries with a constitutional flavor to them.




As do I... but let's look at what the purpose of the Constitution is/was... it was intended to limit the powers of government and assure the rights of the individual. That's why you got Amendments 1 thru 10... And I'd defend the Second Amendment same as I would the First....


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.
> 
> Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live.



Nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't choosing something with opposing views.  Reality dictates we don't get to pick and choose.

While you are championining libertarian views, I didn't see your mention of the fact they are the next best thing to anarchy.  Just wonding how that fits in with your central-government-forced multiculturalism.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> Damn - you lost your warm and fuzzy feelings for Barry Goldwater in a hurry, didn't you? Hope you didn't get whiplash!



No whiplash. I respect him as a man true to his values. And he's be horrified by todays so-called conservatives based on what I saw. Doesn't mean I'd have voted for him. I'm not the conservative, remember?


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> Nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't choosing something with opposing views.  Reality dictates we don't get to pick and choose.
> 
> While you are championining libertarian views, I didn't see your mention of the fact they are the next best thing to anarchy.  Just wonding how that fits in with your central-government-forced multiculturalism.



It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.

I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> No whiplash. I respect him as a man true to his values. And he's be horrified by todays so-called conservatives based on what I saw. Doesn't mean I'd have voted for him. I'm not the conservative, remember?



Ah, but remember - the terms "conservative" and "Republican" are not interchangeable - not by a damned sight.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.
> 
> I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.



I reference this statement:



> It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.



I'm reading that you think people should not have the right to segregate themselves if they wish, while libertarians beleive exactly the opposite.

In all actuality, libertarianism is at least a completely honest ideology.  As little government as possible in all things.  Keeps the hypocrisy to a minimum.  

Government at the lowest level is hardly a libertarian original though.  It's been a tenet of traditional conservatism for years and years.  One that some neo-cons need to be reminded of.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

jillian said:


> It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.
> 
> I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.



The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.

Regarding libertarianism, I imagine Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he were to see the sad results of libertarianism with regard to the "individual freedoms" such as pornography, abortion, gay sex, polygamy, etc.


----------



## Bonnie

musicman said:


> I believe you. I find that disturbing. You are a bright, articulate person who distrusts the fundamental precepts of representative government. I like you - I enjoy chatting with you - but I consider your mindset misguided and dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that, if that's what they want? Isn't it natural to want to be among kindred spirits? With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe diversity should be enforced, if necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> *In a representative republic, that "government" which "insinuates" itself into "certain issues" is called "the will of the people". The only time I see anyone being forced to do anything is when the central government overflows its constitutional banks and attempts to insinuate ITself in the people's business. *
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that term deals with the creation of the Electoral College - without which there truly would be a "tyranny of the majority". Voting outside large metropolitan areas would be pointless.



Bravo MM...How quickly some forget that truth.   twould be interesting to see a direct vote from the people on this and a few other "issues".  Of course represented republics don't operate that way......


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.



How about instead, we make the children of gay couples wear something that sets them apart from the other kids, brief all of the other kids on just how sick and disgusting these kids' parents are, explain that these children should be ostracized, ridiculed, harrassed, beaten, and abused because they are obviously homosexuals in training and are themselves sick and disgusting.  Sound like a plan?     Does that appeal to your sense of morality?


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> How about instead, we make the children of gay couples wear something that sets them apart from the other kids, brief all of the other kids on just how sick and disgusting these kids' parents are, explain that these children should be ostracized, ridiculed, harrassed, beaten, and abused because they are obviously homosexuals in training and are themselves sick and disgusting.  Sound like a plan?     Does that appeal to your sense of morality?



How about we put your crazy ass in a straight jacket?


----------



## Dr Grump

ScreamingEagle said:


> The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.




I get the "noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' businesses" re the latter, but not the former...


----------



## JeffWartman

ScreamingEagle said:


> The problem is...some peoples' noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' business....such as via the gay "marriage" issue and the "education" of our children on the "normalcy" of gay sex.
> 
> Regarding libertarianism, I imagine Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he were to see the sad results of libertarianism with regard to the "individual freedoms" such as pornography, abortion, gay sex, polygamy, etc.



Well, Goldwater was pro-choice and pro gay rights.  He famously supported gays in the military in the late 1980's and 1990's, stating that gays should be allowed to servce "as long as they can shoot straight".  He also said that "every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass".

You can read more about Barry here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14863898/site/newsweek/


----------



## musicman

Holy cow - I'm just now seeing this post! Sleeping at the switch again...



jillian said:


> As do I... but let's look at what the purpose of the Constitution is/was... it was intended to limit the powers of government



Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> and assure the rights of the individual.



Right again - specifically, his right to govern himself. I just don't understand how this translates into one individual thwarting the will of a whole community of other individuals, and using central government as a cudgel.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> That's why you got Amendments 1 thru 10... And I'd defend the Second Amendment same as I would the First....



It looks like you and I would wind up on the same side of the debate table more often, then. But, you seem to have odd, inventive ideas about who and what constitute "government". And, you would appear to have interpreted "individual rights" as one person's pass to gangster his entire community. No, thanks. I'll take the Constitution straight as it comes, please.


----------



## MissileMan

Pale Rider said:


> How about we put your crazy ass in a straight jacket?



Crazy is thinking that homosexuality is contagious, can-be-learned, or something into which one can be persuaded.


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> Crazy is thinking that homosexuality is contagious, can-be-learned, or something into which one can be persuaded.



It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## Reneer

Pale Rider said:


> It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.
> 
> Prove me wrong.



Sorry Pale, but the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that homosexuality can be learned or persuaded into. It isn't our job to try and 'prove you wrong' when you haven't proven yourself to be right.


----------



## CockySOB

Reneer said:


> Sorry Pale, but the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that homosexuality can be learned or persuaded into. It isn't our job to try and 'prove you wrong' when you haven't proven yourself to be right.



Actually the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that homosexuality is an inherited or genetic trait.  After all, we have found other conditions which have genetic indicators both to an absolute connection and to a predisposition towards the condition.  As such, the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is or is not a genetic trait will render further discussion on whether homosexuality is a learned characteristic or not valid or moot.  Time will tell as molecular biologists and geneticists further unravel the human genome.

Until there is proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be considered to be a learned phenomenom.


----------



## Reneer

CockySOB said:


> Actually the burden of proof lies with the people who claim that homosexuality is an inherited or genetic trait.  After all, we have found other conditions which have genetic indicators both to an absolute connection and to a predisposition towards the condition.  As such, the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is or is not a genetic trait will render further discussion on whether homosexuality is a learned characteristic or not valid or moot.  Time will tell as molecular biologists and geneticists further unravel the human genome.
> 
> Until there is proof that homosexuality is genetic, it must be considered to be a learned phenomenom.



Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual. 

You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?


----------



## JeffWartman

musicman said:


> Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.



But the 14 amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the state governments also, keep in mind


----------



## sitarro

Reneer said:


> Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual.
> 
> You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?



Taking quite a leap aren't you..... society has created homosexuals??? My guess would be that all you know about homosexuals is what you have picked up from "Will and Grace". I suppose that you believe that video games have no effect on the way kids see violence, right?


----------



## Reneer

sitarro said:


> Taking quite a leap aren't you..... society has created homosexuals??? My guess would be that all you know about homosexuals is what you have picked up from "Will and Grace". I suppose that you believe that video games have no effect on the way kids see violence, right?



Alright. If society _hasn't_ created homosexuals, then what has?

And your guess? Wrong.


----------



## jillian

musicman said:


> Holy cow - I'm just now seeing this post! Sleeping at the switch again...



No worries. Went to sleep, myself. heh!



> Right - CENTRAL government, specifically.



Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the Supremacy Clause. 



> Right again - specifically, his right to govern himself. I just don't understand how this translates into one individual thwarting the will of a whole community of other individuals, and using central government as a cudgel.



Why should a "community" be allowed to infringe on individual rights? That's clearly not intended by the Constitution.



> It looks like you and I would wind up on the same side of the debate table more often, then. But, you seem to have odd, inventive ideas about who and what constitute "government". And, you would appear to have interpreted "individual rights" as one person's pass to gangster his entire community. No, thanks. I'll take the Constitution straight as it comes, please.



There is no such thing as taking the "Constitution straight as it comes". That's a facile argument for wanting to disavow precedent and apply a different sort of politics. Interestingly, I was reading a statement written by Richard Nixon after two of his Supreme Court nominees were rejected by the Senate. Nixon, actually, unlike the current admin, didn't apply a litmus test in giving judgeships. He wanted geographic balance so all views were heard and incorporated in interpreting the Constitution. After those nominees, he appointed your side's fave, Harry Blackmun.

I would, finally, point out that nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the Court judicial review of laws. That was something that came out of INTERPRETATION in an effort to effectuate the intent of the Constitution. Prior to Justice Scalia and his ilk, the concept of strict interpretation was seen as protective of the individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## musicman

JeffWartman said:


> But the 14 amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the state governments also, keep in mind



Covered, long ago(post #50):



			
				musicman said:
			
		

> With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.



Incidentally, I'm on board with many who believe that the XIVth should be rewritten in a way that will protect it (and us) from interpretational atrocities, or scrapped altogether. Its principal bequests to modern American life are judicial activism and anchor babies. We'd do better to start all over.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Dr Grump said:


> I get the "noses are starting to stick into a lot of peoples' businesses" re the latter, but not the former...



You can't see how gay marriage would have impact upon our social/political system?


----------



## musicman

jillian said:


> Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the Supremacy Clause.



Amendment X is fantasy, then? The fact that central government was designed by our founders to reside on a short, jealously guarded leash - that the power to run their everyday lives is supposed to devolve to the people - that this is the very definition of a representative republic - these are bothersome little curiosities, harped on by extremists? You truly frighten me, jillian. 



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Why should a "community" be allowed to infringe on individual rights? That's clearly not intended by the Constitution.



Show me where.





			
				jillian said:
			
		

> *There is no such thing as taking the "Constitution straight as it comes". *That's a facile argument for wanting to disavow precedent and apply a different sort of politics. Interestingly, I was reading a statement written by Richard Nixon after two of his Supreme Court nominees were rejected by the Senate. Nixon, actually, unlike the current admin, didn't apply a litmus test in giving judgeships. He wanted geographic balance so all views were heard and incorporated in interpreting the Constitution. After those nominees, he appointed your side's fave, Harry Blackmun.
> 
> I would, finally, point out that nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the Court judicial review of laws. That was something that came out of INTERPRETATION in an effort to effectuate the intent of the Constitution. Prior to Justice Scalia and his ilk, the concept of strict interpretation was seen as protective of the individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.



I've just had an epiphany. In the past, I've thought you guilty of loosely throwing around the term, "extremist", to describe anyone who didn't agree with you. I see now that I was wrong. Your meaning is actually quite specific. You see anyone who doesn't view the Constitution as putty in the hands of unelected, unaccountable feudal lords in black robes - self-appointed social engineers - our "betters" - as an extremist. A faithful reading and diligent application of the devolutionary principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution is your worst nightmare. Representative government frightens you. You fight it at every turn.


----------



## musicman

Oh, and before I forget - thanks for this disingenuous bit, too:



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Actually, no... the Constitution was set up with a stronger central government in mind than state government. Otherwise, we'd have continued to live under the Articles of Confederation. It's also why all Federal laws take preference over State Laws under the *Supremacy Clause*.



Wow - "Supremacy Clause"! Doesn't THAT sound impressive! All OFFICIAL and everything. Really lends the appearance of some clout to your argument, eh? Except that, in reality, it is completely irrelevant to our discussion; it binds the states to TREATIES made by the federal government. This is such a drag, jillian. It erodes the level of our discussion, and brings your credibility down to nothing.  Symbolism over substance. I am disappointed; not surprised, though. SOP for debate by the USMB left contingent.


----------



## Dr Grump

ScreamingEagle said:


> You can't see how gay marriage would have impact upon our social/political system?



No. It would have none. If you care to point out what it would do to the social/political system be my guest. Before you are the one who looks stupid on the matter, bear in mind that for the best part of thirty years homos have openly lived in partnerships. The only thing different between living in sin and marriage is the certificate itself. My life has not been affected one iota by gay people being in partnerships. If yours have, I'd love to know how...


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Dr Grump said:


> No. It would have none. If you care to point out what it would do to the social/political system be my guest. Before you are the one who looks stupid on the matter, bear in mind that for the best part of thirty years homos have openly lived in partnerships. The only thing different between living in sin and marriage is the certificate itself. My life has not been affected one iota by gay people being in partnerships. If yours have, I'd love to know how...



Pardon me, were you originally referring to private "marriages" between homosexuals instead of public, legal gay "marriages"?


----------



## MissileMan

Pale Rider said:


> It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.
> 
> Prove me wrong.



Do you think you could be persuaded to participate in homosexual sex?  I know for sure that I couldn't and I'm pretty sure that you'll respond that you couldn't either.  If you believe yourself incapable of it, why then do you assume that others can be?


----------



## fuzzykitten99

Kagom said:


> Uh huh.  Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals.  Okay, have fun with that.



no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference. 

Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.

All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"


----------



## mattskramer

fuzzykitten99 said:


> no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference.
> 
> Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.
> 
> All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"



Some people will never learn. Are you suggesting that the human race will die out if we allow gay marriage? Hey! We are not talking about outlawing sex. People will continue to have children one way or another.  Then there is that tiresome natural law fallacy.  Just because something is not natural does not make it wrong.  Finally, laws and rights change all of the time.  We increase or reduce the minimum age limits for people.  We prohibit and allow different things for different people.  It used to be understood that Whites were not to get married to Blacks.  Women were not allowed to vote.  Slavery was condoned. Alcohol was outlawed for a brief time.


----------



## Kagom

fuzzykitten99 said:


> no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference.



That's not fair.  Oh, look, you cover it below!  But I have something else to say.  It's crappy logic laced in here.  Gay people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore have no desire TO marry a person of the opposite sex, so in telling them if they want to marry, marry an opposite sex partner they have no real desire for is basically saying that you have no real argument and are just throwing stupid shit to hide behind.



fuzzykitten99 said:


> Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.



It is normal.  You choose to not believe it is normal.  Your children can make up their own damn minds by looking into it.  And?  Has it ever occurred that maybe the law of nature has homosexuality as maybe a population control device?  Or maybe, since people have never been able to eradicate homosexuality, nature has it around for some reason. 



fuzzykitten99 said:


> All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"



We don't care if the government approves of jack shit.  We just want to be entitled to the same rights as any monogamous heterosexual couple entering matrimony through the state.  And there's really no need for the "mean ol' whitey" bullshit you just regurgitated out of the depths of Bizarro Logic.


----------



## Gunny

Kagom said:


> That's not fair.  Oh, look, you cover it below!  But I have something else to say.  It's crappy logic laced in here.  Gay people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore have no desire TO marry a person of the opposite sex, so in telling them if they want to marry, marry an opposite sex partner they have no real desire for is basically saying that you have no real argument and are just throwing stupid shit to hide behind.
> 
> Tough shit.  Learn to be normal and you don't have a problem.  The overwhelming majority of normal people shouldn't have to cater to your aberrance.
> 
> 
> It is normal.  You choose to not believe it is normal.  Your children can make up their own damn minds by looking into it.  And?  Has it ever occurred that maybe the law of nature has homosexuality as maybe a population control device?  Or maybe, since people have never been able to eradicate homosexuality, nature has it around for some reason.
> 
> Nothing normal about it.  I ripped it shreds in the other thread ... you know ... the one you abandoned and left that moron mattskramer to spew his crap on your behalf.  But you can go back and look anytime.  Abnormalcy is proven at every level from basic biology to anatomy.
> 
> 
> We don't care if the government approves of jack shit.  We just want to be entitled to the same rights as any monogamous heterosexual couple entering matrimony through the state.  And there's really no need for the "mean ol' whitey" bullshit you just regurgitated out of the depths of Bizarro Logic.



Would you like to think abou this statement again?  Your first two sentences are contradictory.

What you want are special rights that cater to nothing but your aberrant lifestyle.


----------



## CockySOB

Reneer said:


> Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual.
> 
> You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?



Step back from the keyboard for a bit and take a deep breath.  

Good.  Now understand that my statement was merely one laying out the formal groundwork which should be the basis for the whole debate on homosexuality being genetic or learned.  The first step is to look for a physical trait (i.e. genetic marker) which absolutely identifies sexual gender preference.  Once genetics can either be confirmed or eliminated with regards to a person's sexual orientation, then we can truly proceed with determining the extent of environment plays in an individual's gender preference.

Now, when I refer to environment I am referring to two possible influences: learned behaviour, and biochemical reactions which affect brain chemistry.  Both are likely contributors to sexual preference, and there are studies which support both arguments.  The problem is that there is no evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is genetic, which would be the only truly "natural" condition for homosexuality.

When someone can provide proof that homosexuality has a genetic component, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs on the topic.  Until then, I'll continue to believe that homosexuality is derived from environment either as a learned behaviour or as a biochemical imbalance which is treatable.

Now, on to your assertion that if homosexuality is a learned trait, then society should not condemn homosexuality.  Wrong.  If society considers homosexual behaviour to be aberrant behaviour detrimental to society at-large, then it can pass laws to criminalize such behaviour.  In fact, such laws used to exist in the USA until recently when the sodomy laws were repealed/reversed as you yourself noted.  So homosexual activity is not criminalized putting individual sexual gender preferences outside of criminal law, right?  Ergo, homosexuals ARE treated equally under the criminal codes as heterosexuals.  On to civil codes - the marriage licensing is part of a civil contract laid out under the individual states jurisdiction.  The exact same rights can be assigned under civil contracts as are codified in most marriage licenses, so again, there is no inequality under the law.  Now, if you can prove that homosexuality is genetic, then you have grounds for complaint.


----------



## Reneer

CockySOB said:


> Step back from the keyboard for a bit and take a deep breath.
> 
> Good. Now understand that my statement was merely one laying out the formal groundwork which should be the basis for the whole debate on homosexuality being genetic or learned. The first step is to look for a physical trait (i.e. genetic marker) which absolutely identifies sexual gender preference. Once genetics can either be confirmed or eliminated with regards to a person's sexual orientation, then we can truly proceed with determining the extent of environment plays in an individual's gender preference.
> 
> Now, when I refer to environment I am referring to two possible influences: learned behaviour, and biochemical reactions which affect brain chemistry. Both are likely contributors to sexual preference, and there are studies which support both arguments. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is genetic, which would be the only truly "natural" condition for homosexuality.
> 
> When someone can provide proof that homosexuality has a genetic component, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs on the topic. Until then, I'll continue to believe that homosexuality is derived from environment either as a learned behaviour or as a biochemical imbalance which is treatable.



First of all, sorry for snapping at you - this debate's been going on for a while and obviously at that point my brain was a little fried. I apologize. However, if the biochemical imbalance is produced while the fetus is in the mother's womb, and changes the way the brain functions (there is evidence to support this) - you certainly can't blame the child for it. And of course if it is determined that homosexuality is treatable - and by treatment I mean chemical _and_ psychological, not one or the other - there of course is the fact that a patient can refuse treatment.



CockySOB said:


> Now, on to your assertion that if homosexuality is a learned trait, then society should not condemn homosexuality. Wrong. If society considers homosexual behaviour to be aberrant behaviour detrimental to society at-large, then it can pass laws to criminalize such behaviour. In fact, such laws used to exist in the USA until recently when the sodomy laws were repealed/reversed as you yourself noted. So homosexual activity is not criminalized putting individual sexual gender preferences outside of criminal law, right? Ergo, homosexuals ARE treated equally under the criminal codes as heterosexuals. On to civil codes - the marriage licensing is part of a civil contract laid out under the individual states jurisdiction. The exact same rights can be assigned under civil contracts as are codified in most marriage licenses, so again, there is no inequality under the law. Now, if you can prove that homosexuality is genetic, then you have grounds for complaint.



I agree with you on most of this - except I've never heard of a 'civil contract' - mind enlightening me, please? If a state does not have this 'civil contract' and no other method exists to grant the privileges to same-sex couples, then there is inequality under the law (though I know I'm stating the obvious, I'd rather state it and waste my time than not state it at all.)

And in regards to the criminal codes, I wasn't saying that society _can't_ condemn homosexuality, but it _doesn't_ anymore. I was merely implying that if society does not condemn homosexuality and there are no criminal laws forbidding the practice of it, then there should be no reason why homosexuals cannot enter into a contract that gives them the same privileges that heterosexuals receive. Since I've never heard of a 'civil contract' as you describe it I couldn't have known that something like it existed... I would hope its existence renders most of my argument moot.


----------



## CockySOB

Reneer said:


> First of all, sorry for snapping at you - this debate's been going on for a while and obviously at that point my brain was a little fried. I apologize.


No problem.  A lot of people go straight to the emotional arguments and neglect or reject a straightforward logical view out of hand - from both sides of the debate.  Makes the whole thing very heated and emotional - which precludes logic for the most part.



> I agree with you on most of this - except I've never heard of a 'civil contract' - mind enlightening me, please? If a state does not have this 'civil contract' and no other method exists to grant the privileges to same-sex couples, then there is inequality under the law (though I know I'm stating the obvious, I'd rather state it and waste my time than not state it at all.)


Think in terms of a standard business partnership contract or the legal documents which comprise incorporation.  The parties involved enumerate their responsibilities under the contract and sign the contract to signify their agreement in a binding fashion.  A rose by any other name and all....



> And in regards to the criminal codes, I wasn't saying that society _can't_ condemn homosexuality, but it _doesn't_ anymore. I was merely implying that if society does not condemn homosexuality and there are no criminal laws forbidding the practice of it, then there should be no reason why homosexuals cannot enter into a contract that gives them the same privileges that heterosexuals receive. Since I've never heard of a 'civil contract' as you describe it I couldn't have known that something like it existed... I would hope its existence renders most of my argument moot.


Actually homosexuals CAN enter into a contract with every right that heterosexual couples receive.  The thing is that the substance is not what the activists for the homosexual lobby are pushing for, they want the word 'marriage' to be forcibly changed from what society knows and accepts the term to signify, and something which society at large does NOT accept to fit the definition.  I had another post recently wherein I discussed the failures, both tactical and strategical, of the homosexual lobby acting within the Democratic Party.  Change public opinion FIRST before trying to get the term 'marriage' redefined.  At the very least get close to half the voters to agree before trying to effect such a change.  And for Pete's sake, forget trying to use the courts for FORCE such a change on the majority unless the genetics back the argument and you can use Equal Protection.


----------



## Reneer

CockySOB said:


> Think in terms of a standard business partnership contract or the legal documents which comprise incorporation.  The parties involved enumerate their responsibilities under the contract and sign the contract to signify their agreement in a binding fashion.  A rose by any other name and all....
> 
> Actually homosexuals CAN enter into a contract with every right that heterosexual couples receive.  The thing is that the substance is not what the activists for the homosexual lobby are pushing for, they want the word 'marriage' to be forcibly changed from what society knows and accepts the term to signify, and something which society at large does NOT accept to fit the definition.  I had another post recently wherein I discussed the failures, both tactical and strategical, of the homosexual lobby acting within the Democratic Party.  Change public opinion FIRST before trying to get the term 'marriage' redefined.  At the very least get close to half the voters to agree before trying to effect such a change.  And for Pete's sake, forget trying to use the courts for FORCE such a change on the majority unless the genetics back the argument and you can use Equal Protection.



This is cool and all, but what about entities outside of the incorporation, like hospitals, cemeteries, the state, etc. Unless you can get hospital visitation rights, etc, then this civil contract isn't 100% on the same footing as state-sanctioned marriage.

Separate but equal seems like a fine compromise to me, but I'm not quite sure I see the 'equal' part just yet between civil contracts and state-sanctioned marriage.


----------



## Dr Grump

ScreamingEagle said:


> Pardon me, were you originally referring to private "marriages" between homosexuals instead of public, legal gay "marriages"?



Either, or. Neither would affect me.


----------



## musicman

Reneer said:
			
		

> ...if the biochemical imbalance is produced while the fetus is in the mother's womb, and changes the way the brain functions (*there is evidence to support this*) - you certainly can't blame the child for it.



I'm glad *I * didn't pay for the 2 1/2 year old study you cite, because it was a colossal waste of time and resources. It can't even rise to the level of superfluous duplication of effort, since a study on the hypothalamus glands of HUMAN BEINGS - purporting to provide some genetic link to homosexuality - was blown out of the water some years ago. We've got to get these people out of their ivory towers and have them read a newspaper once in a while.

The problem with the human study was that the brains of autopsied male homosexuals were studied. In other words - adults. You see the problem with claiming that this signifies a genetic link to ANYTHING, don't you? I imagine the same holds true with sheep.


----------



## musicman

Dr. Simon LeVay - he's all over the Internet. Here's a rather frank, in-depth appraisal:

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/library/gays4.html


----------



## Reneer

musicman said:


> I'm glad *I * didn't pay for the 2 1/2 year old study you cite, because it was a colossal waste of time and resources. It can't even rise to the level of superfluous duplication of effort, since a study on the hypothalamus glands of HUMAN BEINGS - purporting to provide some genetic link to homosexuality - was blown out of the water some years ago. We've got to get these people out of their ivory towers and have them read a newspaper once in a while.
> 
> The problem with the human study was that the brains of autopsied male homosexuals were studied. In other words - adults. You see the problem with claiming that this signifies a genetic link to ANYTHING, don't you? I imagine the same holds true with sheep.



You're right that it has nothing to do with genetics. I said 'biochemical imbalance' which means hormones produced within the mother's womb while the fetus is in gestation. It has nothing to do with the genes of the child. I was merely citing the study because it said that there was a difference between homosexuals and heterosexual rams. I never said that it was because of genetics; you inferred that, for whatever reason.


----------



## musicman

Reneer said:


> You're right that it has nothing to do with genetics. I said 'biochemical imbalance' which means hormones produced within the mother's womb while the fetus is in gestation. It has nothing to do with the genes of the child. I was merely citing the study because it said that there was a difference between homosexuals and heterosexual rams. I never said that it was because of genetics; you inferred that, for whatever reason.



At issue is whether sexual preference can be proven to have been determined  *in the womb*, whether genetically or biochemically. If my terminology was too narrow, fine - it doesn't change the fact that this hypothesis has been blasted out of the water - in a study on HUMANS.

From the link:
*
We also don't know what other factors may have lead to the differ- ences in the sizes of the INAH. For example you could postulate accor- ding to Dr. Kenneth Clivington who works with Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute that homosexual behavior itself actually affects the size of the INAH, not visa versa. We know that certain activities such as reading braille, or working on problems through a maze, will actually affect in some way, brain size. Could homosexual behavior somehow impact a part of the brain? That's entirely possible. There's no way to prove cause and effect which came first, the chicken or the egg.*


----------



## OCA

Reneer said:


> And yet you offer no rebuttal to my breakdown of Mr. Sowell's article and why it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You boast of homosexuals losing 'special rights' but homosexuals do not want 'special rights.' You call it a perversion of choice, yet the medical community does not consider it so. You say that the issue is being lost, but I say there are still bastions of tolerance even in those states with Constitutional Amendments.



Slick, i've been arguing this subject many moons before you came around and the rebuttal yo your pathetic "feel good" rebuttal is all over the board past and present, its not up to me to repeat myself for your convenience.

Everything I stated is absolutely true, let me add that choice was taken off the board under extreme political and financial pressure from the queer choice groups decades back, not because of any proof of genetics.


----------



## Reneer

musicman said:


> At issue is whether sexual preference can be proven to have been determined  *in the womb*, whether genetically or biochemically. If my terminology was too narrow, fine - it doesn't change the fact that this hypothesis has been blasted out of the water - in a study on HUMANS.
> 
> From the link:
> *
> We also don't know what other factors may have lead to the differ- ences in the sizes of the INAH. For example you could postulate accor- ding to Dr. Kenneth Clivington who works with Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute that homosexual behavior itself actually affects the size of the INAH, not visa versa. We know that certain activities such as reading braille, or working on problems through a maze, will actually affect in some way, brain size. Could homosexual behavior somehow impact a part of the brain? That's entirely possible. There's no way to prove cause and effect which came first, the chicken or the egg.*



Even if homosexuality is not produced through genetics or INAH differences, you haven't yet ruled out abnormal biochemical levels in the womb which could affect the brain in a myriad level of ways.



OCA said:


> Slick, i've been arguing this subject many moons before you came around and the rebuttal yo your pathetic "feel good" rebuttal is all over the board past and present, its not up to me to repeat myself for your convenience.



How exactly is my rebuttal 'feel good'? If by 'feel good' you mean trying to counter the arguments made by Mr. Sowell, then yes, it is a 'feel good' rebuttal. 



OCA said:


> Everything I stated is absolutely true, let me add that choice was taken off the board under extreme political and financial pressure from the queer choice groups decades back, not because of any proof of genetics.



Absolutely true is a rather grandiose claim. Just so I understand, you say that everything that you have stated, and the sources you have used in those statements, are absolutely, 100% true?


----------



## OCA

Reneer said:


> Absolutely true is a rather grandiose claim. Just so I understand, you say that everything that you have stated, and the sources you have used in those statements, are absolutely, 100% true?



Do you realize that billions of dollars have been poured into and many decades into research to find the "mythical" gay gene? No gene found, it doesn't exist. You realize how silly you sound still defending the choice?


----------



## Reneer

OCA said:


> Do you realize that billions of dollars have been poured into and many decades into research to find the "mythical" gay gene? No gene found, it doesn't exist. You realize how silly you sound still defending the choice?



I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.



I don't know WHAT it takes.  You've been shot down from just about every conceivable angle.  NOTHING is good enough for you unless its complete agreement with your choice of abnormal behavior.  

Sell your story to mattskramer.  He'll swallow ... pun intended.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.



People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.

Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
Whatever the _cause_, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.
> 
> Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
> Whatever the _cause_, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.



I am sympathetic to homosexuality.  I think that we should at least have civil unions for gay couples as we have marriage licenses for heterosexual couples.  Yet I think that I disagree with many homosexuals in that I think that, for the most part, homosexuality is a choice.  It is a choice to the same extent as heterosexuality is a choice.  It may be subconscious or conscious but it is a choice. As choices, it can be altered through extensive psychological and physical treatment. A homosexual can be turned into a heterosexual and a heterosexual can be turned into a homosexual.  

People dont wake up and directly decide to be sick with cancer but  indirectly  they do make such decisions.  For years people make small choices that influence their chances of getting cancer. Instead of planning for tomorrows lunch and putting a nutritious salad together, they decide to grab a quick cheeseburger at McDonalds. Instead of buying a low sodium V-8 drink, they get a Coca-Cola at a drive-through.  The many small choices that people make add up through the weeks and month and years until they wake up one day and discover that they have serious health problems.  So, yes, in a manner of speaking, people do make such choices.


----------



## Reneer

GunnyL said:


> I don't know WHAT it takes.  You've been shot down from just about every conceivable angle.  NOTHING is good enough for you unless its complete agreement with your choice of abnormal behavior.
> 
> Sell your story to mattskramer.  He'll swallow ... pun intended.



And I will keep getting back up no matter how many times you or anyone else might 'shoot me down.' I will only be placated when I wish to be.



ScreamingEagle said:


> People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.
> 
> Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
> Whatever the _cause_, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.



Your personal opinion aside, people can only understand homosexuality when they understand its cause. People will only be able to 'cure' themselves of homosexuality if it is understood what causes it in the first place. Masking the 'symptoms' of homosexuality through 'reparative therapy' is only half the battle for those who wish to remove themselves from the homosexual lifestyle.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> Your personal opinion aside, people can only understand homosexuality when they understand its cause.



I could agree with that.  Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy?  Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?


----------



## Reneer

ScreamingEagle said:


> I could agree with that.  Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy?  Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?



Classified as a deviancy? Yes (though I'm not implying a 'good or bad' implication along with that word.) The question of whether it is (in of itself) dangerous to physical or mental health I believe should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> Classified as a deviancy? Yes (though I'm not implying a 'good or bad' implication along with that word.) The question of whether it is (in of itself) dangerous to physical or mental health I believe should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.



Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

_Especially _since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> I could agree with that.  Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy?  Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?



ScreamingEagle  

Why did you throw in that extra question?  I would have agreed with you in that homosexuality is a deviancy  that which differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.  You could have left it at that. I disagree with you in equating it with cancer.  Though cancer is a deviancy, it is a concrete and completely 100 percent life-threatening condition. If you do not remove cancer it will grown and kill you. The other is merely a sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. It is not so certainly fatal. You are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Reneer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?
> 
> _Especially _since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?



Even if homosexuality is a deviancy, gay marriage / civil unions would still be two people wanting to make a commitment to each other, both personally and financially. That is essentially the idea of state-sponsored marriage as I understand it. 

Let's say that the state wants marriage to happen because it supports children. If that is the only reason it supports marriage, then it is supporting a deviancy from the 'stated goal' (for this example) of marriage when it allows two infertile people to become married, or two people who do not wish to have children or adopt to be married. My question then would be why not homosexuality, if there are already exceptions being made for couples who cannot / will not have children?


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?
> 
> _Especially _since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?



Marriage customs, rules, and even laws have changed throughout the ages for various reasons. See: 

http://www.glad.org/rights/OP3-historyofchange.shtml

Please read the entire article.

"Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that: 

A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains. 

The decision was controversial, courageous and correct. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision. 

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races."


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> ScreamingEagle &#8211;
> 
> Why did you throw in that extra &#8220;question&#8221;?  I would have agreed with you in that homosexuality is a deviancy &#8211; that which differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from &#8220;accepted social standards&#8221;.  You could have left it at that. I disagree with you in equating it with cancer.  Though cancer is a deviancy, it is a concrete and completely 100 percent life-threatening condition. If you do not remove cancer it will grown and kill you. The other is merely a sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. It is not so certainly fatal. You are comparing apples and oranges.



Well I don't know about that.  One could say that homosexuality is much like a cancer in that it can grow, sicken, and eventually kill society as we know it.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> Even if homosexuality is a deviancy, gay marriage / civil unions would still be two people wanting to make a commitment to each other, both personally and financially. That is essentially the idea of state-sponsored marriage as I understand it.
> 
> Let's say that the state wants marriage to happen because it supports children. If that is the only reason it supports marriage, then it is supporting a deviancy from the 'stated goal' (for this example) of marriage when it allows two infertile people to become married, or two people who do not wish to have children or adopt to be married. My question then would be why not homosexuality, if there are already exceptions being made for couples who cannot / will not have children?



You're straying away from the question&#8230;.why would we want to change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?  

You only provide biased argumentation.  Instead, can you provide a good reason why society should accomodate (in such a major way) a deviancy?


----------



## Reneer

ScreamingEagle said:


> You're straying away from the question.why would we want to change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?
> 
> You only provide biased argumentation.  Instead, can you provide a good reason why society should accomodate (in such a major way) a deviancy?



How am I providing 'biased argumentation'? An argument is an argument. I only made one assumption: that the stated goal of marriage is to help the parents support children. Everything else after that is logically sound.

1. The state supports the union / marriage of a couple by providing incentives, hoping that a child will be created / adopted through that union.
2. The state also provides incentives if the couple is not capable / not willing to have children (hospital visitation rights, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc.) This goes directly against the 'purpose' of state-sponsored marriage. Not having children, for whatever reason, is a deviancy (of state) from what state-sponsored marriage is supposed to support, yet the state supports this deviancy anyway.
3. How is gay marriage (aside from gender, of course) any different from heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children? (_aside_ from some people considering it to be 'wrong' or 'against nature.') Gay marriage / civil unions would simply be a deviancy like the state allowing non-child rearing heterosexual couples to marry, even though it goes against the 'stated goal.'

And as to the 'why' of changing the laws, America has typically been a nation of freedom - I think it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to keep two people who love each other from sharing in state-sponsored benefits simply because they share the same gender.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Well I don't know about that.  One could say that homosexuality is much like a cancer in that it can grow, sicken, and eventually kill society as we know it.



Personally I think you're stretching the homosexuality = cancer link just a wee little bit.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> Personally I think you're stretching the homosexuality = cancer link just a wee little bit.



Well forget the cancer allegory if that bothers you.

Can you answer the basic question?


----------



## Reneer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Well forget the cancer allegory if that bothers you.
> 
> Can you answer the basic question?



Sorry, I edited the above post (#133) instead of making a new post.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> How am I providing 'biased argumentation'? An argument is an argument. I only made one assumption: that the stated goal of marriage is to help the parents support children. Everything else after that is logically sound.
> 
> 1. The state supports the union / marriage of a couple by providing incentives, hoping that a child will be created / adopted through that union.
> 2. The state also provides incentives if the couple is not capable / not willing to have children (hospital visitation rights, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc.) This goes directly against the 'purpose' of state-sponsored marriage. Not having children, for whatever reason, is a deviancy (of state) from what state-sponsored marriage is supposed to support, yet the state supports this deviancy anyway.
> 3. How is gay marriage (aside from gender, of course) any different from heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children? (_aside_ from some people considering it to be 'wrong' or 'against nature.') Gay marriage / civil unions would simply be a deviancy like the state allowing non-child rearing heterosexual couples to marry, even though it goes against the 'stated goal.'



How did our conversation veer off into this topic?  Sorry, I'm not going to bother getting into this, maybe some other time.  btw, what I meant by biased argumentation is that you are only proferring arguments to support _your _reasons for changing the laws.  I was asking for reasons why _we _should change the marriage laws.



Reneer said:


> And as to the 'why' of changing the laws, America has typically been a nation of freedom - I think it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to keep two people who love each other from sharing in state-sponsored benefits simply because they share the same gender.



OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?  

How so?  I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy.  Perhaps you could point it out for me.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
> 
> How so?  I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy.  Perhaps you could point it out for me.



We changed marriage laws to accommodate Whites who wanted to get married to Blacks and for Blacks who wanted to get married to Whites.  Interracial relationships / marriage is a rare and, to some, a deviant desire / behavior.  I see no reason why we cant change our marriage laws again for men who want to get married to men or for women who want to get married to women.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> We changed marriage laws to accommodate Whites who wanted to get married to Blacks and for Blacks who wanted to get married to Whites.  Interracial relationships / marriage is a rare and, to some, a deviant desire / behavior.  I see no reason why we can&#8217;t change our marriage laws again for men who want to get married to men or for women who want to get married to women.



Yes, we did change those laws.  Race is something we understand.  We know why one person is black and another person is white.  The color of your skin is not considered a deviancy or something we do not understand.


----------



## Reneer

ScreamingEagle said:


> How did our conversation veer off into this topic?  Sorry, I'm not going to bother getting into this, maybe some other time.



Ok.



ScreamingEagle said:


> OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?



That's correct. I note that you said 'majority of America' - the laws are not 'owned' by any one majority, we all own the laws. But maybe that's not what you meant.



ScreamingEagle said:


> How so?  I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy.  Perhaps you could point it out for me.



I never said that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights explicitly states that marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. But racial intermarriage was a 'deviancy' in the 1940s. And we changed the laws for that. 

I was simply saying that the _principle_ of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would dictate that no personal freedoms should be forbidden by the government - that they hurt no one except consenting adults - and choosing to associate with someone is a personal freedom. The government has decided that it will provide incentives for people to marry... to associate with a specific person in regards to housing, finances, etc. If the government gets involved and provides incentives for people to associate, they need to provide these incentives to everyone who wishes to associate with another person and share finances, housing, etc. Not doing so would, I believe, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since if all 'men' are created equal, they should be equal under the law.

But perhaps I'm veering away from the argument again... sorry if that's so.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Yes, we did change those laws.  Race is something we understand.  We know why one person is black and another person is white.  The color of your skin is not considered a deviancy or something we do not understand.



The issue is choice.  There was a time and place in which people were not allowed to choose people outside their race for marriage. I still dont fully understand why White people would prefer relationships with Black people or why a Black person would prefer a romantic and sexual relationship with a White person.  Yet, even without fully understanding why people choose from outside their race, we allowed them to make such choices. The same basically applies to homosexuality. Why would someone prefer to have a deep and personal relationship with someone of his same sex?  I dont know but lets allow it.


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> *And I will keep getting back up no matter how many times you or anyone else might 'shoot me down.' I will only be placated when I wish to be.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion aside, people can only understand homosexuality when they understand its cause. People will only be able to 'cure' themselves of homosexuality if it is understood what causes it in the first place. Masking the 'symptoms' of homosexuality through 'reparative therapy' is only half the battle for those who wish to remove themselves from the homosexual lifestyle.



Just about says it all, doesn't it?


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> How am I providing 'biased argumentation'? An argument is an argument. I only made one assumption: that the stated goal of marriage is to help the parents support children. Everything else after that is logically sound.
> 
> 1. The state supports the union / marriage of a couple by providing incentives, hoping that a child will be created / adopted through that union.
> 2. The state also provides incentives if the couple is not capable / not willing to have children (hospital visitation rights, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc.) This goes directly against the 'purpose' of state-sponsored marriage. Not having children, for whatever reason, is a deviancy (of state) from what state-sponsored marriage is supposed to support, yet the state supports this deviancy anyway.
> 3. How is gay marriage (aside from gender, of course) any different from heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children? (_aside_ from some people considering it to be 'wrong' or 'against nature.') Gay marriage / civil unions would simply be a deviancy like the state allowing non-child rearing heterosexual couples to marry, even though it goes against the 'stated goal.'
> 
> And as to the 'why' of changing the laws, America has typically been a nation of freedom - I think it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to keep two people who love each other from sharing in state-sponsored benefits simply because they share the same gender.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think you're stretching the homosexuality = cancer link just a wee little bit.



You keep going further and further into left field making comaprisons of your chosen sexually deviant behavior to normal people, race ... and you keep claiming discrimination.

Discrimination happens every day, like it or not.  If it's discrimination that you are not financially rewarded by the US government for being abnormal, so be it.  You don't DESERVE a damned thing just because you choose to live outside the conforms of normalcy and society.


----------



## CockySOB

mattskramer said:


> We changed marriage laws to accommodate Whites who wanted to get married to Blacks and for Blacks who wanted to get married to Whites.  Interracial relationships / marriage is a rare and, to some, a deviant desire / behavior.  I see no reason why we cant change our marriage laws again for men who want to get married to men or for women who want to get married to women.



And either someone proves that homosexuality has a genetic basis which would enable the courts to act, or you acquire a legislative majority which can change the marriage laws at the state level.

So the marriage laws can be changed, but the best chance is via state legislature as regards that single state.  First steps first.


----------



## manu1959

tell ya what.....gays can marry if they will:

give the rainbow back

cancel all their parades

after all they are the same as the rest of us

we don't get a special logo or a parade


----------



## manu1959

CockySOB said:


> And either someone proves that *homosexuality has a genetic basis* which would enable the courts to act, or you acquire a legislative majority which can change the marriage laws at the state level.
> 
> So the marriage laws can be changed, but the best chance is via state legislature as regards that single state.  First steps first.




it is the gene bent over taking it in the.....


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> Ok.
> 
> That's correct. I note that you said 'majority of America' - the laws are not 'owned' by any one majority, we all own the laws. But maybe that's not what you meant.
> 
> I never said that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights explicitly states that marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. But racial intermarriage was a 'deviancy' in the 1940s. And we changed the laws for that.
> 
> I was simply saying that the _principle_ of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would dictate that no personal freedoms should be forbidden by the government - that they hurt no one except consenting adults - and choosing to associate with someone is a personal freedom. The government has decided that it will provide incentives for people to marry... to associate with a specific person in regards to housing, finances, etc. If the government gets involved and provides incentives for people to associate, they need to provide these incentives to everyone who wishes to associate with another person and share finances, housing, etc. Not doing so would, I believe, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since if all 'men' are created equal, they should be equal under the law.
> 
> But perhaps I'm veering away from the argument again... sorry if that's so.



I'm glad you agree.  The Constitution/Bill of Rights does not include anything about accomodating deviancy in our marriage laws.  In fact, I don't believe there's even anything in there about about marriage laws.

Why is that?  I guess it was intended for us Americans to thrash out for ourselves such things as the particulars of marriage laws through our democratic system within the framework of the Constitution.  That's where the "majority" comes in to make such decisions.  That's why we elect politicians.  These decisions are supposed to come through our Legislative Branch of government.  We can't have a couple of high-and-mighty judges making all those decisions for us...as that would be tantamount to a dictatorship.

I disagree with your claim that nobody is hurt because it's only between "consenting adults".  There are a myriad of reasons why and how people can be hurt by allowing gay marriage into our society.   That's one reason why we, the people, have voted through our representatives to have incentives put in place to promote marriage between a man and a woman.   You can take advantage of those incentives if you so choose.  If you choose not to because you have a different preference, well that's your preference.

Maybe someday we will understand better why some people are homosexuals.  Maybe someday homosexuality will be considered like a skin color and then gay marriage will be allowed like inter-racial marriage.  Or maybe a cure will be found and it will be treated like smallpox.  However, in the meantime, I don't see a compelling reason why we should change our marriage laws to accomodate what we recognize to be an unknown deviancy.


----------



## musicman

Reneer said:


> Even if homosexuality is not produced through genetics or INAH differences, you haven't yet ruled out abnormal biochemical levels in the womb which could affect the brain in a myriad level of ways.



Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with. Without compunction, I can leave that particular exercise in futility to those with a vested interest in its advancement, like Simon LeVay:
*
First of all there is the question of research bias. Now I know it is very difficult to find anybody completely biased, one way or the other, or completely unbiased on the subject of homosexuality. But the fact remains that Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover's death. Dr. LeVay is openly gay, and said IF HE DID NOT FIND SUCH A CAUSE, HE MIGHT ABANDON SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER. He studied the cadavers of men and women who he assumes to be either homosexual or heterosexual, and found that a certain cluster of brain cells in the hypothalamus were larger in the allegedly heterosexual men than they were in the allegedly homosexual men and the allegedly heterosexual women.*

From the link.


----------



## Gunny

Well, let's see, morally, legally and scientifically HAMMERED.  Is that "gay-bashing"?


----------



## Reneer

GunnyL said:


> Just about says it all, doesn't it?



Yeah, it does, doesn't it?



GunnyL said:


> You keep going further and further into left field making comaprisons of your chosen sexually deviant behavior to normal people, race ... and you keep claiming discrimination.
> 
> Discrimination happens every day, like it or not.  If it's discrimination that you are not financially rewarded by the US government for being abnormal, so be it.  You don't DESERVE a damned thing just because you choose to live outside the conforms of normalcy and society.



Yeah, discriminaton does happen every day. And homosexuals do in fact deserve the same benefits that heterosexuals do, if the homosexual couples are willing to put the same commitment into a relationship that a heterosexual couple does in order to obtain the benefits (a.k.a state-sponsored marriage.) If you disagree that homosexuals cannot love / be in the same kinds of relationships that heterosexuals can, then I'll just laugh at you, since there is absolutely no way you can possibly back that up scientifically.



GunnyL said:


> Well, let's see, morally, legally and scientifically HAMMERED.  Is that "gay-bashing"?



For the love of all that is funny... don't go into the comedy business, ok? :

The scientific community is still out on what causes homosexuality. And morally? Perhaps the majority dictates morality, but that doesn't make the majority morally right. They are just the moral majority. Legality is something that will change in time once the scientific and morality questions are answered.



ScreamingEagle said:


> I disagree with your claim that nobody is hurt because it's only between "consenting adults".  There are a myriad of reasons why and how people can be hurt by allowing gay marriage into our society.



If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?



musicman said:


> Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with.



You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.


----------



## musicman

Reneer said:


> If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?



How is gay marriage being "allowed":

A. by the people, through their duly elected representatives, or

B. by a judge?

If your answer is not "A", I am being hurt by being denied my right to representative government.



			
				Reneer said:
			
		

> You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.



And, I reiterate, that particular exercise in futility is not my problem.


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> You're straying away from the question.why would we want to change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?
> 
> You only provide biased argumentation.  Instead, can you provide a good reason why society should accomodate (in such a major way) a deviancy?



No he's not.  There are lots of things that have been or are considered deviations from the norm when it comes to marriage.  Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage are two examples that come to mind.


----------



## Reneer

musicman said:


> How is gay marriage being "allowed":
> 
> A. by the people, through their duly elected representatives, or
> 
> B. by a judge?
> 
> If your answer is not "A", I am being hurt by being denied my right to representative government.



I was thinking that ScreamingEagle was referring more to what would happen _after_ gay marriage was, theoretically, allowed. And if 'by a judge' you mean the Supreme Court, well, if it ever gets to the Supreme Court then something might just be wrong with the representative government.


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> Yeah, it does, doesn't it?
> 
> It does indeed.  You place youe selfish, personal desires above what is right and the desire of the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, discriminaton does happen every day. And homosexuals do in fact deserve the same benefits that heterosexuals do, if the homosexual couples are willing to put the same commitment into a relationship that a heterosexual couple does in order to obtain the benefits (a.k.a state-sponsored marriage.) If you disagree that homosexuals cannot love / be in the same kinds of relationships that heterosexuals can, then I'll just laugh at you, since there is absolutely no way you can possibly back that up scientifically.
> 
> Too easy.  NOWHERE is "love" a legal prerequisite of marriage, so this slant on your argument is screwed, just as the rest.
> 
> For the love of all that is funny... don't go into the comedy business, ok? :
> 
> The scientific community is still out on what causes homosexuality. And morally? Perhaps the majority dictates morality, but that doesn't make the majority morally right. They are just the moral majority. Legality is something that will change in time once the scientific and morality questions are answered.
> 
> Stupid argument.  You choice to lead an abnormal lifestyle does not make the majority morally wrong, either, Einsten.
> 
> Science is not required to settle a question of morality.  What is and is not acceptable to teh society in which you live is all that is required.
> 
> 
> If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?
> 
> Again?  Why should he?  Don't you think we get tired of listing the same old shit, and you and those like you just running to another thread, making your same old bogus argument as if it hadn't been shot down.  You got buried in the Iran Homosexual thread; yet, lo and behold, I find you acting as if everything presented to squash your argument in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.



As seems to be your way, you are making assertions not based on any known facts.  You don't know what Musicman and/or any of us have looked at.  The mere fact that we can completely destroy all of your arguments without shifting position in our seats should be clear enough evidence that we have researched the topic much further than it is obvious by your posts that you have.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> No he's not.  There are lots of things that have been or are considered deviations from the norm when it comes to marriage.  Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage are two examples that come to mind.



Interfaith marriage is based on religious belief and/or the differences thereof.

Interracial marriage, and race itself has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.  Race is not a behavior.


----------



## musicman

Reneer said:


> ... And if 'by a judge' you mean the Supreme Court, well, if it ever gets to the Supreme Court then something might just be wrong with the representative government.



I believe that YOU believe that. You don't want this issue going before the voters, do you?


----------



## MissileMan

musicman said:


> Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with. Without compunction, I can leave that particular exercise in futility to those with a vested interest in its advancement, like Simon LeVay:
> *
> First of all there is the question of research bias. Now I know it is very difficult to find anybody completely biased, one way or the other, or completely unbiased on the subject of homosexuality. But the fact remains that Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover's death. Dr. LeVay is openly gay, and said IF HE DID NOT FIND SUCH A CAUSE, HE MIGHT ABANDON SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER. He studied the cadavers of men and women who he assumes to be either homosexual or heterosexual, and found that a certain cluster of brain cells in the hypothalamus were larger in the allegedly heterosexual men than they were in the allegedly homosexual men and the allegedly heterosexual women.*
> 
> From the link.



I read your link MM and I'm trying to figure out exactly what you think the results of this study by Dr. LeVay are saying other than this:  Dr. Levay postulated a theory about a correlation between the size of some neurons and homosexuality and it turns out his theory didn't hold water.  Am I missing something?  Is this study supposed to be irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not something people are born with?


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> Interfaith marriage is based on religious belief and/or the differences thereof.
> 
> Interracial marriage, and race itself has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.  *Race is not a behavior*.



Religion is.  But that's wasn't the point of the argument, it was about "norms" and deviations from them.


----------



## musicman

MissileMan said:


> I read your link MM and I'm trying to figure out exactly what you think the results of this study by Dr. LeVay are saying other than this:  Dr. Levay postulated a theory about a correlation between the size of some neurons and homosexuality and it turns out his theory didn't hold water.  Am I missing something?  Is this study supposed to be irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not something people are born with?



No - nor is it in any way necessary that it be so. It is not incumbent upon society to disprove this fantasy. We're not the ones trying to sell it.


----------



## Reneer

musicman said:


> I believe that YOU believe that. You don't want this issue going before the voters, do you?



Actually, it's already gone to the voters in my state. And I wouldn't mind it actually going to the voters, no. Then we could at least all shut up about it and I could start trying to figure out ways to immigrate to Canada or the UK.



GunnyL said:


> It does indeed. You place youe selfish, personal desires above what is right and the desire of the majority.



*Shrugs* And your point?



GunnyL said:


> Too easy. NOWHERE is "love" a legal prerequisite of marriage, so this slant on your argument is screwed, just as the rest.



I was talking about _level of commitment_, not love. Two people can cohabitate and not be married, but they can't file joint tax returns. If two people get married they make a symbolic and legally-binding commitment to one another. Then they can file joint tax returns. Homosexual couples, no matter if they cohabitate or their level of commitment, cannot file joint tax returns. If the two different couples are willing to show the same level of commitment, then why can't they both file joint tax returns?



GunnyL said:


> Stupid argument. You choice to lead an abnormal lifestyle does not make the majority morally wrong, either, Einsten.
> 
> Science is not required to settle a question of morality. What is and is not acceptable to teh society in which you live is all that is required.



Again, simply because the majority believes something to be true / right / whatever, _does not automatically make it so._ Can we at least agree on that?



GunnyL said:


> Again? Why should he? Don't you think we get tired of listing the same old shit, and you and those like you just running to another thread, making your same old bogus argument as if it hadn't been shot down. You got buried in the Iran Homosexual thread; yet, lo and behold, I find you acting as if everything presented to squash your argument in this thread.



Ever heard the expression 'same old shit, different day'? You could just as easily ignore me, you know, if it pissed you off that much.



GunnyL said:


> As seems to be your way, you are making assertions not based on any known facts.  You don't know what Musicman and/or any of us have looked at.  The mere fact that we can completely destroy all of your arguments without shifting position in our seats should be clear enough evidence that we have researched the topic much further than it is obvious by your posts that you have.



You're right. I don't know what you or Musicman or anyone else on this thread has looked at. And no, you only think you are 'destroying' my arguments. My arguments are born out of my belief of what is right and wrong. You certainly aren't going to change my beliefs unless you provide some damn good evidence that makes me evaluate my world-view. And I'll attest right here that nothing that has been written on this forum has done that. So don't expect my arguments to go away anytime soon.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Reneer said:


> If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?



Here's one reason plus ten more:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family. 
2. Children will suffer most. 
3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality. 
4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete. 
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically. 
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse. 
7. Social Security will be severely stressed. 
8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized. 
9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead. 
10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become &#8220;as it was in the days of Noah&#8221; (Matthew 24:37). 

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm


----------



## ScreamingEagle

MissileMan said:


> No he's not.  There are lots of things that have been or are considered deviations from the norm when it comes to marriage.  Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage are two examples that come to mind.



Race and faith are not considered to be deviancies as is homosexuality.  That's why race and religion (and the inter-marriages thereof) are protected under the Constitution and homosexuality is not.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> Religion is.  But that's wasn't the point of the argument, it was about "norms" and deviations from them.



When those "norms" were considered deviations, the people who chose to ignore them lived outside the conforms of society and suffered the social consequences thereof.  In neither case, was special legislation enacted that catered specifically to their behavior.


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Here's one reason plus ten more:
> 
> 1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
> 2. Children will suffer most.
> 3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
> 4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
> 5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
> 6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
> 7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
> 8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
> 9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
> 10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
> 11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become as it was in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37).
> 
> http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm


And you lose.  Some nations have homosexual marriage already.  I doubt you'll be forced to love homosexuals.  And you can tell your children what you want and have them believe what you do until they make their own conscious decisions on things.  Also, I don't really forsee your religion being fucked over in any single way.


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Here's one reason plus ten more:
> 
> 1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
> 2. Children will suffer most.
> 3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
> 4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
> 5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
> 6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
> 7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
> 8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
> 9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
> 10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
> 11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become as it was in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37).
> 
> http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm



I noticed you conveniently left out explanations of exactly how any of your predictions would come true.  I think you missed a couple on your list:

12.  Polar bears will become extinct.
13.  The pope will die from choking on Sauerkraut.
14.  Aliens will blow up our sun.
15.  Every M&M around the globe will turn purple with yellow spots


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Race and faith are not considered to be deviancies as is homosexuality.  That's why race and religion (and the inter-marriages thereof) are protected under the Constitution and homosexuality is not.




But it took legislative and judicial action to force it on the majority.


----------



## Bonnie

Kagom..totally off the subject here, just wondering if your tag line is from Blue Oyster Cult ?  Heavy Metal movie I think?


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> Actually, it's already gone to the voters in my state. And I wouldn't mind it actually going to the voters, no. Then we could at least all shut up about it and I could start trying to figure out ways to immigrate to Canada or the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> *Shrugs* And your point?
> 
> Just exposing you for the self-centered fuck that you are.  You try and gloss over everyone all these other arguments; yet, what it all boils down to is you think the entire world should revolve around you.
> 
> 
> I was talking about _level of commitment_, not love. Two people can cohabitate and not be married, but they can't file joint tax returns. If two people get married they make a symbolic and legally-binding commitment to one another. Then they can file joint tax returns. Homosexual couples, no matter if they cohabitate or their level of commitment, cannot file joint tax returns. If the two different couples are willing to show the same level of commitment, then why can't they both file joint tax returns?
> 
> Because they're fags.  Get it yet?
> 
> 
> Again, simply because the majority believes something to be true / right / whatever, _does not automatically make it so._ Can we at least agree on that?
> 
> No, for the simple reason that your implication is that society's morals are not right because you don't agree with them.  Again, just because the majority believes something might be true that YOU disagree with doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> 
> Ever heard the expression 'same old shit, different day'? You could just as easily ignore me, you know, if it pissed you off that much.
> 
> I must have missed the part where I was pissed off.  Maybe instead you should try some reevaluation based on the info you're given rather than dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. I don't know what you or Musicman or anyone else on this thread has looked at. And no, you only think you are 'destroying' my arguments. My arguments are born out of my belief of what is right and wrong. You certainly aren't going to change my beliefs unless you provide some damn good evidence that makes me evaluate my world-view. And I'll attest right here that nothing that has been written on this forum has done that. So don't expect my arguments to go away anytime soon.



You arguments are born out of desperation attempting to legitimize something that is abnormal.  You've been provided evidence throughout two thread in the past week that completely destroy every argument you have made; yet, you hear nothing.

And don't expect the same people whoaren't ignoring your bullshit arguments now to ignore them in the future.  You're just lucky you got the "polite" bunch this time.  Wait'll Pale and OCA light into your ass.


----------



## Reneer

MissileMan said:


> I noticed you conveniently left out explanations of exactly how any of your predictions would come true.  I think you missed a couple on your list:
> 
> 12.  Polar bears will become extinct.
> 13.  The pope will die from choking on Sauerkraut.
> 14.  Aliens will blow up our sun.
> 15.  Every M&M around the globe will turn purple with yellow spots



It's been a while since this thread has made me laugh. Thanks.


----------



## Kagom

Bonnie said:


> Kagom..totally off the subject here, just wondering if your tag line is from Blue Oyster Cult ?  Heavy Metal movie I think?


Bonnie, I think I can die happy now.  You definitely got it!


----------



## Gunny

Kagom said:


> And you lose.  Some nations have homosexual marriage already.  I doubt you'll be forced to love homosexuals.  And you can tell your children what you want and have them believe what you do until they make their own conscious decisions on things.  Also, I don't really forsee your religion being fucked over in any single way.




He loses because of ....uummm... WHAT exactly?  Because YOU say so?  I'd say you homosexuals and your faghag, mattskramer have been thrashed pretty badly.  Perhaps y'all should take up debating the economy?


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> When those "norms" were considered deviations, the people who chose to ignore them lived outside the conforms of society and suffered the social consequences thereof.  *In neither case, was special legislation enacted that catered specifically to their behavior*.



I believe that post 130 contradicts your assertion.


----------



## Kagom

GunnyL said:


> He loses because of ....uummm... WHAT exactly?  Because YOU say so?  I'd say you homosexuals and your faghag, mattskramer have been thrashed pretty badly.  Perhaps y'all should take up debating the economy?


His interjection of Christian values being deteriorated because of homosexual marriage being allowed is rather weak and feeble.  That's why


----------



## Bonnie

Kagom said:


> Bonnie, I think I can die happy now.  You definitely got it!



Yeah I hadn't thought of that song in ages, but all the words came flooding back instantly...


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> I noticed you conveniently left out explanations of exactly how any of your predictions would come true.  I think you missed a couple on your list:
> 
> 12.  Polar bears will become extinct.
> 13.  The pope will die from choking on Sauerkraut.
> 14.  Aliens will blow up our sun.
> 15.  Every M&M around the globe will turn purple with yellow spots



I see.  You share the mattskramer viewpoint of ignoring the blatantly obvious because it suits you.


----------



## Reneer

GunnyL said:


> Just exposing you for the self-centered fuck that you are. You try and gloss over everyone all these other arguments; yet, what it all boils down to is you think the entire world should revolve around you.



Of course. It's all about me. Why didn't I see it before? Maybe I should go see a psychologist. Or maybe I just think that everyone should be treated equally.



GunnyL said:


> Because they're fags. Get it yet?



Oh yeah, that's a good counter-argument.



GunnyL said:


> No, for the simple reason that your implication is that society's morals are not right because you don't agree with them. Again, just because the majority believes something might be true that YOU disagree with doesn't make it wrong.



I never said it did, did I? You implied that I implied that. I didn't.



GunnyL said:


> I must have missed the part where I was pissed off. Maybe instead you should try some reevaluation based on the info you're given rather than dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with what you want to do.



Then perhaps it's about the way you present it. Ever think of that?



GunnyL said:


> You arguments are born out of desperation attempting to legitimize something that is abnormal. You've been provided evidence throughout two thread in the past week that completely destroy every argument you have made; yet, you hear nothing.



I hear nothing that convinces me. Don't think for a minute that I haven't gone to the NARTH website and read their material. Much of their stuff is based off of the Spitzer study.



GunnyL said:


> And don't expect the same people whoaren't ignoring your bullshit arguments now to ignore them in the future. You're just lucky you got the "polite" bunch this time. Wait'll Pale and OCA light into your ass.



And then promptly get banned from the thread. : I'm certainly not afraid of Pale or OCA, and I doubt they are afraid of me.


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> Of course. It's all about me. Why didn't I see it before? Maybe I should go see a psychologist. Or maybe I just think that everyone should be treated equally.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that's a good counter-argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, did I? You implied that I implied that. I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's about the way you present it. Ever think of that?
> 
> 
> 
> I hear nothing that convinces me. Don't think for a minute that I haven't gone to the NARTH website and read their material. Much of their stuff is based off of the Spitzer study.
> 
> 
> 
> And then promptly get banned from the thread. : I'm certainly not afraid of Pale or OCA, and I doubt they are afraid of me.


----------



## Reneer

GunnyL said:


>



Wow. I put him to sleep. Neat. Maybe, with my new-found power, I should be a university professor...


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> I see.  You share the mattskramer viewpoint of ignoring the blatantly obvious because it suits you.



From one fan of common sense to another:  Common sense dictated that SE's list was unsubstantiated and exaggeration.  I demonstrated such with a dash of humor and sarcasm.  I'd make a crack about you ignoring the blatantly overblown, but double entendres are lost on most of folks in here.


----------



## Gunny

Reneer said:


> Wow. I put him to sleep. Neat. Maybe, with my new-found power, I should be a university professor...



Maybe you should get a new argument.  I'm tired of you and your couple of apologistas trying to sell everyone a pig while telling them it's a Caddy.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

GunnyL said:


> He loses because of ....uummm... WHAT exactly?  Because YOU say so?  I'd say you homosexuals and your faghag, mattskramer have been thrashed pretty badly.  Perhaps y'all should take up debating the economy?



My reaction exactly.  Ever notice when they are losing the argument they always jump upon the religious?  Of course the many other reasons are ignored...


----------



## Reneer

GunnyL said:


> Maybe you should get a new argument.  I'm tired of you and your couple of apologistas trying to sell everyone a pig while telling them it's a Caddy.



Huh?  I get the gist, but it seems out of place for some reason.


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> My reaction exactly.  Ever notice when they are losing the argument they always jump upon the religious?  Of course the many other reasons are ignored...


Jump the religious.  Heh.  Maybe I did.  But I do believe that to throw about some religious mumbo jumbo to prove a point does nothing.  The UK has civil unions for homosexuals and it isn't a smoldering pile of ash and rubble.  Sweden's still standing.  Other nations are too.  Spain is still alive and kicking too.  Your points proved nothing.


----------



## Bonnie

Kagom said:


> Jump the religious.  Heh.  Maybe I did.  But I do believe that to throw about some religious mumbo jumbo to prove a point does nothing.  The UK has civil unions for homosexuals and it isn't a smoldering pile of ash and rubble.  Sweden's still standing.  Other nations are too.  Spain is still alive and kicking too.  Your points proved nothing.




LOL just a thought here but maybe you don't want to use countries like Sweden and the UK as paragons to emulate?


----------



## Kagom

Bonnie said:


> LOL just a thought here but maybe you don't want to use countries like Sweden and the UK as paragons to emulate?


I'm not.  I'm just saying that they are still around.  And they have their pros and cons.  We can be like them to a degree and not be completely wasted


----------



## Bonnie

Kagom said:


> I'm not.  I'm just saying that they are still around.  And they have their pros and cons.  We can be like them to a degree and not be completely wasted



Well true they are still standing by a hair and some air. Well I need to get some sleep..Night all


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kagom said:


> Jump the religious.  Heh.  Maybe I did.  But I do believe that to throw about some religious mumbo jumbo to prove a point does nothing.  The UK has civil unions for homosexuals and it isn't a smoldering pile of ash and rubble.  Sweden's still standing.  Other nations are too.  Spain is still alive and kicking too.  Your points proved nothing.



Mumbo jumbo?  You mean like the mumbo jumbo gays are trying to sell to America? Too bad.  Deal with it.  Although I already know you deal with it by following the lead of your Far Left communist masters who are out to destroy religion and the soul of America.

The UK is a country in the toilet.  Sweden is an experiment gone wrong.  Spain is barely alive and kicking itself.  Tell me what wonderful things homosexuality is doing for these countries?


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> And you lose.  Some nations have homosexual marriage already.  I doubt you'll be forced to love homosexuals.  And you can tell your children what you want and have them believe what you do until they make their own conscious decisions on things.  Also, I don't really forsee your religion being fucked over in any single way.



On July, 2004, Ake Green, Pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, was prosecuted and sentenced to a month in jail for "hate speech against homosexuals." Sweden passed a hate crimes law in 2003 that forbids criticism of homosexuality. Pastor Green found out about the Swedish law when he was arrested for preaching against sexual immorality inside his church to his church members.

http://www.arfamiliesfirst.org/hate_crimes.shtml


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Mumbo jumbo?  You mean like the mumbo jumbo gays are trying to sell to America? Too bad.  Deal with it.  Although I already know you deal with it by following the lead of your Far Left communist masters who are out to destroy religion and the soul of America.
> 
> The UK is a country in the toilet.  Sweden is an experiment gone wrong.  Spain is barely alive and kicking itself.  Tell me what wonderful things homosexuality is doing for these countries?


First of all, I'M NOT APART OF THE FAR LEFT.  So bugger off then on that issue.  Actually, I view it more mumbo jumbo than what gays are trying to "sell" to America.  All we want is to be able to marry our partners and get some of the benefits straight people get.  Is that really such a big deal?

Who said whether homosexuality had anything to do anything?  I merely brought up the fact that they're not dead and gone because of gay marriage.  It hasn't impacted their marriage system or religious organizations within.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> On July, 2004, Ake Green, Pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, was prosecuted and sentenced to a month in jail for "hate speech against homosexuals." Sweden passed a hate crimes law in 2003 that forbids criticism of homosexuality. Pastor Green found out about the Swedish law when he was arrested for preaching against sexual immorality inside his church to his church members.
> 
> http://www.arfamiliesfirst.org/hate_crimes.shtml


Just because something like that happens in Sweden doesn't mean it'd happen here.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> Just because something like that happens in Sweden doesn't mean it'd happen here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagom View Post
And you lose. Some nations have homosexual marriage already. I doubt you'll be forced to love homosexuals. And you can tell your children what you want and have them believe what you do until they make their own conscious decisions on things. Also, I don't really forsee your religion being fucked over in any single way.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Kagom View Post
> And you lose. Some nations have homosexual marriage already. I doubt you'll be forced to love homosexuals. And you can tell your children what you want and have them believe what you do until they make their own conscious decisions on things. Also, I don't really forsee your religion being fucked over in any single way.


And?  I'm sure there's another side to the story we're not seeing.  And as for what I said, I don't forsee your religion being fucked over here in the states.   At least that's what I meant originally.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> And?  I'm sure there's another side to the story we're not seeing.  And as for what I said, I don't forsee your religion being fucked over here in the states.   At least that's what I meant originally.



Read the link; it's already happening in California. With the behavior further legitimized, can more aggressive "hate crimes" legislation be far behind? We're not just talking about religion being "fucked over', my friend - we're talking about the end of free speech. We're talking about people being arrested for NOT THINKING THE RIGHT THINGS. Doesn't that frighten you?


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> Read the link; it's already happening in California. With the behavior further legitimized, can more aggressive "hate crimes" legislation be far behind? We're not just talking about religion being "fucked over', my friend - we're talking about the end of free speech. We're talking about people being arrested for NOT THINKING THE RIGHT THINGS. Doesn't that frighten you?


The loss of free speech does frighten me.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> The loss of free speech does frighten me.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


>


I'm a big advocate for free speech, especially since I have the tendency to make fun of everyone when I tell jokes and the such.  However, I believe that gay marriage doesn't affect our free speech unless we allow ourselves to be duped into letting it.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> I'm a big advocate for free speech, especially since I have the tendency to make fun of everyone when I tell jokes and the such.  However, I believe that gay marriage doesn't affect our free speech unless we allow ourselves to be duped into letting it.



A society that has allowed itself to be duped into legitimizing homosexuality is game for just about anything - as we see in Sweden's case. What happens when the concept of free speech collides with political correctness run amok? Read the link.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> A society that has allowed itself to be duped into legitimizing homosexuality is game for just about anything - as we see in Sweden's case. What happens when the concept of free speech collides with political correctness run amok? Read the link.


No offense, but that was retarded.  I'm not reading the link any further.  It's all for the same thing in the end and it's pointless.  A society that legitimizes homosexuality isn't game for anything.  What is wrong with allowing people to live their lives freely and without ostracizatoin when what they're doing isn't wrong or hurting people?


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> No offense, but that was retarded.  I'm not reading the link any further.  It's all for the same thing in the end and it's pointless.  A society that legitimizes homosexuality isn't game for anything.  What is wrong with allowing people to live their lives freely and without ostracizatoin when what they're doing isn't wrong or hurting people?



None taken. But you and your friends said, in effect, "Stop worrying, you silly, superstitious people. Homosexuality has been legitimized in other countries, and the sky hasn't fallen in on THEM". I just showed you otherwise. You can partake of the truth when it's offered to you, or turn your nose up at it. It's your choice - always. Unless you holler "fire" in a crowded theater, nobody's going to arrest you for what you think or say. Isn't that wonderful?


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> None taken. But you and your friends said, in effect, "Stop worrying, you silly, superstitious people. Homosexuality has been legitimized in other countries, and the sky hasn't fallen in on THEM". I just showed you otherwise. You can partake of the truth when it's offered to you, or turn your nose up at it. It's your choice - always. Unless you holler "fire" in a crowded theater, nobody's going to arrest you for what you think or say. Isn't that wonderful?


The sky hasn't fallen on them.  An isolated incident in Sweden in which free speech was under attack doesn't necessitate that it'd be the same here.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kagom said:


> First of all, I'M NOT APART OF THE FAR LEFT.  So bugger off then on that issue.  Actually, I view it more mumbo jumbo than what gays are trying to "sell" to America.  All we want is to be able to marry our partners and get some of the benefits straight people get.  Is that really such a big deal?
> 
> Who said whether homosexuality had anything to do anything?  I merely brought up the fact that they're not dead and gone because of gay marriage.  It hasn't impacted their marriage system or religious organizations within.



Guess you are then just a "useful idiot" of the Left.  One of the goals of communism/Far Left is to destroy the family unit.  Gay marriage is just the first step.  Then comes multi-partner marriages.   Polygamy and polyamory.  If everything can be marriage then nothing will be marriage.  You can already see this happening in Sweden and the Netherlands where the marriage numbers are down and the out-of-wedlock birth rates are up.
As per usual it is the children who suffer the most.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:


> The sky hasn't fallen on them.  An isolated incident in Sweden in which free speech was under attack doesn't necessitate that it'd be the same here.



A man being sentenced to thirty days in jail for preaching the Gospel in his own church is not "an isolated incident...in which free speech was under attack". "Attack" doesn't enter into it; the battle is over - free speech is a thing of the past. I'd equate that with the sky falling in.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> A man being sentenced to thirty days in jail for preaching the Gospel in his own church is not "an isolated incident...in which free speech was under attack". "Attack" doesn't enter into it; the battle is over - free speech is a thing of the past. I'd equate that with the sky falling in.


We see this differently, then.


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Guess you are then just a "useful idiot" of the Left.  One of the goals of communism/Far Left is to destroy the family unit.  Gay marriage is just the first step.  Then comes multi-partner marriages.   Polygamy and polyamory.  If everything can be marriage then nothing will be marriage.  You can already see this happening in Sweden and the Netherlands where the marriage numbers are down and the out-of-wedlock birth rates are up.
> As per usual it is the children who suffer the most.


Thanks for calling me an idiot.

Communism and the Far Left are much more differently, going on us using the terminology Communism and Liberalism.

Yeah, uhm, polygamy is okay if it's something within a person's religion.  Personally, I'm against it.  But allowing gay marriage does not correlate or even come close to implying causation to polygam(or)y.  In fact, reasoning of that kind is looked down upon.

Again, faulty reasoning.  Allowing to consenting adults to pledge their love for reach other and receive benefits does not mean that we'll allow pedophilic marriages or bestiality marriages or polygamy marriages.

Yeah, Sweden and the Netherlands have a completely different attitude towards sex.  Did you ever think that may have contributed to the marriage numbers and wedlock children?  Because they are very liberal in terms of sex as opposed to, say America, so I'm willing to be they will have a higher number in that department.  America is very conservative in terms of sex and liberal in terms of violence.  Europe is the opposite.  That's why those numbers will vary.


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> No offense, but that was retarded.  I'm not reading the link any further.  It's all for the same thing in the end and it's pointless.  A society that legitimizes homosexuality isn't game for anything.  What is wrong with allowing people to live their lives freely and without ostracizatoin when what they're doing isn't wrong or hurting people?



Because you don't get to decide what I'm supposed to put up with.  That's why.  I have the right to decide who I want to associate with.  I should have the right to not hire you for a job, or rent you a house, because I don't like your tattoos, or your pierced nose, or what shoes you're wearing.  

Homosexuals demand not only that I can't decide, but they want my kid to be taught that being gay is normal.

It's not.  It's a disgusting personal habit and you should keep it to yourself.  Nobody cares.


----------



## musicman

musicman said:
			
		

> You don't want this issue going before the voters, do you?






Reneer said:


> Actually, it's already gone to the voters in my state. And I wouldn't mind it actually going to the voters, no. Then we could at least all shut up about it and I could start trying to figure out ways to immigrate to Canada or the UK.



LOL - I'm actually going to take this as a roundabout, "no"!


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Guess you are then just a "useful idiot" of the Left.  One of the goals of communism/Far Left is to destroy the family unit.  Gay marriage is just the first step.  Then comes multi-partner marriages.   Polygamy and polyamory.  If everything can be marriage then nothing will be marriage.  *You can already see this happening in Sweden and the Netherlands where the marriage numbers are down and the out-of-wedlock birth rates are up.*
> As per usual it is the children who suffer the most.



Those numbers run cyclically.  The rates ARE lower than 10 years ago, but HIGHER than 20 years ago.  The correlation is meaningless.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> Because you don't get to decide what I'm supposed to put up with.  That's why.  I have the right to decide who I want to associate with.  I should have the right to not hire you for a job, or rent you a house, because I don't like your tattoos, or your pierced nose, or what shoes you're wearing.
> 
> Homosexuals demand not only that I can't decide, but they want my kid to be taught that being gay is normal.
> 
> It's not.  It's a disgusting personal habit and you should keep it to yourself.  Nobody cares.


Okay, so, we should totally ostracize gay people if they want to actually follow the pursuit of happiness, as we're allowed to do within the Constitution and only because there are people who don't like homosexuality and don't think homosexuals should be allowed to try and bring about the point that you should be tolerant of them and that they should be allowed to get some benefits that heterosexual couples do.

And don't throw the "But they want more" bullshit at me.  Last I checked, most gays I know just want to be able to get a legal marriage/civil union and nothing greater.


----------



## Eightball

And speaking of that topic:  This is hot off the Drudge News line.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060925ta_talk_collins

*Two Homosexual Men On Flight Told to "Knock It Off!" By Airline.*
_HERE TO THERE DEPT.
AIR KISS
Issue of 2006-09-25
Posted 2006-09-18


American Airlines Flight 45departing Charles de Gaulle at 10:40 A.M., arriving J.F.K. at one each afternoonis a tourists delight: timed just right to avoid late checkout, leaving time for one last Kir Royale at Les Deux Magots. On August 22nd, the coach cabin was packed with vacationing New Yorkers. Ralph Jackson (21A) and David Leisner (21B) were returning from two weeks in France, while Huffa Frobes-Cross (21F) had stopped over in Paris on his way back from South Africa. Assigned to seats 20A and 20B were George Tsikhiseli, a television journalist, and his writer boyfriend, Stephan Varnier. Weve been together only four months, Tsikhiseli said last week. So it felt like a honeymoon.

Twelve days earlier, British police had foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners. Heightened security had delayed the flight by about two hours, and passengers, by the time they boarded, were ready to relax. I had a José Saramago book I was looking forward to reading, Leisner said. And then I was going to take some melatonin and have a little nap.

Shortly after takeoff, Varnier nodded off, leaning his head on Tsikhiseli. A stewardess came over to their row. The purser wants you to stop that, she said.

I opened my eyes and was, like, Stop what?  Varnier recalled the other day.
The touching and the kissing, the stewardess said, before walking away.

Tsikhiseli and Varnier were taken aback. He would rest his head on my shoulder or the other way around. Wed kissnot kiss kiss, just mwah, Tsikhiseli recalled, making a smacking sound. 

In the row behind them were Leisner and Jackson. They were like two lovebirds, said Leisner, who is a classical guitarist. Frobes-Cross, a Columbia grad student who was sitting across the aisle, had overheard the stewardesss decree, too. First thing I catch is You have to stop touching each other,  he said. And Im, like, Whoa, thats really weird.

Leisner and Jackson, who were astounded, leaned forward to ask if theyd heard correctly. When Tsikhiseli and Varnier confirmed that they had, the four men summoned a stewardess and asked to speak with the purser.

A little later, the purser appeared at Row 20. She was, by all accounts, calm and professional; to the mens surprise, she said that she knew nothing about the incident and had not instructed the stewardess to tell Tsikhiseli and Varnier to stop touching each other. 

Which stewardess was it? she asked.

One of the men pointed out the stewardessa woman with, as Jackson put it, Texas hair, like from the nineteen-sixties. According to Leisner, the purser rolled her eyes and said, Oh, say no more. I know.

The purser asked the men to describe what theyd been doing, and she acknowledged that their behavior had not been inappropriate. Tsikhiseli then asked if the stewardess would have made the request if the kissers had been a man and a woman. Suddenly, Leisner said, the purser became very rigid. Contradicting what shed told them before, she stiffly said, Kissing is inappropriate behavior on an airplane. She then said that she was busy with the meal service and promised to come back. 

Half an hour later, the purser returned, this time saying that some passengers had complained about Tsikhiseli and Varniers behavior earlier. The men asked more questions. Who had complained? (She couldnt say.) Could they have the stewardesss name, or employee number? (No.) Would the purser arrange for an American Airlines representative to meet them upon landing at J.F.K.? (Not possible.) Finally, the purser said that if they didnt drop the matter the flight would be diverted. After that, Leisner said, everyone shut up for a while.

Maybe an hour later, the purser approached Tsikhiseli and said that the captain wanted to talk to him. Tsikhiseli went up to the galley and gave the captain his business card. The captain told Tsikhiseli that if they didnt stop arguing with the crew he would indeed divert the plane. I want you to go back to your seat and behave the rest of the flight, and well see you in New York, he said. Tsikhiseli returned to coach.

Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American, said that the stewardesss injunction to the men was reasonable, and would have been made whether the couple was gay or straight. Our passengers need to recognize that they are in an environment with all ages, backgrounds, creeds, and races. We have an obligation to make as many of them feel as comfortable as possible, he said. (He added, Our understanding is that the level of affection was more than a quick peck on the cheek.) But a customer-service representative named Terri, reached last week on the telephone, offered the opinion that kissing on airplanes is indeed permissible. Oh, yeah! Sure. Ive seen couples who are on honeymoons, she said. They just dont want you to go into the bathroom together. 
_

Signs of the times folks.........

I agree with Gunny that it's a deviancy, and it doesn belong in the league of heterosexual honeymooners, giving each other pecks/kisses.  

Deviant behaviour should be monitored and stopped if possible by AA, and they did it.

*Kudos to the AA pilot, and onboard staff!!!*:clap1:


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kagom said:


> Thanks for calling me an idiot.
> 
> Communism and the Far Left are much more differently, going on us using the terminology Communism and Liberalism.
> 
> Yeah, uhm, polygamy is okay if it's something within a person's religion.  Personally, I'm against it.  But allowing gay marriage does not correlate or even come close to implying causation to polygam(or)y.  In fact, reasoning of that kind is looked down upon.
> 
> Again, faulty reasoning.  Allowing to consenting adults to pledge their love for reach other and receive benefits does not mean that we'll allow pedophilic marriages or bestiality marriages or polygamy marriages.
> 
> Yeah, Sweden and the Netherlands have a completely different attitude towards sex.  Did you ever think that may have contributed to the marriage numbers and wedlock children?  Because they are very liberal in terms of sex as opposed to, say America, so I'm willing to be they will have a higher number in that department.  America is very conservative in terms of sex and liberal in terms of violence.  Europe is the opposite.  That's why those numbers will vary.




Kagom, before getting your knickers in a twist, FYI the term "useful idiot" comes from a well-known book by the same name and refers to people duped by the commies.  

I couldn't make sense of your second sentence.  

It is not "faulty reasoning" to observe what is happening in Scandinavia.  Perhaps you need to broaden your sources of information.  Maybe then you will not be so quick to scoff and "look down upon".

So you are blaming "liberal attitudes toward sex" as the reason for the increase of out-of-wedlock children?  I have to agree with you.  Acceptance of homosexuality, you must also agree, is part of the "liberal attitudes toward sex".   



			
				MissleMan/ said:
			
		

> Those numbers run cyclically. The rates ARE lower than 10 years ago, but HIGHER than 20 years ago. The correlation is meaningless.



Can you provide a source and explanation for that?


----------



## Kagom

Eightball said:


> And speaking of that topic:  This is hot off the Drudge News line.
> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060925ta_talk_collins
> 
> *Two Homosexual Men On Flight Told to "Knock It Off!" By Airline.*
> _HERE TO THERE DEPT.
> AIR KISS
> Issue of 2006-09-25
> Posted 2006-09-18
> 
> 
> American Airlines Flight 45departing Charles de Gaulle at 10:40 A.M., arriving J.F.K. at one each afternoonis a tourists delight: timed just right to avoid late checkout, leaving time for one last Kir Royale at Les Deux Magots. On August 22nd, the coach cabin was packed with vacationing New Yorkers. Ralph Jackson (21A) and David Leisner (21B) were returning from two weeks in France, while Huffa Frobes-Cross (21F) had stopped over in Paris on his way back from South Africa. Assigned to seats 20A and 20B were George Tsikhiseli, a television journalist, and his writer boyfriend, Stephan Varnier. Weve been together only four months, Tsikhiseli said last week. So it felt like a honeymoon.
> 
> Twelve days earlier, British police had foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners. Heightened security had delayed the flight by about two hours, and passengers, by the time they boarded, were ready to relax. I had a José Saramago book I was looking forward to reading, Leisner said. And then I was going to take some melatonin and have a little nap.
> 
> Shortly after takeoff, Varnier nodded off, leaning his head on Tsikhiseli. A stewardess came over to their row. The purser wants you to stop that, she said.
> 
> I opened my eyes and was, like, Stop what?  Varnier recalled the other day.
> The touching and the kissing, the stewardess said, before walking away.
> 
> Tsikhiseli and Varnier were taken aback. He would rest his head on my shoulder or the other way around. Wed kissnot kiss kiss, just mwah, Tsikhiseli recalled, making a smacking sound.
> 
> In the row behind them were Leisner and Jackson. They were like two lovebirds, said Leisner, who is a classical guitarist. Frobes-Cross, a Columbia grad student who was sitting across the aisle, had overheard the stewardesss decree, too. First thing I catch is You have to stop touching each other,  he said. And Im, like, Whoa, thats really weird.
> 
> Leisner and Jackson, who were astounded, leaned forward to ask if theyd heard correctly. When Tsikhiseli and Varnier confirmed that they had, the four men summoned a stewardess and asked to speak with the purser.
> 
> A little later, the purser appeared at Row 20. She was, by all accounts, calm and professional; to the mens surprise, she said that she knew nothing about the incident and had not instructed the stewardess to tell Tsikhiseli and Varnier to stop touching each other.
> 
> Which stewardess was it? she asked.
> 
> One of the men pointed out the stewardessa woman with, as Jackson put it, Texas hair, like from the nineteen-sixties. According to Leisner, the purser rolled her eyes and said, Oh, say no more. I know.
> 
> The purser asked the men to describe what theyd been doing, and she acknowledged that their behavior had not been inappropriate. Tsikhiseli then asked if the stewardess would have made the request if the kissers had been a man and a woman. Suddenly, Leisner said, the purser became very rigid. Contradicting what shed told them before, she stiffly said, Kissing is inappropriate behavior on an airplane. She then said that she was busy with the meal service and promised to come back.
> 
> Half an hour later, the purser returned, this time saying that some passengers had complained about Tsikhiseli and Varniers behavior earlier. The men asked more questions. Who had complained? (She couldnt say.) Could they have the stewardesss name, or employee number? (No.) Would the purser arrange for an American Airlines representative to meet them upon landing at J.F.K.? (Not possible.) Finally, the purser said that if they didnt drop the matter the flight would be diverted. After that, Leisner said, everyone shut up for a while.
> 
> Maybe an hour later, the purser approached Tsikhiseli and said that the captain wanted to talk to him. Tsikhiseli went up to the galley and gave the captain his business card. The captain told Tsikhiseli that if they didnt stop arguing with the crew he would indeed divert the plane. I want you to go back to your seat and behave the rest of the flight, and well see you in New York, he said. Tsikhiseli returned to coach.
> 
> Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American, said that the stewardesss injunction to the men was reasonable, and would have been made whether the couple was gay or straight. Our passengers need to recognize that they are in an environment with all ages, backgrounds, creeds, and races. We have an obligation to make as many of them feel as comfortable as possible, he said. (He added, Our understanding is that the level of affection was more than a quick peck on the cheek.) But a customer-service representative named Terri, reached last week on the telephone, offered the opinion that kissing on airplanes is indeed permissible. Oh, yeah! Sure. Ive seen couples who are on honeymoons, she said. They just dont want you to go into the bathroom together.
> _
> 
> Signs of the times folks.........
> 
> I agree with Gunny that it's a deviancy, and it doesn belong in the league of heterosexual honeymooners, giving each other pecks/kisses.
> 
> Deviant behaviour should be monitored and stopped if possible by AA, and they did it.
> 
> *Kudos to the AA pilot, and onboard staff!!!*:clap1:


That's the first time I've really seen people complain about affection being shown on a plane.  On my way to Cali, a married couple next to me were touching and pecks/kisses.  No one said anything to them.  Now, I'm not saying that's all they were doing.  But if it was, then no one should have told them to "knock it off."  And Eightball, they deserve the same rights as you and your spouse/lover do.  They don't deserve ostracization because they are gay.


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Kagom, before getting your knickers in a twist, FYI the term "useful idiot" comes from a well-known book by the same name and refers to people duped by the commies.
> 
> I couldn't make sense of your second sentence.
> 
> It is not "faulty reasoning" to observe what is happening in Scandinavia.  Perhaps you need to broaden your sources of information.  Maybe then you will not be so quick to scoff and "look down upon".
> 
> So you are blaming "liberal attitudes toward sex" as the reason for the increase of out-of-wedlock children?  I have to agree with you.  Acceptance of homosexuality, you must also agree, is part of the "liberal attitudes toward sex".


My mistake then.  I didn't know that.

I'll explain further with what I meant in my second sentence.  Liberals are nothing like Communists.  On the political spectrum, the Liberals are considered left and Communists extreme right.  I was basically saying that you can't really say they're the same.

It is faulty reasoning to believe that gay marriage causes polygamy or polyamory.  You have no actual proof that's what causes it or acceptance thereof.

I will agree accepting homosexuality is apart of the liberal attitude towards sex, however, it still has no effect on the rate of marriages or wedlock children.  The other attitudes, however, do.


----------



## musicman

Kagom said:
			
		

> I'll explain further with what I meant in my second sentence. Liberals are nothing like Communists. On the political spectrum, the Liberals are considered left and Communists extreme right.



I think you need to check that. Kagom. Communism is actually further out to the LEFT of the spectrum than liberalism.


----------



## Kagom

musicman said:


> I think you need to check that. Kagom. Communism is actually further out to the LEFT of the spectrum than liberalism.


Liberalism: The political philosophy which centers around the preservation of the liberties of an individual, as opposed the the centralized federalist state.

Communism: The political government that focuses on the centralized federalist state, in which absolute power is given to the central government. In a communist government, the individual has no particular "rights," as everything is basically decided by the government. Also, there are no social classes, where everyone gets paid the same amount of money for their work, regardless of what job or how well the job is done


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Guess you are then just a "useful idiot" of the Left.  One of the goals of communism/Far Left is to destroy the family unit.  Gay marriage is just the first step.  Then comes multi-partner marriages.   Polygamy and polyamory.  If everything can be marriage then nothing will be marriage.  You can already see this happening in Sweden and the Netherlands where the marriage numbers are down and the out-of-wedlock birth rates are up.
> As per usual it is the children who suffer the most.



Yep.  The old slippery slope fallacy.  What next - bestiality and necromancy?
Things don't always slip.  Similarly: 

If the communists get into S. Vietnam, then they will take over the country. Then they will get into Laos ad Thailand.  If they get into Laos and Thailand then they will control all of Asia. If they control all of Asia, they will get the whole world and democracy in America will become extinct.  So if the communists get into S. Vietnam, then they will take over the world and democracy in America will become extinct. 

http://www.class.uh.edu/phil/garson/CT.Lec4.htm

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope for a rather extensive review of the "Slippery Slope".


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Can you provide a source and explanation for that?



http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/scandinavia-and-netherlands-m.htm



> In fact, Denmark's longterm decline in marriage rates turned around in the early 1980's, and the upward trend has continued since the 1989 passage of the registered partner law. Now the Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they have been since the early 1970's. The most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are also higher today than they were in the years before the partnership laws were passed. The slight dip in marriage rates in the Netherlands since 2001 is the result of a recession-induced cutback on weddings, according to Dutch demographers, and the actual number of marriages has gone up and down in the last few years, even before the legalization of same-sex marriage.



I can't find the exact article I read before but this one parallels the concept.


----------



## Kagom

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MissileMan again


----------



## UnAmericanYOU

^ None of those countries have "gay marriage", they are civil unions. Those stats do not include "gays".



mattskramer said:


> If the communists get into S. Vietnam, then they will take over the country. Then they will get into Laos ad Thailand.  If they get into Laos and Thailand then they will control all of Asia. If they control all of Asia, they will get the whole world and democracy in America will become extinct.  So if the communists get into S. Vietnam, then they will take over the world and democracy in America will become extinct.




Yep, the old strawman argument. Containment was France's and LBJ's idea.



mattskramer said:


> Yep.  The old slippery slope fallacy.  What next - bestiality and necromancy?
> Things don't always slip.



They will if you don't have a good footing:



> Is it just the latest alternate lifestyle?
> 
> Denmark's animal bordellos  in which people pay for sex with horses and other beasts  are advertising on the 'Net and drawing customers from as far away as Norway, Germany, Holland and Sweden.
> 
> As long as no one gets hurt  including the animals  Denmark won't prosecute. Neither Denmark and Norway have any laws banning the practice of bestiality  at least not yet.
> 
> The proprietors  and presumably customers as well  have convinced themselves and the governments involved that the animals are experienced and welcome the chance for this intimate interaction with another species.



As impartial as some other sites in this thread: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52120

Slippery-slope? WHAT slippery-slope?


----------



## mattskramer

UnAmericanYOU said:


> As impartial as some other sites in this thread: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52120
> 
> Slippery-slope? WHAT slippery-slope?



Nation A has thingies.  Nation B wants to have thingies too.  Nation B needs to be careful because Nation A now has thongies.  Therefore, if nation B gets thingies they will naturally get thongies.  Im sorry but such is not always the case. The USA is not Europe.


----------



## Kagom

WND claims to be "fiercely independant" but their stories reflect a more right leaning thought pattern.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kagom said:


> My mistake then.  I didn't know that.
> 
> I'll explain further with what I meant in my second sentence.  Liberals are nothing like Communists.  On the political spectrum, the Liberals are considered left and Communists extreme right.  I was basically saying that you can't really say they're the same.
> 
> It is faulty reasoning to believe that gay marriage causes polygamy or polyamory.  You have no actual proof that's what causes it or acceptance thereof.
> 
> I will agree accepting homosexuality is apart of the liberal attitude towards sex, however, it still has no effect on the rate of marriages or wedlock children.  The other attitudes, however, do.



Liberals or progressives or whatever are essentially communist-lites.   They basically spout Marxist and socialist philosophy.  They advocate control of the economy.  They support the destruction of the family.

What makes you think gay marriage won't lead to polyamory or polygamy?  The arguments for them are basically the same as the arguments for gay marriage.    Would you deny a bisexual the right to marry one of each sex?

Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

MissileMan said:


> http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/scandinavia-and-netherlands-m.htm
> 
> I can't find the exact article I read before but this one parallels the concept.



M.V. Lee Badgett (who you are quoting) is a gay marriage advocate.  
This is part of Stanley Kurtz's reply to her:




> *Dutch Debate*
> Despite a challenge, the evidence stands: Marriage is in decline in the Netherlands.
> July 21, 2004
> 
> 
> *Undeniable Decline*
> During last week's Federal Marriage Amendment debate, many senators referred to the Dutch scholars' statement, and to marital decline in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Of course, you probably haven't heard about that, because, for the most part, the American press has refused to report the story.
> 
> Even so, gay-marriage advocates are worried. M. V. Lee Badgett, research director for the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, has issued a new critique of my work on Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In "Unhealthy Half-Truths," I refuted Badgett's first attack. Now she's back. Badgett's critique of my work is long on statistical tricks and short on engagement with my actual argument.
> 
> The bottom line is the neither Badgett nor anyone else has been able to get around the fact that marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in deep decline. In Scandinavia, that decline began before same-sex registered partnerships were established, but has continued apace ever since. In the Netherlands, marital decline accelerated dramatically, in tandem with the growing campaign for gay marriage.
> 
> The strategies for evading these hard truths don't work. Gay-marriage advocates regularly cite steady or improving rates of marriage and divorce in Scandinavian countries to prove that all is well. I've shown repeatedly that these numbers are misleading. Scandinavian marriage numbers are inflated by remarriages among the large number of divorced, for example. Scandinavian divorce numbers omit legally unrecorded breakups among the ever-increasing number of cohabiting parents. Total family dissolution rates in Scandinavia are actually up. I've made these points before, but Badgett and others just keep citing the misleading numbers.
> 
> European demographers know perfectly well that marriage in Scandinavia is in deep trouble. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that "marriage is becoming a minority status" in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life.
> 
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzAzM2Y2ZTY3MzhmYjhjY2NkYTQ0YzAyNmY5NGFiYTk=


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Liberals or progressives or whatever are essentially communist-lites.   They basically spout Marxist and socialist philosophy.  They advocate control of the economy.  They support the destruction of the family.
> 
> What makes you think gay marriage won't lead to polyamory or polygamy?  The arguments for them are basically the same as the arguments for gay marriage.    Would you deny a bisexual the right to marry one of each sex?



People are still allowed to smoke cigarettes even though cigarettes are dangerous. People want to be allowed to smoke marijuana.  We still dont allow people to smoke marijuana. We allow people who reach a certain age to drink alcohol though alcohol used to be outlawed for people at any age.  Why not allow people one year younger to drink alcohol. We set what we consider to be reasonable limits. We allow people to choose to engage in some risky behaviors but not in other risky behaviors. As I said before, so much of this is so relative.  There are few, if any, absolutes. Is there a slippery slope from Vietnam to Asia for the Communists?  Is there a slippery slope from cigarettes to marijuana or from marijuana to cocaine?  Is there a slippery slope form one minimum age to an age 1 year younger - I doubt it or, at least, I dont see the significance? 



> Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.



Is this just speculation on your part?  Do you have access to any actual statistical research concerning gay marriage and children?


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Liberals or progressives or whatever are essentially communist-lites.   They basically spout Marxist and socialist philosophy.  They advocate control of the economy.  They support the destruction of the family.
> 
> What makes you think gay marriage won't lead to polyamory or polygamy?  The arguments for them are basically the same as the arguments for gay marriage.    Would you deny a bisexual the right to marry one of each sex?
> 
> Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.


But they're different nonetheless.  They encourage it to a much lesser extent than their more extreme brethern (I've done some reasearch, so I retract all commentary about the political spectrum). 

I can't be for sure that it won't other than what I believe on a personal level.  And there are no statistics to back that polygamy comes with acceptance of homosexuality.  As long as we don't allow polygamy: yes.  I'm for polygamy if it's permitted in one's religion, by the way.

Yeah, sure.  Whatever.  You must remember that marriage in the legal terms isn't aimed at whether the couples have children or not and if it were, then we'd need to make those couples who are infertile, incapable of having children, or who don't want children.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Kagom said:


> Liberalism: The political philosophy which centers around the preservation of the liberties of an individual, as opposed to the centralized federalist state.



I need a link for this definition. I have my own though:



> Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
> Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
> Function: noun
> 1 : the quality or state of being liberal
> 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
> - lib·er·al·ist  /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
> - lib·er·al·is·tic  /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Liberalism



No where does it say anything about being opposed to a centralized federalist state. Ask Hillary Clinton if she is opposed to a centralized federalist state. Bet she isn't, considering that would mean she can't have all those social programs that are run by that centralized federalist state.

The spectrum, for the purposes of this thread, is this:

Communist(USSR)--->Liberal--->Democrat--->Centrist--->GOP--->Conservative--->Facist(NAZI)

While the actual spectrum would be:

Communism----->Socialism----->Liberalism----->Capitalism----->Facism


----------



## musicman

Re: the political spectrum - it's interesting, isn't it, that if one follows man's governmental schemes far enough to either the left or right, the end result is the same: tyranny? Seems our founding fathers knew something about human nature that has escaped most of the rest of the world (along with plenty of modern-day Americans), to wit: man is inherently, fundamentally flawed; his governments MUST, therefore - left unchecked - lead to tyranny. So, check government he must, if he is to remain free. All pipe dreams rooted in anything less than this basic human truth doom their populations to slavery - of one stripe or another.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Yep.  The old slippery slope fallacy.



There is no better example of the slippery slope than the gay rights movement.  It's a not a fallacy in this case.  It's true.

The gay rights movement started out arguing that they just wanted to be left alone.  They weren't breaking any laws in most cases, and in some cases the laws they were breaking were a gross invasion of privacy and were blatantly unconstitutional.  They were right about that.

Once they got past the whole invasion of privacy issue, then they started on the fairness issue.  Gay people shouldn't be discriminated in cases of medical decisions and inheritance rights.  How many stories were told about "life long" homosexual partners being frozen out of medical decisions by the sick partners homophobic blood relatives?  How many stories were told about how one "life long" partner had died and how the surviving partner got thrown out of their own house because the house was in the name of the dead gay, and their homophobic blood relatives threw them out on the street.  They were right about that concept, too, no matter how exaggerated it was, and now everyone is much more aware of living wills and making sure you leave a valid will for when you die.

Then came AIDS and all bets were off.  There is no better example of gays demanding and getting special rights than the AIDS crisis.  Gay activists demanded that AIDS be treated like a privacy issue with medical concerns, rather than a medical issue with privacy concerns.  

Never before had a fatal sexually transmitted desease been treated as such.  

Once they won that battle, they went after the Boy Scouts.  They wanted, and got, gay/straight student alliances in public schools.  They demanded that the media show gays in a favorable light, and loudly complained at any perceived slight to the point that they called any straight celebrity who had the nerve to deny being gay a homophobe.  Ask Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, and Richard Gere. Now they want gay marriage.

Slippery slope?  It's no fallacy when it comes to gay rights.


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> Okay, so, we should totally ostracize gay people if they want to actually follow the pursuit of happiness, as we're allowed to do within the Constitution and only because there are people who don't like homosexuality and don't think homosexuals should be allowed to try and bring about the point that you should be tolerant of them and that they should be allowed to get some benefits that heterosexual couples do.
> 
> And don't throw the "But they want more" bullshit at me.  Last I checked, most gays I know just want to be able to get a legal marriage/civil union and nothing greater.




Don't be so melodramatic.  Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex.  I do.  I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting.  And I should have the right to judge people based on their behavior.

That's a special right.  As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disgusting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you.  I should have that right.

By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other.  I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.


----------



## Kagom

Being melodramatic is what I'm best at.


----------



## sitarro

nt250 said:


> Don't be so melodramatic.  Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex.  I do.  I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting.  And I should have the right to judge people based ontheir behavior.
> 
> That's a special right.  As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disguting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you.  I should have that right.
> 
> By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other.  I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.



I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you. 

Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> M.V. Lee Badgett (who you are quoting) is a gay marriage advocate.
> This is part of Stanley Kurtz's reply to her:



Contradictive opinions about the situation over there.  This is why I prefer to apply common sense to topics like these.  IMO, the marriage rates and divorce rates of one group are not affected by the rates of another group.  And to try to blame an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock on gay marriage is as farsical as it gets.  You might as well try to blame gay marriage for global-warming, the increase in obesity, or the myriad of other non-related problems in society.


----------



## nt250

sitarro said:


> I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you.
> 
> Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.



You know what's really comical?  Two things:

Whenever I argue my position on gay rights I get two responses, always.  It never fails.  I'm an atheist, so if people don't know that when they reply to me, they always use religion as a comparison to my argument that I should have the right decide how to judge people based on their behavior when it comes to gays.  They are always liberals and they are the first to criticize religion in any other context, and they assume I'm a Christian.  It's hysterical.  The same posters who will, on a another thread at the same time, trash religion (except Islam, of course) will then tell me that gays rights are no different than religious rights.

If, however, the poster knows I'm not a Christian and am not arguing from that view point, they always say that being gay has nothing to do with sex.  See?  They can't get past my nose picking and eating it analogy any other way.

Not only is gay sex gross, it makes no sense at all.  What the fuck to Lesbians need strap-on's for?


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> Don't be so melodramatic.  Many people have no problem with the concept of gay sex.  I do.  I think it's gross and disgusting and I think anyone who does it is gross and disgusting.  And I should have the right to judge people based on their behavior.
> 
> That's a special right.  As I said on the thread that got locked, if you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know that you have ever done it because I think it's a disgusting personal habit and I don't want to associate with you.  I should have that right.
> 
> By the way, the United States Constitution protects citizens from the government, not from each other.  I can hate you all I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it legally.



Be prepared to continue to say the same thing.  Their arguments have been repeatedly shot down at every level and they just run off to another thread as if it never happened and parrot their same old garbage.

Typical liberal tactic.  Attempt to perpetuate a lie until it becomes truth.  It amounts to nothing more.


----------



## Abbey Normal

musicman said:


> Re: the political spectrum - it's interesting, isn't it, that if one follows man's governmental schemes far enough to either the left or right, the end result is the same: tyranny? Seems our founding fathers knew something about human nature that has escaped most of the rest of the world (along with plenty of modern-day Americans), to wit: man is inherently, fundamentally flawed; his governments MUST, therefore - left unchecked - lead to tyranny. So, check government he must, if he is to remain free. All pipe dreams rooted in anything less than this basic human truth doom their populations to slavery - of one stripe or another.


----------



## mattskramer

sitarro said:


> I like the way you took in all the bullshit from this thread and in these last two posts analyzed the subject perfectly(funny how that word has anal in it) ..... I tried to rep you on both and I am forced to find someone else to rep before I can give you what is definitely due you.
> 
> Outstanding NT! The nose picking analogy is perfect!!! Even better than cutting toenails in public, some things do need to stay behind closed doors.



   Some people are easily amused.  Im unimpressed.  I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Some people are easily amused.  Im unimpressed.  I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.



Yeah, if you wanted to make your usual, relativist argument that is nothing but an attempted dodge because quite simply, you have no REAL argument.  Typical ploy of the ignoramus who thinks he an intellectual.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Some people are easily amused.  Im unimpressed.  I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.



I feel the same way about hetrosexual public displays.  I've met many people who have an affliction called Too Much Information Syndrome.  I don't want to hear about your orgasms or how great your boyfriend was in bed last night.  At least not while I'm eating my lunch at work, I don't.

The problem with gays is that they as soon as they present themselves as gay they are telling everyone in earshot that they have sex with someone of their own gender.  Yes, they are.  This notion that being homosexual is nothing more than a desire or an attraction, and is not based on the act of sex is ridiculous.  Sorry, but if you even desire to have homosexual sex, but never act on it, you're still weirdo in my book.  Yuk.

And no, hetrosexuals who hold hands and kiss, get married and have babies, are NOT "flaunting" their sexuality. I am one of six kids and my parents NEVER had sex.  EVER.  It's simply not possible.  I was hatched.  From an egg. There is no way my parents ever did that.

See, we straight people don't define ourselves by our sex lives.  Gays do.

Don't even get me started on smoking.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> I am one of six kids and my parents NEVER had sex.  EVER.  It's simply not possible.  I was hatched.  From an egg. There is no way my parents ever did that.



Uh.  Okay.  Tale Biology 101.  I guess that Im just too logical and factual to debate you.


----------



## Said1

Uh. Ok. Nt tells joke, Matt no get. Duh.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Uh.  Okay.  Tale Biology 101.  I guess that Im just too logical and factual to debate you.



No, what it means is that you have no sense of humor.

The point I was making is that when it comes to hetrosexual couples, no one thinks about the fact that they are having sex with each other.  Are they?  Who knows?  I've known many married couples who don't have sex.

Gays and their defenders always come back with the argument that heterosexuals also "flaunt" their sexuality by such innocuous things as having pictures of our kids on our desks at work.  It's ridiculous argument and they only resort to it when they are arguing with people like me who solely base our objection to gay rights on the Ick factor.

I like sex.  I wish I was getting some.  But heterosexual sex doesn't gross me out because it's....OMIGOD! I'M GONNA SAY IT...... NORMAL.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> No, what it means is that you have no sense of humor.
> 
> The point I was making is that when it comes to hetrosexual couples, no one thinks about the fact that they are having sex with each other.  Are they?  Who knows?  I've known many married couples who don't have sex.
> 
> Gays and their defenders always come back with the argument that heterosexuals also "flaunt" their sexuality by such innocuous things as having pictures of our kids on our desks at work.  It's ridiculous argument and they only resort to it when they are arguing with people like me who solely base our objection to gay rights on the Ick factor.
> 
> I like sex.  I wish I was getting some.  But heterosexual sex doesn't gross me out because it's....OMIGOD! I'M GONNA SAY IT...... NORMAL.



Okay.  Now I think that I see your point.  Once I saw a couple of men walking close together, hand-in-hand.  I did a double take just because you dont see such behavior very often.  Then I simply shrugged my shoulders and walked on. It is simply no bid deal.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Now I think that I see your point.  Once I saw a couple of men walking close together, hand-in-hand.  I did a double take just because you dont see such behavior very often.  Then I simply shrugged my shoulders and walked on. It is simply no bid deal.



You're right, it is no big deal most of the time.

But when a Lesbian co-worker invites me and my 5 year old daughter to a party and I politely refuse and she gets insulted, then it IS a big deal.

The biggest problem I have with the whole gays rights thing, aside from the Ick Factor, is the double standard.  Here's just one story:

I worked with a group of women who all hung out together.  One day a bunch of us all went to lunch and the conversation turned to an incident that had happened to a Lesbian at work.  She was in our circle of friends, but her and her partner didn't happen to be at the restaurant that day. (Women do that.  They love to talk about other women behind their backs.)

This Lesbian is an in-your-face type Lesbian.  She and her partner referred to each other as each others "wives".  One was very butch right down to the crew cut.  She was a member of LAMBDA and had paraphernalia for it all over the place at work.  They had pink triangles on the bumper of their car.  You couldn't get any more "out" than these two.  

Somebody left a Post-It Note on one of the womans coffee mugs one morning that said "Linda is a dyke".  That day at lunch, when the conversation turned to this scandal, I asked a simple question.  I asked "What did the mug say?".

Well.  You would have thought I was wearing a white sheet and burning a cross.  My position was that, knowing these two, the mug probably said something like "Lesbians do it better".  Hey, if you are going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.

That's the thing that pisses me off the most about the gay rights movement.  The double standard and their tactics with anyone who objects.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

> ScreamingEagle:  Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.
> 
> MissleMan:  Is this just speculation on your part? Do you have access to any actual statistical research concerning gay marriage and children?
> 
> Kagom:  Yeah, sure. Whatever. You must remember that marriage in the legal terms isn't aimed at whether the couples have children or not and if it were, then we'd need to make those couples who are infertile, incapable of having children, or who don't want children.



I believe my statement to be true.   Gays cannot have children together.  Therefore the focus of marriage is taken away from the basic original intent of marriage which is to have and raise children within a protective family and places the focus of marriage instead on the relationship of the two getting married.  Once the focus of marriage passes from children to relationships, then just about any kind of marriage "relationship" will have to become acceptable.  Of course the children are lost in the process.  Need I say more?  All one has to really do is look at the problems of children coming from single family parents today.  Children suffer because they are lacking either a mother or a father.  Can you prove that children lacking either a mother or a father within a gay marriage are also not going to suffer?   And, ultimately, will not society suffer as well?

Speaking of proof, I'd like to see some proof from the homosexual community that gay marriage is NOT going to cause or enhance problems in society.  But I'm sure you don't have any proof, do you?   However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage.  Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either.  Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to musicman again.


----------



## nt250

ScreamingEagle said:


> However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage.  Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either.  Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?



What's going on in Scandinavia?  

BTW, as a single parent myself, I can't argue with your point about that at all.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

nt250 said:


> What's going on in Scandinavia?
> 
> BTW, as a single parent myself, I can't argue with your point about that at all.



Marriage and the family are being destroyed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp


----------



## Said1

ScreamingEagle said:


> Marriage and the family are being destroyed.
> 
> 
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp



your link didn't work.


----------



## Kagom

ScreamingEagle said:


> Marriage and the family are being destroyed.
> 
> 
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp


Your link doesn't work.


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Speaking of proof, I'd like to see some proof from the homosexual community that gay marriage is NOT going to cause or enhance problems in society.  But I'm sure you don't have any proof, do you?   However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage.  Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either.  Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?



Perhaps you can explain how they are supposed to offer proof for something that may or may not happen?  You can claim that allowing gay marriage will be a detriment to society, but until it's allowed, and actually has some ill effect, all you have is supposition.  

As I stated earlier, the data coming out of Europe seems to be saying contradictory things depending on who is interpreting it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but divorce, cohabitaion, births out of wedlock, etc are on the rise and have been for quite some time here in the U.S.  I'm curious how you intend to lay that at the feet of gay marriage when it hasn't existed here.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Sorry about the link.  I think it's fixed now.



MissileMan said:


> Perhaps you can explain how they are supposed to offer proof for something that may or may not happen?  You can claim that allowing gay marriage will be a detriment to society, but until it's allowed, and actually has some ill effect, all you have is supposition.
> 
> As I stated earlier, the data coming out of Europe seems to be saying contradictory things depending on who is interpreting it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but divorce, cohabitaion, births out of wedlock, etc are on the rise and have been for quite some time here in the U.S.  I'm curious how you intend to lay that at the feet of gay marriage when it hasn't existed here.



We've already established that homosexuality is a deviancy that we don't really know much about.  Despite "contradictions" as you say, there is obviously a real problem going on with liberal policies in other countries...and here too....and you still want to charge ahead into _more _liberal policies such as gay marriage here in the U.S.?


----------



## MissileMan

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sorry about the link.  I think it's fixed now.
> 
> 
> 
> We've already established that homosexuality is a deviancy that we don't really know much about.  Despite "contradictions" as you say, there is obviously a problem going on with liberal policies in other countries..  And you still want to charge ahead into more liberal policies such as gay marriage here in the U.S.?



I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society.  I really can't imagine conversations like "Sorry Marge!  We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." or "Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage" taking place.  As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

MissileMan said:


> I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society.  I really can't imagine conversations like "Sorry Marge!  We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." or "Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage" taking place.  As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.



So you'd _like _to eventually live in a communist-style society?


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> You're right, it is no big deal most of the time.
> 
> But when a Lesbian co-worker invites me and my 5 year old daughter to a party and I politely refuse and she gets insulted, then it IS a big deal.



How did she specifically respond when you declined the invitation?



> The biggest problem I have with the whole gays rights thing, aside from the Ick Factor, is the double standard.  Here's just one story:
> 
> I worked with a group of women who all hung out together.  One day a bunch of us all went to lunch and the conversation turned to an incident that had happened to a Lesbian at work.  She was in our circle of friends, but her and her partner didn't happen to be at the restaurant that day. (Women do that.  They love to talk about other women behind their backs.)
> 
> This Lesbian is an in-your-face type Lesbian.  She and her partner referred to each other as each others "wives".



Nope.  I dont think that partners should work together but calling someone a wife is no big deal in my book.   



> One was very butch right down to the crew cut.



So, you didnt like the way she dressed.  This is still not a big deal in my book.   



> She was a member of LAMBDA and had paraphernalia for it all over the place at work.



Okay.  You should keep items outside work when it is not related to work.  Brochures and other items related to clubs and organizations not related to your job should be kept out.



> They had pink triangles on the bumper of their car.  You couldn't get any more "out" than these two.



So you dont like the way that they decorated their car. This is still not a big deal in my book. 



> Somebody left a Post-It Note on one of the womans coffee mugs one morning that said "Linda is a dyke".  That day at lunch, when the conversation turned to this scandal, I asked a simple question.  I asked "What did the mug say?".
> 
> Well.  You would have thought I was wearing a white sheet and burning a cross.  My position was that, knowing these two, the mug probably said something like "Lesbians do it better".  Hey, if you are going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.



Im sorry but I dont understand and follow your post about the Post-It Note. You just told me that it said Linda is a dyke. You did not go into specifics about what they dished out and what they supposedly were not prepared to take.  Again, please give some clarification with specifics. 



> That's the thing that pisses me off the most about the gay rights movement.  The double standard and their tactics with anyone who objects.



I still dont see what amounts to a double standard  just some vague comment about some women not liking something that you said.  There are only 2 things that I find that the lesbians did wrong. Intimate partners (spouses, partners, etc.) should not work together.  People should not be allowed to distribute brochures at work that are not work related (no matter what the brochure is about).  

I wonder how much of your telling of that incident was based on your own prejudices and how much was based on the their poor behavior. Perhaps these were poor examples of Lesbians. 


This is what I mean by a specific example:

On a Saturday, a man wearing a short black leather jacket and black leather cap waking into a building in which I was working.  I asked if I could help him. He was rubbing the outside of his pants at his crotch.  I stood up and waked toward him.  He stared at my crotch, tilted his head up toward me, smiled, and asked if I wanted to have sex.  I was surprised at his sudden bold request. I said that I was flattered but that I was not interested.  He frowned, said that it was all right, turned, and walked away.  He never returned.  I never saw him or heard from him again. I told this story to some coworkers the following weekday.  Some of them said that I should have called the police.  I calmly shook my head and said that it no problem.


At work, I see people engaged in all sorts of inappropriate flirtations conduct.  They blow kisses to each other.  They try to do whatever they can to work next to each other.  They pat each other on the rear.  They even try to put their hands in each others pockets.  Such conduct by anyone should not be allowed in the work place.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Gays cannot have children together.  Therefore the focus of marriage is taken away from the basic original intent of marriage which is to have and raise children within a protective family and places the focus of marriage instead on the relationship of the two getting married.  Once the focus of marriage passes from children to relationships, then just about any kind of marriage "relationship" will have to become acceptable.



A man and a man cant combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is such a minor and practically insignificant point. They can adopt. (That is not the same thing.) Some heterosexual couples are infertile. Should they be prohibited from marriage until they can prove that they can produce a baby? (Ive had no reply to that question.) A gay couple can get a surrogate parent. (That is not the same thing). Okay. Okay.  A man and a man cant combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is really the only leg that you can stand on  and it seems so irrelevant if not insignificant. People get married for a wide variety of reasons:  To publicly acknowledge their commitment.  For the legal benefits that married couples get, etc.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> A man and a man can&#8217;t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is such a minor and practically insignificant point. They can adopt. (That is not the same thing.) Some heterosexual couples are infertile. Should they be prohibited from marriage until they can prove that they can produce a baby? (I&#8217;ve had no reply to that question.) A gay couple can get a surrogate parent. (That is not the same thing). Okay. Okay.  A man and a man can&#8217;t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is really the only leg that you can stand on &#8211; and it seems so irrelevant if not insignificant. People get married for a wide variety of reasons:  To publicly acknowledge their commitment.  For the legal benefits that married couples get, etc.



The fact that two men can't produce a baby together is a "minor and insignificant" 
and an "irrelevant" point?  
 

Pray tell, why?  And please don't focus on their "alternatives".


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> The fact that two men can't produce a baby together is a "minor and insignificant"
> and an "irrelevant" point?
> :shocked:
> 
> Pray tell, why?  And please don't focus on their "alternatives".



People get married for various reasons such as to make a public commitment to each other and to receive the benefits that married couples get.  Isnt that enough?  Look.  You dont have to have a baby in order to be married.  Similarly, you dont have to be married in order to have a baby.    

Besides that, there are valid alternatives.  Gay couples should be allowed to adopt.  Ive seen orphanages that are over-run with children needing loving homes.  There are so few personal care givers compared with so many children.  Many of these children would be better off in a loving home even if cared for by a homosexual couple.  

Also, a gay couple can request a surrogate parent.  Wasnt there a Lesbian singer who asked for a familiar music star to be a sperm donor? A gay couple can ask for a woman to carry a baby for one of the guys. Similarly, a Lesbian can go to a sperm bank.  It is too bad that two men can't produce a baby together but such is a biological reality for now. Again, it is a minor and insignificant point.  

Oh.  I remember one lady make such a profound comment.  She basically said that it does not take much - only takes a sperm donor - to be a father but you dont have to be a sperm donor to be a real daddy.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> People get married for various reasons such as to make a public commitment to each other and to receive the benefits that married couples get.  Isn&#8217;t that enough?  Look.  You don&#8217;t have to have a baby in order to be married.  Similarly, you don&#8217;t have to be married in order to have a baby.
> 
> Besides that, there are valid alternatives.  Gay couples should be allowed to adopt.  I&#8217;ve seen orphanages that are over-run with children needing loving homes.  There are so few personal care givers compared with so many children.  Many of these children would be better off in a loving home even if cared for by a homosexual couple.
> 
> Also, a gay couple can request a surrogate parent.  Wasn&#8217;t there a Lesbian singer who asked for a familiar music star to be a sperm donor? A gay couple can ask for a woman to carry a baby for one of the guys. Similarly, a Lesbian can go to a sperm bank.  It is too bad that two men can't produce a baby together but such is a biological reality for now. Again, it is a minor and insignificant point.
> 
> Oh.  I remember one lady make such a profound comment.  She basically said that it does not take much - only takes a sperm donor - to be a father but you don&#8217;t have to be a sperm donor to be a real daddy.



No, just because people _want _to get married for their various personal reasons is NOT enough....at least if we wish to maintain our current society.  If wants and wishes were the only qualifier or requirement for marriage, then we would need to allow marriages for bisexuals, polygamists, brothers marrying sisters, etc.

You are completely ignoring the whole argument already made re marriage based on children vs relationships.  The result of marriage solely based on "relationships" is that marriage basically is destroyed....and the children are left in the dust.  Please reread that link for further info on the subject.


----------



## OCA

Reneer said:


> I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.



Bullshit. People wake up all the time and DECIDE to do detrimental things all the time such as shoot heroin and drink a 5th and go driving. 

Your a homosexual apologist.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> No, just because people _want _to get married for their various personal reasons is NOT enough....at least if we wish to maintain our current society.  If wants and wishes were the only qualifier or requirement for marriage, then we would need to allow marriages for bisexuals, polygamists, brothers marrying sisters, etc.



Then what are the reasons for allowing marriage for those who cant or wont have children?  My wife and I decided to not have children.  Should we have been allowed to get married?  What is wrong with trying to improve upon our current society? We made changes to it regularly ever since Europeans first set foot and organized on American soil.  Some people of one race wanted to get married to people of another race. But I want to marry a Black man. For a time, it was not allowed. Later, it was allowed. For a time, people who wanted access to alcohol were not allowed to have it.  I guess that they had to settle for water.  Later, prohibition was removed.  Society always changes.  Finally, there you go again with that slippery slope.  There is no such outcry for polygamy and incest.  



> You are completely ignoring the whole argument already made re marriage based on children vs relationships.  The result of marriage solely based on "relationships" is that marriage basically is destroyed....and the children are left in the dust.  Please reread that link for further info on the subject.



LOL.  Oh please. Marriage is not destroyed if gay marriage is allowed. Was marriage destroyed when interracial marriage or interfaith marriage is allowed? Is marriage destroyed when people decide to have children outside of marriage or if married couples decide not to have children?  Im sorry to be so flippant but I completely disagree with the paranoid and repressive notion that if we change marriage rules again then it will destroy marriage. The rules for marriage have been tampered with again and again.  Marriage and society still exists.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> How did she specifically respond when you declined the invitation?



What are you?  The ettiquette police?  You don't get to decide how I react to the way I'm treated.  I'm not going to describe to you specifically how she responded because it doesn't matter what you think of it.  What matters is what I think when it comes to relationships and who I decide to associate with.  You don't have the right to tell me how I'm supposed to react.  And that is EXACTLY the problem with gay rights laws.  It's legislating the reaction to a personal habit.




> Im sorry but I dont understand and follow your post about the Post-It Note. You just told me that it said Linda is a dyke. You did not go into specifics about what they dished out and what they supposedly were not prepared to take.  Again, please give some clarification with specifics.



No shit.  You missed the entire point of my little mug story.  All I asked was "What did the mug say?".  That's all.  They all jumped down my throat so fast that you would have thought I had dragged the women down a dirt road behind a pick-up truck.  If all the mug had on it was her name, than I would agree that someone leaving a Post-It Note on it calling her a dyke was a bad thing.  But if, knowing these two women, the mug said something like "Dyke and proud of it", then what the fuck did she expect?




> I wonder how much of your telling of that incident was based on your own prejudices and how much was based on the their poor behavior. Perhaps these were poor examples of Lesbians.



What the fuck does that mean?  Is there a Lesbian manual?  I'm entitled to be prejudiced against people for behavior I don't like.  




> This is what I mean by a specific example:
> 
> On a Saturday, a man wearing a short black leather jacket and black leather cap waking into a building in which I was working.  I asked if I could help him. He was rubbing the outside of his pants at his crotch.  I stood up and waked toward him.  He stared at my crotch, tilted his head up toward me, smiled, and asked if I wanted to have sex.  I was surprised at his sudden bold request. I said that I was flattered but that I was not interested.  He frowned, said that it was all right, turned, and walked away.  He never returned.  I never saw him or heard from him again. I told this story to some coworkers the following weekday.  Some of them said that I should have called the police.  I calmly shook my head and said that it no problem.



Well, gee, aren't you tolerant.  Did you check the newspaper the next day to see if your little pervert raped and murdered any 5 year olds after you turned him down.  Yes you should have called the police you idiot.




> At work, I see people engaged in all sorts of inappropriate flirtations conduct.  They blow kisses to each other.  They try to do whatever they can to work next to each other.  They pat each other on the rear.  They even try to put their hands in each others pockets.  Such conduct by anyone should not be allowed in the work place.



That's bullshit. People like you always drag that lame argument out of your ass whenever you are faced with someone like me who doesn't like gay rights laws because you have no other argument.  

The bottom line is that I get to decide who I associate with.  You want to hang out with freaks, go right ahead.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> Well, gee, aren't you tolerant.  Did you check the newspaper the next day to see if your little pervert raped and murdered any 5 year olds after you turned him down.  Yes you should have called the police you idiot.



 

And what law did this man break by asking another man to have sex with him?

Did you really just suggest that homosexuals are murdering pedophiles?

:gross2:

Freak.


----------



## Reneer

OCA said:


> Bullshit. People wake up all the time and DECIDE to do detrimental things all the time such as shoot heroin and drink a 5th and go driving.



Alright. Let's go with your decision assumption. What causes people to decide to become homosexual? Society, genes, hormones?



OCA said:


> Your a homosexual apologist.



Yes I am. Your point? I figured everyone knew this by now.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> Then what are the reasons for allowing marriage for those who can&#8217;t or won&#8217;t have children?  My wife and I decided to not have children.  Should we have been allowed to get married?  What is wrong with trying to improve upon our current society? We made changes to it regularly ever since Europeans first set foot and organized on American soil.  Some people of one race wanted to get married to people of another race. &#8220;But I want to marry a Black man.&#8221; For a time, it was not allowed. Later, it was allowed. For a time, people who wanted access to alcohol were not allowed to have it.  I guess that they had to settle for water.  Later, prohibition was removed.  Society always changes.  Finally, there you go again with that slippery slope.  There is no such outcry for polygamy and incest.
> 
> LOL.  Oh please. Marriage is not destroyed if gay marriage is allowed. Was marriage destroyed when interracial marriage or interfaith marriage is allowed? Is marriage destroyed when people decide to have children outside of marriage or if married couples decide not to have children?  I&#8217;m sorry to be so flippant but I completely disagree with the paranoid and repressive notion that if we change marriage rules again then it will destroy marriage. The rules for marriage have been tampered with again and again.  Marriage and society still exists.



Anytime a man and a women get married, even if they decide to not have kids, they have the POTENTIAL to create children.  If they can't have kids for some biological reason, there always exists the potential that things can get fixed someday.

What you seem to not understand is that sometimes change is not always for the better.  Society can change for the worse.  Of course that observation can be a subjective thing.  However, today many of us look at what is happening in Europe (and now in Canada) and don't like what we see.  It isn't just a "hate-the-gays" thing.  We see marriage being destroyed and the traditional family being destroyed.  We see secularism replacing religion.  We see the State stepping in as a substitute spouse.  We see children coming under the control of the State.  We see political correctness turning into thought control.  We see the noose of socialism/communism slowly choking society.

Isn't it our choice to choose (while we still can) the type of societal rules under which we wish to live?


----------



## Outsider

ScreamingEagle said:


> Anytime a man and a women get married, even if they decide to not have kids, they have the POTENTIAL to create children.  If they can't have kids for some biological reason, there always exists the potential that things can get fixed someday.
> 
> What you seem to not understand is that sometimes change is not always for the better.  Society can change for the worse.  Of course that observation can be a subjective thing.  However, today many of us look at what is happening in Europe (and now in Canada) and don't like what we see.  It isn't just a "hate-the-gays" thing.  We see marriage being destroyed and the traditional family being destroyed.  We see secularism replacing religion.  We see the State stepping in as a substitute spouse.  We see children coming under the control of the State.  We see political correctness turning into thought control.  We see the noose of socialism/communism slowly choking society.
> 
> Isn't it our choice to choose (while we still can) the type of societal rules under which we wish to live?



People destroy their own marriages.


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> And what law did this man break by asking another man to have sex with him?
> 
> Did you really just suggest that homosexuals are murdering pedophiles?
> 
> :gross2:
> 
> Freak.



Let's review the incident, shall we?  Here's how it was described:



> On a Saturday, a man wearing a short black leather jacket and black leather cap waking into a building in which I was working. I asked if I could help him. He was rubbing the outside of his pants at his crotch. I stood up and waked toward him. He stared at my crotch, tilted his head up toward me, smiled, and asked if I wanted to have sex. I was surprised at his sudden bold request. I said that I was flattered but that I was not interested. He frowned, said that it was all right, turned, and walked away. He never returned. I never saw him or heard from him again. I told this story to some coworkers the following weekday. Some of them said that I should have called the police. I calmly shook my head and said that it no problem.



An obviously disturbed man walks into a building, goes up to a total stranger, and starts masturbating in front of him.  He asks if this total stranger wants to have sex with him.

I hate to break this to you but, THAT'S NOT NORMAL.  

And by the way, ask Paul Reubens if playing with yourself in public is a crime.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> What are you?  The ettiquette police?  You don't get to decide how I react to the way I'm treated.  I'm not going to describe to you specifically how she responded because it doesn't matter what you think of it.  What matters is what I think when it comes to relationships and who I decide to associate with.  You don't have the right to tell me how I'm supposed to react.  And that is EXACTLY the problem with gay rights laws.  It's legislating the reaction to a personal habit.



Woah.  Touchy.  I was simply wanting more information so that I could form a clear opinion on if the lesbians were out of line or not.  Why did you tell the story at all if you did not want my opinion?  You have the right to comment and give your opinion.  I have the right to comment and give my opinion. Hmmmm.  Im beginning to think that perhaps you were being too sensitive and developing a chip on your shoulder. Sheesh.  Look.  Im not telling you how to react.  I just wanted more information from which to clearly establish my own opinion of the incident. Cool it and get off your high horse. No law is legislating your reaction. 



> No shit.  You missed the entire point of my little mug story.  All I asked was "What did the mug say?".  That's all.  They all jumped down my throat so fast that you would have thought I had dragged the women down a dirt road behind a pick-up truck.  If all the mug had on it was her name, than I would agree that someone leaving a Post-It Note on it calling her a dyke was a bad thing.  But if, knowing these two women, the mug said something like "Dyke and proud of it", then what the fuck did she expect?



Really?  Talk about cannibalism  you had a bonanza. Are you sure that those ladies did not get stuck in your throat? Again, you present such vagueness that it is hard to determine who, if anyone, was out-of-line. Anyway, based on what little information you presented, I think that you are making a big deal about nothing. 



> What the fuck does that mean?  Is there a Lesbian manual?  I'm entitled to be prejudiced against people for behavior I don't like.



Likewise, Im entitled to be prejudiced against people for behavior that I dont like.



> Well, gee, aren't you tolerant.  Did you check the newspaper the next day to see if your little pervert raped and murdered any 5 year olds after you turned him down.  Yes you should have called the police you idiot.



LOL.  How demented can you be?  You would recommend that I call the police because someone asked me for sex?!? You dont really believe that, do you?  Let me understand your thinking.  If you turn down sex, call the police and check the news because the rejected person might rape someone. Wow.  The police station would be over-run with calls.  



> That's bullshit. People like you always drag that lame argument out of your ass whenever you are faced with someone like me who doesn't like gay rights laws because you have no other argument.
> 
> The bottom line is that I get to decide who I associate with.  You want to hang out with freaks, go right ahead.



Nope.  Bad behavior happens on a regular basis.  Also, unless you are self employed or quit your job, your boss decides who you associate with  at least in the work environment.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> Let's review the incident, shall we?  Here's how it was described:
> 
> An obviously disturbed man walks into a building, goes up to a total stranger, and starts masturbating in front of him.  He asks if this total stranger wants to have sex with him.
> 
> I hate to break this to you but, THAT'S NOT NORMAL.
> 
> And by the way, ask Paul Reubens if playing with yourself in public is a crime.


Technically, the guy wasn't masturbating.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> Let's review the incident, shall we?  Here's how it was described:
> 
> 
> 
> An obviously disturbed man walks into a building, goes up to a total stranger, and starts masturbating in front of him.  He asks if this total stranger wants to have sex with him.
> 
> I hate to break this to you but, THAT'S NOT NORMAL.
> 
> And by the way, ask Paul Reubens if playing with yourself in public is a crime.



Most men rub their crotch through their pants in public at one time or another...that's hardly "masturbation".  

I don't recall saying it was "normal", but I hardly want the police taking time from real crime because someone adjusted himself through his pants and asked another man if they wanted to have sex.  And I still don't see were that behavior makes the person a murderous pedophile.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> Let's review the incident, shall we?  Here's how it was described:
> 
> An obviously disturbed man walks into a building, goes up to a total stranger, and starts masturbating in front of him.  He asks if this total stranger wants to have sex with him.
> 
> I hate to break this to you but, THAT'S NOT NORMAL.
> 
> And by the way, ask Paul Reubens if playing with yourself in public is a crime.



I doubt that he was disturbed.  He was merely gay and very horny.  He never exposed himself but merely rubbed his jeans at the crotch area as if masturbating though his pants were in the way.  He also went straight to the point of asking me for sex.  He did not seem disturbed or threatening.  If he was not going to take no for an answer and become physically aggressive, I would have called the police.  Instead, he calmly walked away. I agree that it was not normal behavior but as I said before, what is not normal is not necessarily wrong. All things considered, I think that I did the right thing.


----------



## Outsider

mattskramer said:


> Im beginning to think that perhaps you were being too sensitive and developing a chip on your shoulder.



The chip on NT's shoulder is way past the development stage.


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> Most men rub their crotch through their pants in public at one time or another...that's hardly "masturbation".
> 
> I don't recall saying it was "normal", but I hardly want the police taking time from real crime because someone adjusted himself through his pants and asked another man if they wanted to have sex.  And I still don't see were that behavior makes the person a murderous pedophile.



This is hysterical.  

Replay the same situation again only this time pretend it's a woman he walked up to.

Could she at least slap the guy?  Would that be OK with you?

It's absolutely unbelievable the behavior you gay rights defenders will defend as long as it's gay.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> I doubt that he was disturbed.  He was merely gay and very horny.  He never exposed himself but merely rubbed his jeans at the crotch area as if masturbating though his pants were in the way.  He also went straight to the point of asking me for sex.  He did not seem disturbed or threatening.  If he was not going to take no for an answer and become physically aggressive, I would have called the police.  Instead, he calmly walked away. I agree that it was not normal behavior but as I said before, what is not normal is not necessarily wrong. All things considered, I think that I did the right thing.




Oh, this is just too funny.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> This is hysterical.
> 
> Replay the same situation again only this time pretend it's a woman he walked up to.
> 
> Could she at least slap the guy?  Would that be OK with you?
> 
> It's absolutely unbelievable the behavior you gay rights defenders will defend as long as it's gay.



Unlike you, I have no need to judge how someone else reacts to a situation that they are in.  It is up to the person to determine how they react to someone who does such a thing.  

Personally, I wouldn't get close enough to a person that did that to me to slap them, but I wouldn't condemn someone elses decision too.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> This is hysterical.
> 
> Replay the same situation again only this time pretend it's a woman he walked up to.
> 
> Could she at least slap the guy?  Would that be OK with you?
> 
> It's absolutely unbelievable the behavior you gay rights defenders will defend as long as it's gay.



Hmmm.  If I were a woman, I think that the only difference in my reply would have been a sterner rebuke. No way.  Leave me alone.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> I doubt that he was disturbed.  He was merely gay and very horny.  He never exposed himself but merely rubbed his jeans at the crotch area as if masturbating though his pants were in the way.  He also went straight to the point of asking me for sex.  He did not seem disturbed or threatening.  If he was &#8220;not going to take no for an answer&#8221; and become physically aggressive, I would have called the police.  Instead, he calmly walked away. I agree that it was not normal behavior but as I said before, what is not normal is not necessarily wrong. All things considered, I think that I did the right thing.



I think it's funny that he instantly zeroed-in on our gay apologist mattskramer.


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> Unlike you, I have no need to judge how someone else reacts to a situation that they are in.  It is up to the person to determine how they react to someone who does such a thing.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't get close enough to a person that did that to me to slap them, but I wouldn't condemn someone elses decision too.



So it's OK for Mutts to have his reaction, which is his own judgment, but it's not OK for me?

See?  That's my point.  Gay rights laws are nothing more than laws that tell me how I can react to the behavior of others.  While I am not a landlord, or an employer, I am an employee and if I ever said any of this out loud at work I would lose my job.  My employer would have no choice but to deal with my "prejudice" and "bigotry".  

That's special rights.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> I think it's funny that he instantly zeroed-in on our gay apologist mattskramer.



Perhaps I look gay - if there is such a thing as a gay look.  Anyway, that guy did not know who I was.  Perhaps he was lucky that I was not OCA or Pale Rider. He would probably have walked away limping and hurting.   LOL. Anyway, I was the only person working there on that weekend.  It could have happened to anyone.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> Perhaps I look gay - if there is such a thing as a gay look.  Anyway, that guy did not know who I was.  Perhaps he was lucky that I was not OCA or Pale Rider. He would probably have walked away limping and hurting.   LOL. Anyway, I was the only person working there on that weekend.  It could have happened to anyone.



No it couldn't.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> So it's OK for Mutts to have his reaction, which is his own judgment, but it's not OK for me?
> 
> See?  That's my point.  Gay rights laws are nothing more than laws that tell me how I can react to the behavior of others.  While I am not a landlord, or an employer, I am an employee and if I ever said any of this out loud at work I would lose my job.  My employer would have no choice but to deal with my "prejudice" and "bigotry".
> 
> That's special rights.



I wasnt there and I dont know all of the details but I think that if the lesbians created too much of an uncomfortable work environment, they would have been fired.  If they started to behave like two sex-starved dogs in heat, they would have been removed. I just dont see that much of a double standard for gays versus straights.


----------



## nt250

ScreamingEagle said:


> I think it's funny that he instantly zeroed-in on our gay apologist mattskramer.




I've been arguing about this for years and it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest jerks about the subject are not gays.  Some of my favorite posters on other boards happen to people who claim to be gay men.  No, the ones with the stupidest arguments are always straight liberals who are so open minded their fucking brains fell out years ago.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> So it's OK for Mutts to have his reaction, which is his own judgment, but it's not OK for me?
> 
> See?  That's my point.  Gay rights laws are nothing more than laws that tell me how I can react to the behavior of others.  While I am not a landlord, or an employer, I am an employee and if I ever said any of this out loud at work I would lose my job.  My employer would have no choice but to deal with my "prejudice" and "bigotry".
> 
> That's special rights.




I have no idea what exactly it is that you are feeling that you need to do at your job that would cause you to lose it, but my guess is that it isn't even in the same ball park as turning down a sexual advance.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> No it couldn't.



How could it not have happened to anyone else?  If Joe Smith were working that day instead of me when that man came it, he would have probably been propositioned.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> I wasnt there and I dont know all of the details but I think that if the lesbians created too much of an uncomfortable work environment, they would have been fired.  If they started to behave like two sex-starved dogs in heat, they would have been removed. I just dont see that much of a double standard for gays versus straights.



You totally missed the point.  Those two Lesbians had every right to act, do, and say anything they wanted to.  But what they didn't have a right to expect was that nobody would ever object to it.  That's the point.  

By the way, this story actually has a humerous ending.  Those two Lesbians broke up a couple of years later.  One of them ended up falling in love with another co-worker who had lived with a man for 12 years.  He also worked for the company.  We were all techs together.  This woman, I'll call her "Ann", is the one who invited me to the party.  I wasn't about to expose my 5 year old to a bunch of Lesbians.

I got promoted and I heard a couple of years later that they had a re-arrangement at work, and due to union rules the lowest seniority person was going to be forced to re-locate to another location that meant a slight pay cut.  So the bi-sexual, who left her boyfriend after 12 years to move in with the Lesbian,  and the Lesbian (who was low seniority) went to management and claimed that the former boyfriend was harrassing them.

He had more time in the company than both of them, and guess who got transferred?  Yup.  He did.

On second thought, that's not funny at all, is it?


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> You totally missed the point.  Those two Lesbians had every right to act, do, and say anything they wanted to.  But what they didn't have a right to expect was that nobody would ever object to it.  That's the point.
> 
> By the way, this story actually has a humerous ending.  Those two Lesbians broke up a couple of years later.  One of them ended up falling in love with another co-worker who had lived with a man for 12 years.  He also worked for the company.  We were all techs together.  This woman, I'll call her "Ann", is the one who invited me to the party.  I wasn't about to expose my 5 year old to a bunch of Lesbians.
> 
> I got promoted and I heard a couple of years later that they had a re-arrangement at work, and due to union rules the lowest seniority person was going to be forced to re-locate to another location that meant a slight pay cut.  So the bi-sexual, who left her boyfriend after 12 years to move in with the Lesbian,  and the Lesbian (who was low seniority) went to management and claimed that the former boyfriend was harrassing them.
> 
> He had more time in the company than both of them, and guess who got transferred?  Yup.  He did.
> 
> On second thought, that's not funny at all, is it?




Didn't you have sex with someone you worked with as well?  What the hell is in the water over there?  Seems like none of you can keep your hands off each other.  :kiss2:


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> Didn't you have sex with someone you worked with as well?  What the hell is in the water over there?  Seems like none of you can keep your hands off each other.  :kiss2:



No, my lover was a lawyer.  

But, yes, there were quite a few mini drama's going on.  We went on strike in 1989 and we all started hanging out at this dive bar.  Aside from being out of work and having to live off my 401K and an under-the-table job as a dishwasher in a restaurant, it was a great time.  We'd picket from 7:30AM until 9:30AM and then we'd head over the bar and start drinking.  We had a lot of fun.

Everytime I hear that Sheryl Crow song with the line "I like a good beer buzz early in the morning" I always look back very fondly on my bar days.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> No, my lover was a lawyer.
> 
> But, yes, there were quite a few mini drama's going on.  We went on strike in 1989 and we all started hanging out at this dive bar.  Aside from being out of work and having to live off my 401K and an under-the-table job as a dishwasher in a restaurant, it was a great time.  We'd picket from 7:30AM until 9:30AM and then we'd head over the bar and start drinking.  We had a lot of fun.
> 
> Everytime I hear that Sheryl Crow song with the line "I like a good beer buzz early in the morning" I always look back very fondly on my bar days.



My mistake, I could have sworn I read a very explicit description of a one night stand between you and one of your co-workers once upon a time.

And anytime your ready to either defend or retract your statement that someone making a homosexual advance leads to the logical conclusion that they would later that day rape or murder a 5 year old, I'm ready to hear it.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> How could it not have happened to anyone else?  If Joe Smith were working that day instead of me when that man came it, he would have probably been propositioned.



I wouldn't be stupid enough to allow this masterbating pervert (you said it was obvious) the chance to ask me for sex.  He'd first have to deal with my not-so friendly face and answer my loud and not-so nice demand as to what-the-hell he was doing there.  I'm sure it would've instantly destroyed his "mood" and he would've beat feet outta there pronto.  

You, on the other hand, don't recognize perverts in your lala-world so instead you just moseyed up to the creep and got hit on.  If you got kids, you'd better learn how to avoid perverts so you can teach them how to.  For them it could be a matter of life or death.


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> My mistake, I could have sworn I read a very explicit description of a one night stand between you and one of your co-workers once upon a time.
> 
> And anytime your ready to either defend or retract your statement that someone making a homosexual advance leads to the logical conclusion that they would later that day rape or murder a 5 year old, I'm ready to hear it.




Here on this board?  I've told many stories about my escapades over the years but I don't think I've ever told them here.

I never said that making a homosexual advance was an indication that someone would rape and murder a 5 year old.  What I said was that anyone who would act that way is not normal.  It's not even normal behavior for a homosexual.  Unless it was a gay bar, gays don't go around rubbing their dicks and propositing total strangers.  Even I don't believe that.

I guess the only context you could possibly find this something to not be concerned about would be if it was a gay bar, a sex shop, or a porn store.  And aside from the gay bar, I would have found that type of behavior worrisome enough that I would have called the police.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> You totally missed the point.  Those two Lesbians had every right to act, do, and say anything they wanted to.  But what they didn't have a right to expect was that nobody would ever object to it.  That's the point.



Okay.  I see.  Yeah.  People (gay and straight people) have every right to act, do, and say what they want to as long as it fits within the rules of the business within reason. People even have the right to object. If I work with a redhead who wears loud clothing, I might say that I dont like such clothes or that I dont like redheads.  If I take it further and say that it is evil to wear bright clothing with red hair and that I despise people who do so, I might be going over the line with my free speech.  Likewise, Im tall and thin with short black hair.  My coworker might say that she does not like that look. If she proceeds to say that she hates me for it that might be going over the line. Free speech has its limits and there should be moderation.  Still, I have yet to see a true double standard.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  I see.  Yeah.  People (gay and straight people) have every right to act, do, and say what they want to as long as it fits within the rules of the business within reason. People even have the right to object. If I work with a redhead who wears loud clothing, I might say that I dont like such clothes or that I dont like redheads.  If I take it further and say that it is evil to wear bright clothing with red hair and that I despise people who do so, I might be going over the line with my free speech.  Likewise, Im tall and thin with short black hair.  My coworker might say that she does not like that look. If she proceeds to say that she hates me for it that might be going over the line. Free speech has its limits and there should be moderation.  Still, I have yet to see a true double standard.



Um, Mutts?  Don't ever tell a woman you don't like her clothes or her hair.  It's rude.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> I wouldn't be stupid enough to allow this masterbating pervert (you said it was obvious) the chance to ask me for sex.  He'd first have to deal with my not-so friendly face and answer my loud and not-so nice demand as to what-the-hell he was doing there.  I'm sure it would've instantly destroyed his "mood" and he would've beat feet outta there pronto.



Im somewhat of a literalist and I was surprised by his apparent body language. I wanted to get in his face and really understand what he wanted.  I wanted him to tell me what he wanted.  



> You, on the other hand, don't recognize perverts in your lala-world so instead you just moseyed up to the pervert and got hit on.  If you got kids, you'd better learn how to avoid perverts so you can teach them how to.  For them it could be a matter of life or death.



I had my suspicions but I could have been mistaken about his intention with respect to me. You generalize.  If children were with me, I would have behaved differently.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> Um, Mutts?  Don't ever tell a woman you don't like her clothes or her hair.  It's rude.



No fair! No fair!  Double standard! Double standard!  Do women have permission to tell me that they dont like my clothes or hair? LOL.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> Here on this board?  I've told many stories about my escapades over the years but I don't think I've ever told them here.
> 
> I never said that making a homosexual advance was an indication that someone would rape and murder a 5 year old.  What I said was that anyone who would act that way is not normal.  It's not even normal behavior for a homosexual.  Unless it was a gay bar, gays don't go around rubbing their dicks and propositing total strangers.  Even I don't believe that.
> 
> I guess the only context you could possibly find this something to not be concerned about would be if it was a gay bar, a sex shop, or a porn store.  And aside from the gay bar, I would have found that type of behavior worrisome enough that I would have called the police.



Men grab their crotch.  Big deal.  No one was there but this "abnormal" person and Matt.  Hell, he could have been making an adjustment, saw Matt looking at his crotch with intent, and whipped off a sarcastic "Do you want to fuck me?" as a response.  Who knows.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> No fair! No fair!  Double standard! Double standard!  Do women have permission to tell me that they dont like my clothes or hair? LOL.




No, they don't.  But they have the right to tell each other.  It's in the Constitution.


----------



## Said1

Outsider said:


> Men grab their crotch.  Big deal.  No one was there but this "abnormal" person and Matt.  Hell, he could have been making an adjustment, saw Matt looking at his crotch with intent, and whipped off a sarcastic "Do you want to fuck me?" as a response.  Who knows.



B-b-b-ut you wouldn't get close enough to slap him and won't say it's 'normal'.  How about you get that shovel and start shinning.


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> Men grab their crotch.  Big deal.  No one was there but this "abnormal" person and Matt.  Hell, he could have been making an adjustment, saw Matt looking at his crotch with intent, and whipped off a sarcastic "Do you want to fuck me?" as a response.  Who knows.



LOL.  You're giving all men a bad name here, Outsider.

I'm 47 years old, have worked mostly with men for 20 years and I've never once had one of them grab their crotch in my presense.  

At work anyway. :happy2:


----------



## Said1

In high school, there seemed to be a lot scratching, though.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> I&#8217;m somewhat of a literalist and I was surprised by his apparent body language. I wanted to get in his face and really understand what he wanted.  I wanted him to tell me what he wanted.
> 
> I had my suspicions but I could have been mistaken about his intention with respect to me. You generalize.  If children were with me, I would have behaved differently.



Myself I saw that as taking a stupid risk, especially since you said you were alone at the workplace.  The creep could've had a weapon.  First thing you teach your kids is not to walk up to strangers.


----------



## Outsider

Said1 said:


> B-b-b-ut you wouldn't get close enough to slap him and won't say it's 'normal'.  How about you get that shovel and start shinning.




Wont say what is normal?  I wasn't there to judge if what this rubbing going on was "normal" or not.

As a woman, if a man walked up to me, rubbing his crotch and asked me if I wanted to fuck him, I would stay as far away from him as possible...yes.

But a man touching his crotch area through his pants does not shock me, and no I don't find that abnormal.  And I don't believe I would be watching him closely enough to determine that he was simulating masturbation, as Matt suggested. 

What the hell is "shinning"?


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> LOL.  You're giving all men a bad name here, Outsider.
> 
> I'm 47 years old, have worked mostly with men for 20 years and I've never once had one of them grab their crotch in my presense.
> 
> At work anyway. :happy2:




The man in question was not "at work" by the way I read Matt's post.  He appeared to be an unknown person who entered his place of employment.  

Have you never seen a Michael Jackson video?  :tng:


----------



## Said1

Outsider said:


> Wont say what is normal?  I wasn't there to judge if what this rubbing going on was "normal" or not.



There, there. I know you weren't there and can't judge. Thanks for trying. 






> What the hell is "shinning"?



It's slang. Don't worry about it.


----------



## Said1

NT, do you know this "Outsider" person from another board? 

Outsider, who's your favorite Outsider? I loved Dallas. He was so sexy and angry.


----------



## Outsider

Said1 said:


> There, there. I know you weren't there and can't judge. Thanks for trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's slang. Don't worry about it.



I have no idea what your point is in this post, or your other.


----------



## Said1

Outsider said:


> I have no idea what your point is in this post, or your other.



S'aight. What's your point, in general? Why do you exist? Have you thought about it often? What conclusions have you drawn?


----------



## nt250

Outsider said:


> The man in question was not "at work" by the way I read Matt's post.  He appeared to be an unknown person who entered his place of employment.



I know he wasn't.  And by the way, doesn't that fact bother anybody else at all?  This guy didn't just walk up to someone on the street.  I've worked in a city so I've seen my share of nutjob homeless people.  This guy _walked into a building_.  Now, I have no idea what kind of business this was, but that takes balls to do that.  It's not as bad as just walking into someone's private residence, but it's close enough for me.

On a related note, I think crimes like breaking and entering should be treated much more seriously than they are.  Think about what nerve it takes, and the mindset that allows someone to break into someone's house.  That's a very dangerious person in my opinion.



> Have you never seen a Michael Jackson video?  :tng:



Does Michael Jackson still make videos?  I hate music.  The last one I saw was Thriller.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> Myself I saw that as taking a stupid risk, especially since you said you were alone at the workplace.  The creep could've had a weapon.  First thing you teach your kids is not to walk up to strangers.



I see that you may have a point but you should have been there to get a better picture.  There were windows all around and it was in a quiet neighborhood near mid-day.  Besides the guy was short, unattractively skinny, puny, and somewhat weak looking.  Provided that he did not have a gun, I could have taken him down in seconds or let out a scream that would have been heard for 3 blocks.  He did not mean any harm.


----------



## nt250

Said1 said:


> NT, do you know this "Outsider" person from another board?



I have no idea.  I've posted with literally thousands of people over the years.

The name doesn't ring any bells, but that doesn't mean anything.  I rarely can remember people's user names.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> I see that you may have a point but you should have been there to get a better picture.  There were windows all around and it was in a quiet neighborhood near mid-day.  Besides the guy was short, unattractively skinny, puny, and somewhat weak looking.  Provided that he did not have a gun, I could have taken him down in seconds or let out a scream that would have been heard for 3 blocks.  He did not mean any harm.



What kind of business is this?

Let's say you weren't alone.  Let's say this guy walked up to one of your female co-workers and did the same thing.  Or let's way SHE was alone in this business.

You're only defending this guys very strange behavior because he's gay.  That's the only reason.

Oh, now watch someone come along and say propositiing someone for gay sex doesn't make someone gay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I've heard it all before.


----------



## Outsider

Said1 said:


> NT, do you know this "Outsider" person from another board?
> 
> Outsider, who's your favorite Outsider? I loved Dallas. He was so sexy and angry.



Ponyboy I suppose, if I had to pick one.

I know enough about NT to know that no one on the internet really knows her.


----------



## Outsider

nt250 said:


> What kind of business is this?
> 
> Let's say you weren't alone.  Let's say this guy walked up to one of your female co-workers and did the same thing.  Or let's way SHE was alone in this business.
> 
> You're only defending this guys very strange behavior because he's gay.  That's the only reason.
> 
> Oh, now watch someone come along and say propositiing someone for gay sex doesn't make someone gay.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I've heard it all before.




Propositioning someone for gay sex does not make them gay.

Don't want you to be disappointed.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> What kind of business is this?



It was a college building.



> Let's say you weren't alone.  Let's say this guy walked up to one of your female co-workers and did the same thing.



I would pay very close attention and look for her reply.  If it were negative, Id insist that he leave. 



> Or let's way SHE was alone in this business.



To my knowledge, females did not work alone.  Anyway, if it were a female, alone, that he approached, I would hope that she uses good judgment.  



> You're only defending this guys very strange behavior because he's gay.  That's the only reason.



No.  I'm not defending anyone.  I simply take each case on its own merits and circumstances.  I don't jump to conclusions (particularly negative and prejudicial ones) without careful consideration. When a black man walks toward you on a sidewalk, do you always cross the street so that your paths don't cross easily?    



> Oh, now watch someone come along and say propositiing someone for gay sex doesn't make someone gay.



Gee.  I drank a can of been over a decade ago.  I guess that I'm an alcoholic.  No.  One experiment or experience does not classify one for all time as gay.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> No.  I'm not defending anyone.  I simply take each case on its own merits and circumstances.  I don't jump to conclusions (particularly negative and prejudicial ones) without careful consideration. When a black man walks toward you on a sidewalk, do you always cross the street so that your paths don't cross easily?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.  I drank a can of been over a decade ago.  I guess that I'm an alcoholic.  No.  One experiment or experience does not classify one for all time as gay.



You do not understand the difference between behavior and skin color.  

You must be one hot dude if you're the first guy this pervert ever asked to have sex with.

Are you actually in college?  Because that would explain a lot.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> You do not understand the difference between behavior and skin color.



You can be prejudice against Blacks by thinking that they would assault you if they don't get what they want from you.  It is a valid comparison. 

Perhaps you have a prejudice against men who wear earrings and paint their hair green.  Do you shy away from them? 



> You must be one hot dude if you're the first guy this pervert ever asked to have sex with.



I dont know if I was the first guy that this man asked or the fifth.  Anyway, I would not say that Im hot, but I think that Im on the positive side of the handsome scale.



> Are you actually in college?  Because that would explain a lot.



No.  Im nearly 40 years old.  This happened years ago.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Perhaps you have a prejudice against men who wear earrings and paint their hair green.  Do you shy away from them?




I have the right to.  That's the point.

You've just taken a position.  Have fun.


----------



## sitarro

mattskramer said:


> Some people are easily amused.  Im unimpressed.  I could say the same about heterosexuals kissing in public or smoking, or a wide variety of other behaviors.



Hey Matts, you're winning! 

Houston is banning smoking in all public buildings and that includes cigar shops and lounges. Imagine the rights that are being trampled on for the nonsmokers. Lets look at the slippery slope effect that has happened with this legal product and the use of it. It is amazing what a perfect parallel it makes with the homosexual slipping slope.

A little history...I have never been a fan of cigarettes, don't like the smell. I always put up with them because a lot of my friends smoke. It did bother me when people lit up in poorly ventilated restaurants and I gave my friends a great deal of crap for smoking and eventually it just pissed them off. My 83 year old mother still smokes and her doctor keeps telling her to stop. I tell her to not listen to the idiot doctor and smoke all she wants because I know that if she tried to stop now it would make her life miserable and kill her sooner. I became friends with a habitual pipe smoker and the smell was incredible, I had smoked pipes and cheap cigars sporadically for years because it worked well to cover up the smell of pot. Now I have become a pipe and cigar smoker, it now covers up the smell of my cat's litter box. I smoke in my truck while driving, helps keep me awake. I smoke at home with a glass of Medera or a good Port and I like to hang out at the cigar lounge in my tobacconist's shop. We have the regulars that sit and smoke a good cigar, sip some cognac and solve the problems of the world. Because of zealots like you that pleasure will be taken away from me.

It started with sticking smokers in the back of airliners, then in glass cubes in airports. The nonsmokers got their foot in the door and were looking ahead. Restaurants were the next target, smoking sections became the norm in restaurants over the next couple of years. Next it was the workplace then hotels and now the bars. It's like Rush says, you guys can't ban tobacco, you would lose all of those billions of tax dollars. But you have incrementally banned the use of tobacco almost everywhere. The same is happening with homosexuals but in reverse. They just wanted to be decriminalized at first, then taken off the mentally ill list. Then the movies and sitcoms, the inclusion of bullshit books in schools that attempt to normalize their behavior, fag day at Disneyworld, fag cruises, "Gay Pride Day" and the ridiculous parades to go with it. Now there are demands, the demand of acceptance of a behavior that for many if witnessed would invoke a very deep sickness in their stomach causing profuse vomiting. I remember walking into a restroom in New Orleans during Mardi Gras while tripping on a rather strong 4 way hit of windowpane acid(thirty years ago and it is still burned in my memory)and witnessing a guy going down on another.... that profuse vomiting happened all over those clowns. Now the demands are marriage and adoption, what next their own state? That is what is meant by a slippery slope.

How lucky for you Matts.... the end of smoking is near, homosexuals are heading for ownership of their own state and now that strap-ons have been invented you can get your lady to handle what you would normally get a young boy to do.


----------



## nt250

sitarro said:


> How lucky for you Matts.... the end of smoking is near, homosexuals are heading for ownership of their own state and now that strap-ons have been invented you can get your lady to handle what you would normally get a young boy to do.



The problem with people like poor Matts here is that once they take a position simply to take a position, there is no way out for them on subjects like this.  Like liberals who defend Islam by comparing it to Christianity, gay rights defenders try to find any excuse to defend their stance by trying to compare gay behavior to other behaviors people are supposed to "tolerate".

Poor Matts chose smoking.  Talked himself right into a corner with that one.

Funny you should mention Mardi Gras.  That's another thing gay rights defenders almost always bring up.  I had forgotten all about that.  Except they use Madri Gras as an example of outrageous behavoir by straight people.  I've never been to Madri Gras but I have seen videos of it, and the worst thing I saw was a lot of breasts being flashed around.  I didn't see anyone on those videos having sex in public.  

What I saw at the one and only Gay Pride parade I attended was enough to last me forever.


----------



## roomy

I could watch lesbian sex all day but man/man sex, fucking forget about it.
Am I normal?


----------



## nt250

roomy said:


> Am I normal?



I think it's been pretty well established that you are not normal.

:gang1:


----------



## trobinett

Is it any wonder, that the military came up with its somewhat  lame gay policy?:thumbdown:  

I've always felt, that Barry Goldwater had it right, let the gays in the military.  I would only add, put em' all in combat, let natural selection take care of the rest. 

Hey, its a win, win situation.................


----------



## Gunny

trobinett said:


> Is it any wonder, that the military came up with its somewhat  lame gay policy?:thumbdown:
> 
> I've always felt, that Barry Goldwater had it right, let the gays in the military.  I would only add, put em' all in combat, let natural selection take care of the rest.
> 
> Hey, its a win, win situation.................



How is the military's policy on homosexuality lame?  It is a direct result of Bill Clinton promising gays inhis first run for office that they could openly be in the military.  The JCS basically told Clinton to go pound sand.

It is not legal to ask someone if they are gay.  It is STILL illegal to commit homosexual acts, and if discovered, homosexuals are STILL prosecuted and processed out.

The homosexuals that have ALWAYS been in the military still are.  The homosexuals that want to flaunt their abnormal behavior in the faces of normal people are not.  

It is considered inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexual behavior.  That is a point often missed, purposefully for the sake of an agenda.  It isn't a one way street.  Only the "in your face" homosexual crowd wants it to be one.


----------



## 007

Reneer said:


> Sorry Pale, but the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that homosexuality can be learned or persuaded into. It isn't our job to try and 'prove you wrong' when you haven't proven yourself to be right.



Don't be sorry. It's you who is just a tad confused about how this works.

You see when you fag defenders start in with your psycho babble, it is you who is trying to convince all us NORMAL people that WE are WRONG. "I" don't have to defend NATURE and it's grand design. "I" don't have to defend the FACT that a MAN was created to be with, SEXUALLY, a WOMAN. It is YOU who has the BURDEN to convince ME that a man sticking his cock up another mans BUTT is NORMAL, and frankly, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

So back to the drawing board for you. Get a new hook, because you're old one is broken.


----------



## 007

GunnyL said:


> Be prepared to continue to say the same thing.  Their arguments have been repeatedly shot down at every level and they just run off to another thread as if it never happened and parrot their same old garbage.
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  Attempt to perpetuate a lie until it becomes truth.  It amounts to nothing more.



*NO SHIT GUNNY... THAT'S IT IN A NUT SHELL BROTHER.*



> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.


----------



## CockySOB

GunnyL said:


> It is considered inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexual behavior.  That is a point often missed, purposefully for the sake of an agenda.  It isn't a one way street.  Only the "in your face" homosexual crowd wants it to be one.


Conduct unbecoming IIRC....  And homosexuals cannot bitch because adultery is also in the qualifiers for such charges.


----------



## 007

nt250 said:


> I've been arguing about this for years and it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest jerks about the subject are not gays.  Some of my favorite posters on other boards happen to people who claim to be gay men.  No, the ones with the stupidest arguments are always straight liberals who are so open minded their fucking brains fell out years ago.



:rotflmao:


----------



## trobinett

Pale Rider said:


> Don't be sorry. It's you who is just a tad confused about how this works.
> 
> You see when you fag defenders start in with your psycho babble, it is you who is trying to convince all us NORMAL people that WE are WRONG. "I" don't have to defend NATURE and it's grand design. "I" don't have to defend the FACT that a MAN was created to be with, SEXUALLY, a WOMAN. It is YOU who has the BURDEN to convince ME that a man sticking his cock up another mans BUTT is NORMAL, and frankly, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
> 
> So back to the drawing board for you. Get a new hook, because you're old one is broken.



Right on.

I would only pose the question.  What part don't the perverters of nature understand?:bat:


----------



## nt250

roomy said:


> I would need to walk in your shoes, before I could possibly comment.I would like to say though, If I were gay like you, I would have outed long ago.It just isn't fair on your family
> All this bluff and bluster you spout about hating gays, see a shrink man and never point the finger, it only points right back at you:chillpill



I didn't know you hated gays, Roomy.

I'm very surprised.


----------



## MissileMan

Yo PR!  Why don't you act like you own a pair and refute my post in public instead of behind the scenes like some scared little pantywaist!  

I posted:



			
				MissileMan said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society. I really can't imagine conversations like *"Sorry Marge! We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." *or *"Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage"* taking place. As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.



Since you think it's dumb to believe conversations like the ones I bolded are highly improbable, let's hear your reasoning for believing straight couples are going to forego marriage if gay marriage is allowed and how divorce rates are going to skyrocket.  And just for a change of pace, how about responding with a lot less bluster and a lot more brains than one of your typical posts.


----------



## mattskramer

sitarro said:


> How lucky for you Matts.... the end of smoking is near, homosexuals are heading for ownership of their own state and now that strap-ons have been invented you can get your lady to handle what you would normally get a young boy to do.



I still think that smoking and homosexual behavior is a valid comparison.  Both are unnatural.  Both are tolerated to one degree or another.  Perhaps smoking is tolerated less than is homosexual behavior tolerated.  Anyway, I was also thinking of fast junk food. It is unhealthy.  If eaten regularly, it can lead to various health problems.  To some people, eating a cheeseburger each day is unnatural.  Yet, this behavior is accepted and tolerated. 
Again, it is all relative.


----------



## mattskramer

sitarro said:


> They just wanted to be decriminalized at first, then taken off the mentally ill list. Then the movies and sitcoms, the inclusion of bullshit books in schools that attempt to normalize their behavior, fag day at Disneyworld, fag cruises, "Gay Pride Day" and the ridiculous parades to go with it. Now there are demands, the demand of acceptance of a behavior that for many if witnessed would invoke a very deep sickness in their stomach causing profuse vomiting. I remember walking into a restroom in New Orleans during Mardi Gras while tripping on a rather strong 4 way hit of windowpane acid(thirty years ago and it is still burned in my memory)and witnessing a guy going down on another.... that profuse vomiting happened all over those clowns. Now the demands are marriage and adoption, what next their own state? That is what is meant by a slippery slope.



You are mentioning attempts made by the gay community to get homosexual relationships legally recognized (gay marriage). The slippery slope (domino theory) is the notion that if gay marriage were allowed, incest, polygamy, and perhaps bestiality and necromancy would be next. Im sorry to tell you but these things are not dominos.  One thing does not necessarily lead to another.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> Funny you should mention Mardi Gras.  That's another thing gay rights defenders almost always bring up.  I had forgotten all about that.  Except they use Madri Gras as an example of outrageous behavoir by straight people.  I've never been to Madri Gras but I have seen videos of it, and the worst thing I saw was a lot of breasts being flashed around.  I didn't see anyone on those videos having sex in public.
> 
> What I saw at the one and only Gay Pride parade I attended was enough to last me forever.



I have never been to a Marti Gras or to a gay pride march.  Ive seen videos of each.  Neither parade looked any more revolting than the other.  In the Marti Gras video I saw women flash their chests, kiss, and grope men.  I also saw mooning.  I saw men beg women for attention. In the Gay Pride march I saw men in skin-tight leather holding hands and kissing. I saw some men dressed up like women.  I saw some women looking like med.  That was about the extent of it. The videos were equally entertaining/revolting to me.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Don't be sorry. It's you who is just a tad confused about how this works.
> 
> You see when you fag defenders start in with your psycho babble, it is you who is trying to convince all us NORMAL people that WE are WRONG. "I" don't have to defend NATURE and it's grand design. "I" don't have to defend the FACT that a MAN was created to be with, SEXUALLY, a WOMAN. It is YOU who has the BURDEN to convince ME that a man sticking his cock up another mans BUTT is NORMAL, and frankly, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
> 
> So back to the drawing board for you. Get a new hook, because you're old one is broken.



Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.  The weaker animals are left to starve and die.  Again, this is part of some grand design.  Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> I still think that smoking and homosexual behavior is a valid comparison.  Both are unnatural.  Both are tolerated to one degree or another.  Perhaps smoking is tolerated less than is homosexual behavior tolerated.  Anyway, I was also thinking of fast junk food. It is unhealthy.  If eaten regularly, it can lead to various health problems.  To some people, eating a cheeseburger each day is unnatural.  Yet, this behavior is accepted and tolerated.
> Again, it is all relative.




Matts, are you really this dense or are you really just arguing to argue?

All the comparisons you've given are examples of behavior people are trying to STOP.  Only gay rights are championed.  Smoking and unhealthy eating are things people are suing to STOP.

The only even close comparison to gay rights laws are laws that protect religious freedom.  And even those laws do NOT protect behavior.  They protect people from being discriminated against *by the state* for their religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs are a fundamental part of human nature and go to the core of what separates us from the animals.  The ability to think and reason.  To contemplate our own selves.  That's what makes us humans.

But when it comes to behavior, there are always limits placed on it.  What gays want is to define what behavior other people should accept.  That's the difference.  All other laws limit an individuals behavior in some way.  Gay rights laws limit the *reaction* to the behavior.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> It is considered inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexual behavior. That is a point often missed, purposefully for the sake of an agenda. It isn't a one way street. Only the "in your face" homosexual crowd wants it to be one.



I am intellectually honest and consistent.  Ill grant you that it is inappropriate to flaunt sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual).  Now, how do you define the term flaunt.  

Is a man allowed to kiss a woman in public? 
Is a man allowed to kiss a man with as much sexuality in public?

How intellectually honest and consistent are you or do you advocate a double standard?


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> Yo PR!  Why don't you act like you own a pair and refute my post in public instead of behind the scenes like some scared little pantywaist!
> 
> I posted:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you think it's dumb to believe conversations like the ones I bolded are highly improbable, let's hear your reasoning for believing straight couples are going to forego marriage if gay marriage is allowed and how divorce rates are going to skyrocket.  And just for a change of pace, how about responding with a lot less bluster and a lot more brains than one of your typical posts.




It may not be healthy for you to be so obsessed with my balls MM. Try and keep those thoughts to yourself please.

My point was, your bolded arguements are absurd, childish, and not worth an intelligent response. Try talking like an adult, with adult ideas, adult thought. Not grade school, na nana nana na shit. 

Marriage is for "men" and "women". It shouldn't be compared to any other thing, scenario, or sick idea for the sake of distortion.


----------



## MissileMan

Pale Rider said:


> It may not be healthy for you to be so obsessed with my balls MM. Try and keep those thoughts to yourself please.
> 
> My point was, your bolded arguements are absurd, childish, and not worth an intelligent response. Try talking like an adult, with adult ideas, adult thought. Not grade school, na nana nana na shit.
> 
> Marriage is for "men" and "women". It shouldn't be compared to any other thing, scenario, or sick idea for the sake of distortion.



And exactly where did I compare marriage to anything?  The prevailing hypothesis of some of the posters is that allowing gay marriage will lead to higher divorce rates and fewer marriages.  Any such claims are nothing more than supposition.  The bolded arguments perfectly mirrored the absurdity of the hypothesis...an observation apparently beyond your scope.  I guess you'd better stick to bluster after all.


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> And exactly where did I compare marriage to anything?  The prevailing hypothesis of some of the posters is that allowing gay marriage will lead to higher divorce rates and fewer marriages.  Any such claims are nothing more than supposition.  The bolded arguments perfectly mirrored the absurdity of the hypothesis...an observation apparently beyond your scope.  I guess you'd better stick to bluster after all.



You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.

The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.

Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.

Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.
> 
> The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.
> 
> Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.
> 
> Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.



First of all, this is exaggeration and hyperbole. Even if you carefully select those web sites that have articles that support your bias that places that have legalized gay marriage are not doing well, they do not say that the sky has fallen.  Secondly, there are too many intervening variables.  Europe is not the USA. I dont put much faith in such articles or in comparisons between nations based on just 1 variable.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> First of all, this is exaggeration and hyperbole. Even if you carefully select those web sites that have articles that support your bias that places that have legalized gay marriage are not doing well, they do not say that the sky has fallen.  Secondly, there are too many intervening variables.  Europe is not the USA. I dont put much faith in such articles or in comparisons between nations based on just 1 variable.



"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, *so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln *


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.  The weaker animals are left to starve and die.  Again, this is part of some grand design.  Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.



I make NO DISTINCTION between what is "good" and "bad". I DO however, make a distinction between what is "RIGHT" and what is "WRONG". Something YOU and your butt pounding defenders DON'T UNDERSTAND.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> "I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, *so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln *



UhYes.  That is basically my philosophy within reason.  I basically believe that, to a large extent, people (and nations as an extension) should be free to do as they please as long as they dont interfere with the freedoms of others.  Im somewhat libertarian in that respect.  I like relationships based on mutual informed consent and things of that nature.  What was your point in bringing this to my attention?


----------



## MissileMan

Pale Rider said:


> You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.



I wasn't distorting anything, and as of yet, you STILL haven't explained how allowing gay marriage will increase the divorce rate and lower marriage rates.



Pale Rider said:


> The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.



One of your biggest failings that I've noticed is that you consider opinions and conjecture that you agree with as proof.  And you usually deem it irrefutable to boot.  I asked this question earlier and noone replied...maybe you'd like to take a shot at it:  How do you intend to blame gay marriage for the rising divorce and out-of-wedlock-birth rates in this country when gay marriage hasn't existed here?  Now, when you engage that micro-processor (pun intended) in your skull to formulate your response, ask yourself this question also: (yes, I know that asking you to multi-task is stretching your system capacity)  If the rising rates in the U.S. can't be attributed to gay marriage, does it REALLY make any sense to try to attribute it to the rates in Europe?



Pale Rider said:


> Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.
> 
> Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.



Before recommending that *I* take a break, review the forum and count how many threads *I've* started to defend gays, and then count how many *YOU'VE* started to bash them.


----------



## mattskramer

mattskramer said:


> Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.  The weaker animals are left to starve and die.  Again, this is part of some grand design.  Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.



Let us no longer allow the creation of dams to prevent hurricanes.  Doing so would be to create something unnatural in the face of a natural activity.  Let us not protect endangered species.  To do so would be to interfere with nature.  If there are too many lions killing off too many deer, so be it.  If deer become extinct, that was what nature intended.  Let us not use chemotherapy and radiation treatment to retard cancer growth.  Let nature run its course.  If someone dies young due to cancer, that is what nature, in its grand design, wanted.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> UhYes.  That is basically my philosophy within reason.  I basically believe that, to a large extent, people (and nations as an extension) should be free to do as they please as long as they dont interfere with the freedoms of others.  Im somewhat libertarian in that respect.  I like relationships based on mutual informed consent and things of that nature.  What was your point in bringing this to my attention?



That you're stupid.  You don't understand your own sig line.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> Let us no longer allow the creation of dams to prevent hurricanes.



Yup.  Stupid.


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> I wasn't distorting anything, and as of yet, you STILL haven't explained how allowing gay marriage will increase the divorce rate and lower marriage rates.
> 
> 
> 
> One of your biggest failings that I've noticed is that you consider opinions and conjecture that you agree with as proof.  And you usually deem it irrefutable to boot.  I asked this question earlier and noone replied...maybe you'd like to take a shot at it:  How do you intend to blame gay marriage for the rising divorce and out-of-wedlock-birth rates in this country when gay marriage hasn't existed here?  Now, when you engage that micro-processor (pun intended) in your skull to formulate your response, ask yourself this question also: (yes, I know that asking you to multi-task is stretching your system capacity)  If the rising rates in the U.S. can't be attributed to gay marriage, does it REALLY make any sense to try to attribute it to the rates in Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> Before recommending that *I* take a break, review the forum and count how many threads *I've* started to defend gays, and then count how many *YOU'VE* started to bash them.



Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.

So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.


----------



## MissileMan

Pale Rider said:


> Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.
> 
> So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.



But what I've seen argued by those against gay marriage is that it will negatively effect straight marriages both in numbers and duration.  It is this preposterous claim that I've been arguing against.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation of exactly how that's going to occur.


----------



## 007

MissileMan said:


> But what I've seen argued by those against gay marriage is that it will negatively effect straight marriages both in numbers and duration.  It is this preposterous claim that I've been arguing against.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation of exactly how that's going to occur.



Well that's certainly not been 'my' arguement.

My point is, and always has been, is that if queers are allowed to marry, they will only desecrate and defile what has been for millennia a holy union between a man and woman. That appartently isn't what we were arguing.


----------



## nt250

Pale Rider said:


> Listen MM, I could go and do a search to back this up, but won't. Because you've seen it yourself probably a dozen times here on this very message board. The fact is that homo's and lezbo's live a very promiscuous life style, and if allowed to marry, that wouldn't change a damn bit. So use some reasoning here, ask "yourself", would their divorce rate be higher or lower than hetero's? I'd surmise higher, which would push the "total" divorce rate up. I hope that was simple enough even for you. I know you're limited in reading comprehension.
> 
> So now, if you want to beat this dead horse anymore, you've already pushed it to the point of absurdity, just how stupid do you want to make yourself look? As stupid as kramer? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.



I think you're wrong, PR.  I think the divorce rate for homosexuals would actually be very low compared to hetrosexuals.  Homosexuals only want to get married to prove to the world that their lifestyle is acceptable.  It's a purely political move and really has nothing to do with commitment at all.

Homosexuals wouldn't have as many reasons for getting divorced as hetro's do.  No, I can picture a homosexual couple going their separate ways and never getting divorced.  They certainly wouldn't get divorced over infidelity.  Well, not unless their partner had straight sex.  Then, yeah, that might piss them off enough to want a divorce.


----------



## Kagom

Lesbians are some of the most monogamous people on the face of the planet o.o


----------



## Said1

nt250 said:


> I think you're wrong, PR.  I think the divorce rate for homosexuals would actually be very low compared to hetrosexuals.  Homosexuals only want to get married to prove to the world that their lifestyle is acceptable.  It's a purely political move and really has nothing to do with commitment at all.
> 
> *Homosexuals wouldn't have as many reasons for getting divorced as hetro's do.*  No, I can picture a homosexual couple going their separate ways and never getting divorced.  They certainly wouldn't get divorced over infidelity.  Well, not unless their partner had straight sex.  Then, yeah, that might piss them off enough to want a divorce.



For example? Oh, infidelity is acceptable? 
And further more, you're saying the divorce rates would be lower because they won't get divorce, just seperate, forever? There is so much wrong with your post, but I'm mainly interested in what I brought up.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> I am intellectually honest and consistent.  Ill grant you that it is inappropriate to flaunt sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual).  Now, how do you define the term flaunt.
> 
> Is a man allowed to kiss a woman in public?
> Is a man allowed to kiss a man with as much sexuality in public?
> 
> How intellectually honest and consistent are you or do you advocate a double standard?



The only thing consistent about you is your dishonesty.

Case in point ...  you want to play relativist with the term "flaunt."  
Stop trying to draw a dishonest parallel between the normal and the abnormal.  There isn't one.  Normal people have rights based on collective behavior that is in tune with science, nature and morality.  People who choose to live outside the confines of what is normal are going to suffer the consequences of their choice whether or not they want to or like it, and the maojority does not deserve to suffer the tyranny of the minority just because you and some fags think their aberrant lifestyle should be catered to based on nothing but relativism.


----------



## mattskramer

nt250 said:


> That you're stupid.  You don't understand your own sig line.



No.  I understand my own sig line.  Did I every say anything patently against it?


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> The only thing consistent about you is your dishonesty.
> 
> Case in point ...  you want to play relativist with the term "flaunt."
> Stop trying to draw a dishonest parallel between the normal and the abnormal.  There isn't one.  Normal people have rights based on collective behavior that is in tune with science, nature and morality.  People who choose to live outside the confines of what is normal are going to suffer the consequences of their choice whether or not they want to or like it, and the maojority does not deserve to suffer the tyranny of the minority just because you and some fags think their aberrant lifestyle should be catered to based on nothing but relativism.



Whatever.  I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.  The weaker animals are left to starve and die.  Again, this is part of some grand design.  Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.



Bullshit.  Our society has devolved into legislating propping up the weak and keeping those who would otherwise die due to natural selection because of nimrods like YOU.  It was fine up to the point the gene pool got completely devoid of common sense and produced morons like you who obviously have no connection whatsoever with reality.

Look at your argument here.  You want to give special rights to an aberrant minority to artificially place them atop the food chain, that faced with natural selection would die without reproducing, and be shunned by their own species and forced to exist in solitary until they did die.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Whatever.  I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.




I'm ducking nothing.  Your question is irrelevant.  Just as is your argument.  Just as YOU are.  

Society accepts a man kissing a woman as normal so it's okay.  Society does not accept homosexual behavior in public so it isn't okay.  Pretty damned simple.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Whatever.  I just knew that you were going to duck and dodge the simplest of questions.



Matter of fact, anyone who is anyone on this board and can spell their name and type has kicked your ass all the way up to your shoulders, where apparently it remains.

You and your bullshit arguments are a waste of bandwidth.  Please go sell your 100% pure grade A horse manure elsewhere.


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> Lesbians are some of the most monogamous people on the face of the planet o.o




And you know this how?  You're 19 years old.

Trust me.  I've known quite a few women who call themselves Lesbians and when it comes to sex the only thing they care about is that it doesn't take place with a man.

Kag, did you ever watch the US version of Queer As Folk?  I was a big fan of that show.  I just loved Emmett, he was such a doll.


----------



## nt250

mattskramer said:


> No.  I understand my own sig line.  Did I every say anything patently against it?




Your inadverant typo says it all.

EVERY single thing you say is patently against it.


----------



## nt250

Said1 said:


> For example? Oh, infidelity is acceptable?
> And further more, you're saying the divorce rates would be lower because they won't get divorce, just seperate, forever? There is so much wrong with your post, but I'm mainly interested in what I brought up.



Do you know any gay people?  Ever been to a gay bar?

Gay people have sex like you and I would have a cup of coffee.  Actually, it's not that formal.  I'd know your name.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> And you know this how?  You're 19 years old.
> 
> Trust me.  I've known quite a few women who call themselves Lesbians and when it comes to sex the only thing they care about is that it doesn't take place with a man.
> 
> Kag, did you ever watch the US version of Queer As Folk?  I was a big fan of that show.  I just loved Emmett, he was such a doll.


I liked the show, but they kinda stereotyped WAAAAAAY too much.

I know a few women who are the same way, but I believe as a whole they're not as bad as gay men can be.  And don't doubt my experience because of my age


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> I liked the show, but they kinda stereotyped WAAAAAAY too much.



No, they didn't.  I used to hang out at a bar that had a very popular gay bar next to it.  We used to go over there sometimes and what you saw on Queer As Folk isn't a sterotype.  This wasn't a Lesbian bar, it was a gay mens bar.  Very friendly guys, though.  



> I know a few women who are the same way, but I believe as a whole they're not as bad as gay men can be.  And don't doubt my experience because of my age



You're not of drinking age yet so if you are hanging out in gay bars you could get in trouble.  And stay away from rest areas.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> No, they didn't.  I used to hang out at a bar that had a very popular gay bar next to it.  We used to go over there sometimes and what you saw on Queer As Folk isn't a sterotype.  This wasn't a Lesbian bar, it was a gay mens bar.  Very friendly guys, though.
> 
> You're not of drinking age yet so if you are hanging out in gay bars you could get in trouble.  And stay away from rest areas.


I've been to bars when I was in Germany, so I do know just a little something.

Well, differing views.  I don't see many gay men who go by the stereotype or what's on QaF, that's all.

And I hate rest areas.


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> I've been to bars when I was in Germany, so I do know just a little something.
> 
> Well, differing views.  I don't see many gay men who go by the stereotype or what's on QaF, that's all.
> 
> And I hate rest areas.



Just don't fall in love with a Brian.  I did and the sex isn't worth it.  Not in the long run.  Look for an Emmett or a Michael.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> Just don't fall in love with a Brian.  I did and the sex isn't worth it.  Not in the long run.  Look for an Emmett or a Michael.


My boyfriend's like Emmett.  He's a real sweetheart and he cares a lot about me.  I feel I've finally lucked out with him.  I know he won't cheat on me like a few exes have and I know he wont' force me to do anything I don't want, again like an ex.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> My boyfriend's like Emmett.  He's a real sweetheart and he cares a lot about me.  I feel I've finally lucked out with him.  I know he won't cheat on me like a few exes have and I know he wont' force me to do anything I don't want, again like an ex.



*OK... WAAAAAAY TO MUCH INFORMATION....*


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> *OK... WAAAAAAY TO MUCH INFORMATION....*


Not too much information in the least.  No sexual connotations of any kind nor in any way.


----------



## nt250

Kagom said:


> Not too much information in the least.  No sexual connotations of any kind nor in any way.



Uh, Kag?  What do you guys do?  Play checkers?  You said he wouldn't cheat on you.  That's either about checkers or it's a reference to sex.

Think before you post.


----------



## Kagom

nt250 said:


> Uh, Kag?  What do you guys do?  Play checkers?  You said he wouldn't cheat on you.  That's either about checkers or it's a reference to sex.
> 
> Think before you post.


Alright, for the most part my post wasn't pertaining to sex, but it still wasn't a "tmi" post like some people on the 'net do.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Alright, for the most part my post wasn't pertaining to sex, but it still wasn't a "tmi" post like some people on the 'net do.



Yes it was TMI. The last thing I want or need to hear about is your sons a bitchin' BUTT BUDDY. Keep it to yourself!


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> Yes it was TMI. The last thing I want or need to hear about is your sons a bitchin' BUTT BUDDY. Keep it to yourself!


So, double-standard.  If it were me and a woman, you wouldn't have said that.  She was expressing a best regard notion to me and I was replying with a rather clean answer.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> So, double-standard.  If it were me and a woman, you wouldn't have said that.  She was expressing a best regard notion to me and I was replying with a rather clean answer.



There's NOTHING *clean* about homosexuality. It's a FILTHY, perverted illness.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> There's NOTHING *clean* about homosexuality. It's a FILTHY, perverted illness.


Yeah, I don't give a flying rat's ass right now if you feel that way or not.  I didn't say anything dirty or disgusting to warrant any kind of negative reaction.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Yeah, I don't give a flying rat's ass right now if you feel that way or not.  I didn't say anything dirty or disgusting to warrant any kind of negative reaction.



It isn't "just me" that feels that way kag, it's the majority of people.

The last thing anybody here needs to hear about is your BOYFRIEND, and whether or not he CHEATS on you, or MAKES YOU DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. That's TMI kag. It leaves the door open to implications that maybe one of your "boyfriends" RAPED you or something. *NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT, OR HEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S SICK HOMOSEXUAL MELODRAMA.* Take it to a FAG board and talk about it.

So WHETHER YOU THINK YOU SAID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT is irrelevant. YOU also think you're sick behavior is OK too, so you really don't know too much about what normal people think, or you'd keep that crap to yourself.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> It isn't "just me" that feels that way kag, it's the majority of people.
> 
> The last thing anybody here needs to hear about is your BOYFRIEND, and whether or not he CHEATS on you, or MAKES YOU DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO. That's TMI kag. It leaves the door open to implications that maybe one of your "boyfriends" RAPED you or something. NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT, OR HEAR ABOUT IT.
> 
> So WHETHER YOU THINK YOU SAID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT is irrelevant. YOU also think you're sick behavior is OK too, so you really don't know to much about what normal people think, or you'd keep that crap to yourself.


You interpret it how you want.  I meant nothing really bad at all by the secondary comment.  Cheating, however, can take place in many ways because it can go beyond physical/sexual cheating.  

Actually, right now, it is relevant.  The way you're blowing things out of proportion  shows poor character on your part.  I really won't say anything innappropriate here or insinuate anything inappropriate.  I have some standards of decency, as much as some of you may be opposed to believe that.

Also, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be acting this way if I were straight.  And if you would be acting differently, I see nothing but a double-standard and a bunch of bullshit rolled up in a package.


----------



## nt250

Pale Rider said:


> It isn't "just me" that feels that way kag, it's the majority of people.
> 
> The last thing anybody here needs to hear about is your BOYFRIEND, and whether or not he CHEATS on you, or MAKES YOU DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. That's TMI kag. It leaves the door open to implications that maybe one of your "boyfriends" RAPED you or something. *NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT, OR HEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S SICK HOMOSEXUAL MELODRAMA.* Take it to a FAG board and talk about it.
> 
> So WHETHER YOU THINK YOU SAID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT is irrelevant. YOU also think you're sick behavior is OK too, so you really don't know too much about what normal people think, or you'd keep that crap to yourself.



Hey!  Kagom was replying to something I said.  If you want to go off on anyone, go off on me.

I don't have a problem with gay people in general.  I have a problem with gay rights.  Whatever anyone does in the privacy of their own home in none of my business and I don't want to hear about it.  But I certainly do not want the government telling me I have to accept it.

Kag is a nice kid.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> You interpret it how you want.  I meant nothing really bad at all by the secondary comment.  Cheating, however, can take place in many ways because it can go beyond physical/sexual cheating.
> 
> Actually, right now, it is relevant.  The way you're blowing things out of proportion  shows poor character on your part.  I really won't say anything innappropriate here or insinuate anything inappropriate.  I have some standards of decency, as much as some of you may be opposed to believe that.
> 
> Also, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be acting this way if I were straight.  And if you would be acting differently, I see nothing but a double-standard and a bunch of bullshit rolled up in a package.



You were talking about sexually kag. Don't try and bullshit me. I can see right through your little back peddling sharade.

If you were straight, you'd be talking about a man and woman. There's nothing disgusting about that.

There's no double standard here to even consider. You're throwing that out just to try deflect the issue... as usual. Typical liberal stunt.


----------



## 007

nt250 said:


> Hey!  Kagom was replying to something I said.  If you want to go off on anyone, go off on me.
> 
> I don't have a problem with gay people in general.  I have a problem with gay rights.  Whatever anyone does in the privacy of their own home in none of my business and I don't want to hear about it.  But I certainly do not want the government telling me I have to accept it.
> 
> Kag is a nice kid.



Hey, nt, newbie, me and kag have been going back and forth like this for a long time.

He'd expect nothing less from me. 

Chill.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> You were talking about sexually kag. Don't try and bullshit me. I can see right through your little back peddling sharade.
> 
> If you were straight, you'd be talking about a man and woman. There's nothing disgusting about that.
> 
> There's no double standard here to even consider. You're throwing that out just to try deflect the issue... as usual. Typical liberal stunt.


Actually, no, I wasn't.  I had an ex who was involved with someone on a completely non-sexual level and eventually broke up with me to be with that person.  As for being forced to do something I didn't want to do, I was forced into having an open relationship (that I ended because I felt it wasn't right).  Neither of the two were sexual in any way.

There is a double standard right there.  Because I'm not straight, you jump me and namecall and act like a complete ass.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Actually, no, I wasn't.  I had an ex who was involved with someone on a completely non-sexual level and eventually broke up with me to be with that person.  As for being forced to do something I didn't want to do, I was forced into having an open relationship (that I ended because I felt it wasn't right).  Neither of the two were sexual in any way.



Aaahh, yeah, right kag. You had just enough time to think that lie up didn't you.



Kagom said:


> There is a double standard right there.  Because I'm not straight, you jump me and namecall and act like a complete ass.



No double standard kag. You're homo, most people aren't. Why are you applying a "standard" to that?

And you throw out your own share of sass kag. You just called me an ass. Don't play all innocent.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> Aaahh, yeah, right kag. You had just enough time to think that lie up didn't you.
> 
> No double standard kag. You're homo, most people aren't. Why are you applying a "standard" to that?
> 
> And you throw out your own share of sass kag. You just called me an ass. Don't play all innocent.


No, I didn't.  It is based on real experience.  You could ask any friend of mine who knows anything about me and they will tell you that.

I'm applying a standard because you act one way because I am gay when you would act differently if I were straight.

I do, but you are acting like an ass right now.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> No, I didn't.  It is based on real experience.  You could ask any friend of mine who knows anything about me and they will tell you that.
> 
> I'm applying a standard because you act one way because I am gay when you would act differently if I were straight.
> 
> I do, but you are acting like an ass right now.



And you're acting like a little queen so, whatever.


----------



## roomy

Pale Rider said:


> It isn't "just me" that feels that way kag, it's the majority of people.
> 
> The last thing anybody here needs to hear about is your BOYFRIEND, and whether or not he CHEATS on you, or MAKES YOU DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. That's TMI kag. It leaves the door open to implications that maybe one of your "boyfriends" RAPED you or something. *NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT, OR HEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S SICK HOMOSEXUAL MELODRAMA.* Take it to a FAG board and talk about it.
> 
> So WHETHER YOU THINK YOU SAID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT is irrelevant. YOU also think you're sick behavior is OK too, so you really don't know too much about what normal people think, or you'd keep that crap to yourself.


----------



## 007

roomy said:


>


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> And you're acting like a little queen so, whatever.


Only on the weekends, Pale.

And my reaction was justified.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> Only on the weekends, Pale.
> 
> *And my reaction was justified.*



And so was mine.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> And so was mine.


I disagree.


----------



## Annie

Have I ever posted that I detest threads on gays? Personally I find the behavior  abhorrent, yet unless someone wants to throw it in my face-with details, I will ignore it. Personally I think there is a biological factor to at least some of it, but that doesn't mean I condone the behavior.

The best examples are teaching and the military. Keep it to yourself, whether homosexual or heterosexual, there is no reason to 'be out there.' If you can't, you don't belong. 

With that said, do not flame, I have no desire to close any threads. In all honesty, it's rarely the 'gays' that get specific regarding the acts or parts (Congressional representatives not withstanding), keep that in mind.


----------



## sitarro

I have the perfect solution....
Jilian and other attorneys that feel as tolerant as she does can devote their weekends (free of course or at most the cost of a heterosexual marriage)sitting in the gay sections of the major cities and setup legal partnerships that state all of the things that they as life partners want. They can set it up to allow for tax deductions that are equal to what they think heteros get. Since the homosexual lobbies have stated that is all they really want that should end the crap about guys wearing wedding dresses and missusing the word marriage. They will also get the choice of kids that aren't wanted by traditional couples and would otherwise be stuck in an orphanage(after all that is also their biggest argument for gay adoption). No more so-called hate crimes, we are all equal.... right? If you want to kiss in public and take the chance of offending someone that will take violent steps against you, have them arrested when they slap the crap out of you, like the rest of us. Also, when a disease is prevalent in the homosexual community quarantines will be established and the names of ones that are spreading the disease will be publicized so that the disease can be eradicated were it originates from instead allowing the spread among heterosexuals.

No more preferrences, no more unequal crap. And no more ripping off the english language, gay will go back to meaning happy. And shutup about your silly sex lives, we don't care.


----------



## nt250

sitarro said:


> I have the perfect solution....
> Jilian and other attorneys that feel as tolerant as she does can devote their weekends (free of course or at most the cost of a heterosexual marriage)sitting in the gay sections of the major cities and setup legal partnerships that state all of the things that they as life partners want. They can set it up to allow for tax deductions that are equal to what they think heteros get. Since the homosexual lobbies have stated that is all they really want that should end the crap about guys wearing wedding dresses and missusing the word marriage. They will also get the choice of kids that aren't wanted by traditional couples and would otherwise be stuck in an orphanage(after all that is also their biggest argument for gay adoption). No more so-called hate crimes, we are all equal.... right? If you want to kiss in public and take the chance of offending someone that will take violent steps against you, have them arrested when they slap the crap out of you, like the rest of us. Also, when a disease is prevalent in the homosexual community quarantines will be established and the names of ones that are spreading the disease will be publicized so that the disease can be eradicated were it originates from instead allowing the spread among heterosexuals.
> 
> No more preferrences, no more unequal crap. And no more ripping off the english language, gay will go back to meaning happy. And shutup about your silly sex lives, we don't care.



Amen


----------



## roomy

Excellent, maybe Pale Rider will shut his hole on the subject now that he has had his arse slapped?


----------



## sitarro

roomy said:


> Excellent, maybe Pale Rider will shut his hole on the subject now that he has had his arse slapped?



What's an arse?


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> I disagree.



Irrelevant.


----------



## 007

roomy said:


> Excellent, maybe Pale Rider will shut his hole on the subject now that he has had his arse slapped?



You've got a vivid imagination. I welcome anyone to try and slap me, and that includes you. Since this is the SECOND time you've made reference to slapping me, why don't you do it? Don't be a little pussy faggot. Step up, and I'll rip your head off and shit down your neck you slimey little prick.


----------

