# A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

 Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word marriage. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word marriage would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD marriage.  

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word garriage. Gay couples can get garried while straight straight couples can get married. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we cant use different words to define them.  

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as separate but equal which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

Sigh.


----------



## del (May 4, 2012)

here's a word you define perfectly

"idiot"


----------



## Ariux (May 4, 2012)

The California court overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment that did nothing but define the word "marriage" according  to the traditional meaning of the word - because the constitutional amendment violated some greater right of faggots themselves to define the word "marriage" for society.  California already had civil unions that gave faggots legal EQUALITY with marriage (keep in mind that faggotry is not good for society while heterosexual relationships are vital).  California law already gave faggots the tyrannical anti-discrimination laws they wanted, which hadn't existed previously for heterosexual marriage (nor should it).

Faggots want your children and your freedom.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

You, Ariux, wish to be tyrannical to those you don't like, gays etc and minorities.  I imagine you are just as hard on women and girls.

You are a disgrace to America and American ideals.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

I want to marry a girl.


----------



## PredFan (May 4, 2012)

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The California court overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment that did nothing but define the word "marriage" according  to the traditional meaning of the word - because the constitutional amendment violated some greater right of faggots themselves to define the word "marriage" for society.  California already had civil unions that gave faggots legal EQUALITY with marriage (keep in mind that faggotry is not good for society while heterosexual relationships are vital).  California law already gave faggots the tyrannical anti-discrimination laws they wanted, which hadn't existed previously for heterosexual marriage (nor should it).
> 
> Faggots want your children and your freedom.



The use of the word Faggot is an unnecessary and highly offensive pejorative. You lose all of your credibility because the main point of you post is to insult people. 

People are a collection unique individuals that we must share the world with. I doesn't help anyone to make needless insults. It only turns people against you and shows that you are a cruel person.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

PredFan said:


> The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.





And what will they say "We're unionized?"


----------



## Ariux (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The use of the word Faggot is an unnecessary and highly offensive pejorative. You lose all of your credibility because the main point of you post is to insult people.



Credibility has nothing to do with what people believe.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

Well, they believe you're full of shit, that's one thing they believe.


----------



## PredFan (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



Perhaps. Who cares?


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

PredFan said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



They care. They should have exactly the same rights as every married person out there. Not a "here, have 'close but no cigar' so we can continue to marginalize you."


----------



## nitroz (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> 
> The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.
> 
> ...


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Gays DO have the exact same right to marry as straights do. However, no one has the "right" to redefine a word.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It's marriage. They are married in several states in the union. Sorry that trips your trigger.

Ellen and Portia. Married.

Two women. Married.

Not 'unionized'. They have a marriage.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You can say that a dog is a cat but it is still a dog.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No, actually. Dogs are dogs and cats are cats - and all of that has nothing to do with the fact that many gay couples are married today, and there is not jack shit you can do about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



The definition of the term remains the same: "marriage", a recognized union of two spouses with privileges and reciprocal obligations recognized and enforced by the law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 4, 2012)

> A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate


Its an illegal solution. 



> Gays DO have the exact same right to marry as straights do.



Same-sex couples do not. 


> However, no one has the "right" to redefine a word.



No one ever said anyone did. 

No ones advocating anything be changed; indeed,  same-sex couples merely wish access to the same marriage laws as every other citizen, in accordance with the Constitution.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Dear BD Boop, Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.  Call gay unions what you will, but they have nothing to do with the intended purpose of marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

Our American laws will enforce the same obligations on gay as well as straight parents, garyganu.  You have nothing to worry about.  But is suspect this is not a legal argument really, just a stalking horse for a moral or religious one.  You are in the vast minority of those who feel your way in the forty and under set.  Your way is going to be extinct in America in fifty years as the passenger pigeon.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Dear Gary, the world used to be flat and slavery was the order of the day. These people are married. YOU are twisting the truth, at which point it ceases to be the truth.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Our American laws will enforce the same obligations on gay as well as straight parents, garyganu.  You have nothing to worry about.  But is suspect this is not a legal argument really, just a stalking horse for a moral or religious one.  You are in the vast minority of those who feel your way in the forty and under set.  Your way is going to be extinct in America in fifty years as the passenger pigeon.



Jake, I take no pleasure in saying that the United states may be extinct in 50 years because of the beliefs, behaviors and attitudes of the forty and under set.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

Gary, we'll be just fine. The world didn't end with the advent of inter-racial marriages, and it won't end with this, either.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 4, 2012)

PredFan said:


> The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.



So all religious ceremonies result in a marriage and all civil ceremonies result in a civil union?

My wife and I went to a Justice of the Peace.  If I get teh same benefits, I am fine with saying I am civilly unionized.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



BDBoop, It is odd how the word marriage has a different meaning in 6 states.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No it's not. The rest will catch up.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



And your wife?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Except that gays can adopt or have children with outside assistance.  At which point the same intended purpose you claim for marriage would apply.

It is also funny that you claim the purpose for marriage is all about children, but straight couples who marry and do not procreate still receive the same benefits.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



She still seems taken with me.  So our union is still civil.


----------



## del (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



fortunately, ignorant assholes are easily recognizable in all fifty states and a majority of canadian provinces.

so you've got that going for you, which is good


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

Gary, the union will be fine in 50 years.  We survived the end of slavery, the end of fascism, the end of communism, and we will survive the end of sexual bigotry.


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 4, 2012)

PredFan said:


> The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.


They can keep their rights here on earth. But for eternity, I will stick to the Biblical plan, man & woman, which is the natural way.


----------



## garyganu (May 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status.  Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

Gays are found in nature.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

Yes, and historically the family unit has evolved so that same sex couples can have and raise children.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Words are redefined all the time.   Are you the language police?


----------



## rightwinger (May 4, 2012)

Why would anyone care if someone else marries someone of the same sex?

What possible difference could it make to you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

RW.  You and I should form a SupeHero unit that flies to the rescue of anyone on the Board who is being forced to marry someone of his or her own sex.  I think we should make sure no one is ever forced to marry that way against their will.  Up for it?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 4, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



And I will fight for your right to believe and live as you choose.

Just as I will fight to make sure our gov't does not base its laws solely on religious dogma.


----------



## rightwinger (May 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> RW.  You and I should form a SupeHero unit that flies to the rescue of anyone on the Board who is being forced to marry someone of his or her own sex.  I think we should make sure no one is ever forced to marry that way against their will.  Up for it?



Absolutely

You are not even forced to marry someone of a different race if you don't want to.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



And that is your choice...because, believe it or not....giving gay couples the right to legally marry does not affect your marriage, however you want it to be, in any way.
Isn't that something?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Oh really?


----------



## rightwinger (May 4, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



It's a good thing nobody is forcing you to marry another man then

Why are you forcing other people to only marry people you find acceptable?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 4, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Oh, so if we removed the +/- 1,400 benefits that married couples received, you would be fine with that?

And gays have kids, either thru adoption, previous relationships or outside assistance.  So they need to be held responsible as well.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

I haven't had a storage tank since 1993. My marriage probably never should have taken place in 1995.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The universal marriages  in the states and DC that recognize them have all the responsibilities and privileges of such marriage.

This is not hard to understand.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 4, 2012)

> The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.



That a thing is perceived in the context of history or tradition is legally irrelevant, and does not justify its continued enforcement to the detriment of other citizens: 



> *[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice*; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## nitroz (May 5, 2012)

An easy solution: Divorce is a sin aswell, as much as gay marriage, but it's much more common than Gay Marriage.

And no Christian Bigots protesting Divorce? Oh, because THEY might want to do it, so they ignore the issue. Okay. It just shows that they want to run things and use their own bigotry dictate what others can and can't do.

Divorce and Gay Marriage are equally as bad, but yet divorce happens more, and alot of Christians themselves go through the process, but yet they don't have to deal with what gays deal with. Thats called being Biased, which translates into *HATE*


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am unaware of 1,400 benefits. I challenge you list 10 that are not related to children.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu then has no problem with universal marriage in that such marriages can have and raise children.

This issue is solved.  Thanks gary.


----------



## whitehall (May 5, 2012)

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



What I am proposing is exactly that. The exact same privileges of marriage. What's the problem? you want the title too? So there is a total refusal to compromise on your part?


----------



## Peach (May 5, 2012)

Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.
> 
> Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?



Given that a marriage, by definition, invokes fidelity

You should be in favor of it


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



It's a silly argument that people are making. No one is going to argue with you or arrest you because you have a Civil Union and you go around claiming to be married.

Mkae civil unions the same in every legal way to marriage.the gays and the anti-gays will have to compromise. The homophobes get to keep the official title of Marriage, and the gays get complete legal status with all of the privileges that grants them. it's a completely reasonable compromise.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.



The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority


----------



## Peach (May 5, 2012)

PredFan said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Would you have supported such a "solution" to anti miscegenation laws? Allow gay Americans to marry, end of problem.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.
> ...



Rule of Law rather than Rule of Man. Interesting to hear a lefty saying that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

The rule of law (the Constitution) protects against the horrors of the rule of man (Hitler).

This is an argument of the left and the right who love our American dream.

No group of Americans, even if a majority, have the power to limit rights of minorities.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

The great  majority of Americans favor universal marriage.

The world of garyganu, predfan, and others is ending on this issue.  True story.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The great  majority of Americans favor universal marriage.
> 
> The world of garyganu, predfan, and others is ending on this issue.  True story.



Excuse me? when did my world ever exist? The world where logic, reason, civility, freedom, and liberty are available to all? When has that exised?

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.
> ...



That is absurd. First of all, there are no majorities and minorities under the US constitution. We are all unique individuals, not groups and classes. We all have human rights, not Gay rights, women's rights or anything else. There is no such thing as Gay Rights only Human Rights.

Secondly, for argument sake, lets say that we did make legal differentiations between majorities and minorities, it would be absurd for the minority to control the majority. 

In a Democratic Republic, the majority vote always rules.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper"

We are not a nation of majority rule. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the individual against the excesses of the majority


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I disagree Rightwinger. The constitution and the "bill of rights amendments"  exists to protect the people against the government.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



The Bill of Rights are individual rights. So is the 14th amendment


----------



## Ariux (May 5, 2012)

Peach said:


> Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.



I thought I was racist, but you're comparing blacks to faggots.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The bill of rights only restricts the government. For example: The government can not abridge your right to free speech but your boss can, your teacher can, your parents can, etc. The 14th amendment only requires states to treat individuals equally.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.
> 
> Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?



Speaking as a gay man, Gary? Because otherwise I can't help wondering how YOU know what "many gay men" think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

PredFan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The great  majority of Americans favor universal marriage.
> ...



How was I not polite, logical, reasonable, civil, free, or liberal?

You will be able to practice your marriage form as you please.  I doubt anyone will make you marry someone not of your own faith or sex.  The fact is this: the great majority of Americans under 40 approve of universal marriage.  That approval will continue to affect the laws empowering universal marriage.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.
> ...



You know who is lower than those two? Haters.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Your comment reveals a very lack of understanding about our Constitution.

Study the concept of incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

You cannot use your lack of understanding to deprive other Americans of their civil rights.


----------



## Peach (May 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.
> ...



You indicate hatred of a natural trait among some humans; that defeats all else you write.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.
> ...



Dear BDBoop, I have gay friends and gay family members. I also have read statistical studies which confirm my anecdotal evidence. 

Do you disagree that gay couples have more extra-relationship sex than straight couples?


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't understand your objection. The 14th amendment protects individuals from state governments.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Could not being able to marry impact that?


----------



## Dante (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion.
> ...





> In a 50-page, 43 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."
> 
> Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> In 2003, Marshall authored the court's majority decision that for the first time in Western legal circles, found that same-sex marriages were a lawful extension of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the state's Constitution.
> 
> "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," Marshall wrote for the 4-3 majority. "It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
> 
> Margaret Marshall, author of Mass. gay marriage decision, to retire - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe



contrary to your delusions...


----------



## Peach (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Bizarre question. ganu appears to be an "expert" on the subject.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So why do you want to deny people who - I should think you would love - why deny them the right to plight their troth to their dearly beloved.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QynZzHEhBmo]Devin & Glenn (SFW, censored version): Overturn Prop 8 and Make Homosexuals Marry! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



The 14th incorporates various of the ten amendments into a corpus of law, in which the federal government guarantees and enforces those rights.  Thus, you can't discriminate against gays in the matter of marriage.  It is only a matter of time before this is an integral part of federal and all state laws.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word garriage. Gay couples can get garried while straight straight couples can get married. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we cant use different words to define them.



Good God has it *really *come to this?


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



A committed relationship does not include sexual fidelity in many gay men's relationships. They say that physical sex can be separated from emotional love. They say that they are not cheating because it is just physical.This type of arrangement is rare in heterosexual relationships.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I don't understand what you are saying. Please simplify it or rephrase it in a way that I may understand better. Thanks.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



But cheaters abound, right? Let me tell it to you straight *hee*: It is NONE of your business what ANYBODY'S marriage is comprised of. Zip, nada, zilch. Unless you are a partner in the marriage? Mind your own.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.
> 
> Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?



neither do a lot of straight men or straight women. Go to adultfriendfinder.....you will find a fucking *ton *of them.  Whether someone cheats on their spouse or not has nothing to do with their ability to access the same constitutional rights as everyone else.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



  boy do you underestimate the size of the heterosexual swingers community


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The expectation of sexual fidelity is an integral part of the "definition of marriage". This has nothing to do with cheating, this has to do with the fundamental definition of marriage. Just like "till death do us part" is integral to the definition of marriage despite that many couples fall short and divorce, but the promise and expectation of "forever" are part of the marriage agreement.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Your record is stuck. Newt Gingrich, hello. You can't spit without hitting an adulterer, or a broken marriage. It is IMPOSSIBLE to set ourselves up as the standard bearers. Gays are human. Humans can get married to their dearly beloved. Therefore, gays should be able to get married to THEIR dearly beloved.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



The same can be said for heterosexual relationships. Infidelity is the leading cause of divorce

The purpose of marriage is not procreation as you claim but to force monogamous relationships


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Hmmmmm



> It is concluded that *swingers surveyed are* the white, middle-class, middle-aged, *church-going* segment of the population reported in earlier studies, but when it comes to attitudes about sex and marriage *they are less racist, less sexist, and less heterosexist than the general population*. Swinging appears to make the vast majority of swingers' marriages happier, and *swingers rate the happiness of their marriages and life satisfaction generally as higher than the non-swinging population*.



Today's Alternative Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers. EJHS 2000



> In 2007, de Visser and McDonald found that *couples who swing successfully have increased communication abilities* due to the challenges that this lifestyle inherently involves (such as jealousy). *Each member of a swinging couple constantly needs to make sure the other partner is getting what they need*, both out of the marriage and from the extramarital sexual experience.



Swinging Married Couples -- A Good Thing? | momlogic.com



> In conclusion, *the findings of this study are consistent with those of previous research on swinging that suggest that swingers have high marital and sexual satisfaction*. Although there is still a strong societal disapproval of swinging and a belief that swingers have unsatisfactory marriages and are unhappy with their primary relationships, there is no evidence to support such a claim (Jenks, 1998). Swingers seem to be no different from other individuals in the general population regarding their basic demographic characteristics.
> 
> Swingers in this study have been engaging in swinging for an extended period and reported being satisfied with their swinging activities. Moreover, swinging may have far- reaching implications in its ability to add a new dimension to marital satisfaction.



The Swinging Paradigm

Seems that your position doesn't stand up very strong against the research


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Dear BD Boop, All I am saying is that it is a mockery to enter a marriage agreement without the expectation of mutual fidelity. Yes that is what the term gay marriage means to me. It means "mockery of marriage". That's just my opinion. I also think that swingers and cheaters and divorcees make a mockery out of marriage as well. making a mockery of marriage is a bad thing no matter how it is done.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



We straights have done that all on our own for simply ages. Gays can't POSSIBLY do any worse.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Your opinion is noted (at least by me), however our laws and constitutional rights are not based upon *your *opinions. If you don't wish to engage in a swinger lifestyle then don't do it.  But you have absolutely no right to define for others what their marriage should be and how it should work.  That is true of swingers and it's equally as true for homosexuals who have the same right to access benefits and protections of the constitution as anyone else.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



If that's the case.....how is the marriage of two people of the same sex who love each other and are faithful a mockery of marriage?


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Swinging has never been the foundation of any successful society neither is sexual debauchery. This type of thing usually signals the downfall of a society. The family unit has always been the foundation of successful societies.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu's arguments have collapsed constitutionally, socially, and culturally.

He is a hoot.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Damn, do you even bother to read the posts you respond to?

I never said you weren't.

You lumped me into a group where i dn't belong because you are an example of what has made this country go so wrong. you won't listen to anyone else who doesn't share your narrow view. you lump others into broad catgories and never bother to hear their opinions at all.

If you even bothered to pay any attention, you would have realized that i'm not against gay marriage at all.  tThis thread is about solutions to the issue of gay marriage. I posted what i though was a fair solution. If i had my choice, or if i was king of the US, I would make gay marriage legal and be done with it. But you probably didn't read this post all the way to this sentence any way did you?


You ignorantly lumped me into the anti-gay marriage group.


----------



## Ariux (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> If that's the case.....how is the marriage of two people of the same sex who love each other and are faithful a mockery of marriage?



Because faggots don't have children, except the ones they get from others to rape.  And, faggots aren't faithful or loving, either.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Probably so, and I apologize for that.  I will read more carefully.  However, I have not seen the "sensitive" side of you before  so I will be more aware of hurting your feelings.  Truly, though, my apologies.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If that's the case.....how is the marriage of two people of the same sex who love each other and are faithful a mockery of marriage?
> ...



No. Because faggots are cigarettes, and a disgusting lot they are.

My sister is a lesbian. She has a 35 y/o son who is a success by any measure you choose to use.

What was your point again.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Probably so, and I apologize for that.  I will read more carefully.  However, I have not seen the "sensitive" side of you before  so I will be more aware of hurting your feelings.  Truly, though, my apologies.



Forgiven.

I'm a libertarian. I'm for economic and social liberty. I'm pro-choice accross the board.

I'm tired of waiting for this issue to go away and waiting for many more years so that the 40 and over croud can die out is too .long. We have much more pressing problems in this country that have to share the spotlight with this issue. I'm solidly on the side of liberty, but i offer my compromise to provide that liberty and to try to help speed up the resolution.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Swinging has never been the foundation of any successful society neither is sexual debauchery. This type of thing usually signals the downfall of a society. The family unit has always been the foundation of successful societies.



Really?  Might I suggest you do some research into Rome?  That was a *damn *successful society, man and their culture engaged in what you would call sexual debauchery for several centuries and yet continued to grow in power.  How about the Greeks?  There was a whole lot of sexual debauchery going on there and they did pretty well. How about Egypt?  They had blowout orgies for thousands of years while continuing to grow and expand and increase their power.


----------



## Ariux (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> My sister is a lesbian. She has a 35 y/o son who is a success by any measure you choose to use.



Lesbianism doesn't produce sons.  Maybe your sister is a closet heterosexual?


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

A lesbianism? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY]Pulp Fiction - English Motherfucker Do You Speak It - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Just 10?  

1) Filing Joint Tax Returns

2) Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

3) Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

4) Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

5) Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

6) Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

7) Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

8) Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

9) Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

10) Making burial or other final arrangements.



Now, as for child related benefits, one of the biggest is joint adoption.   If you and your spouse adopt, and your spouse dies, your child stays with you.   For gay couples this is not the case.  Since they cannot marry, only one of them adopts the child.  If that person dies, the child loses both parents and is put back into foster care.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Swinging has never been the foundation of any successful society neither is sexual debauchery. This type of thing usually signals the downfall of a society. The family unit has always been the foundation of successful societies.
> ...



When the debauchery became widespread in these societies, it led to their downfall as it is leading to ours.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Dude, I have never seen someone so proudly display their ignorance of history.  Sexual liberation was dominant in those societies *during their expansion*.  Indeed, in the case of Rome their collapse coincided with the adoption of Christianity and the sexual repression that comes with it. In other words they started to collapse at about the same time that they *stopped *engaging in "debauchery".  You have it completely fucking backwards.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> A lesbianism?
> 
> Pulp Fiction - English Motherfucker Do You Speak It - YouTube



Why do you continue to feed the troll?


----------



## Networker1100 (May 5, 2012)

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." 

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God who created Adam, a man, and then made Eve, a woman.  This is what God has ordained as the normal means by which we carry out his command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28).  What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up. 

However, unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple:  they are given over to their passions.  That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:24).  As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, and then they go and promote it and condemn others who don't participate in their sin.  So, without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus.  Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness.  Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell.

So now ask yourself about compromise again.... Hmmmm.... Sorry, I can't find one. I refuse to support the evil sick plan of these disgusting turd punchers.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

Neither Greese nor Rome achieved their successes through peace, love, and sexual activity. You do realize that right?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Oh please!!   Do you actually intend to claim that allowing gays to marry increases the debauchery??   Do you think gays are not having sex unless they are allowed to marry?  Do you think that, by allowing gay marriage, more people will be gay?  Do you think that straights are not participating in the debauchery?   

I suggest you look up the rates of infidelity for married straight couples.  I suggest you look at the rates of pre-marital sex among straights.  Hell, look up the rates of domestic violence in straight marriages.

You need to get beyond the sex and realize that this is about a loving relationship and not about whether the genitalia matches.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> 
> Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
> 
> ...



Oh good fucking Christ.  Do I have to go through all those scriptures and discredit them *AGAIN*?  Networker, we have hammered those to death on so many threads it's sick.  Besides, government is not based on religion in the United States and as such even if those scripture *were *accurate (which they are not) it's completely irrelevant as religious faith is no basis for denying civil rights and constitutional protections to a segment of society. If you wish to live in a society that does that, might I suggest Iran.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> 
> Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
> 
> ...



If your religion says you should not engage in homosexual activity, then maybe you shouldn't

Now, show me the part where you get to force your religious views on others


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> 
> Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
> 
> ...



You are welcome to your religious beliefs.  And if your CHURCH chooses to not recognize gay marriages that is fine.

However, our nation cannot base its laws on the beliefs of any single religion.  Therefore, quoting the Bible has no relevance in a topic about federal laws.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Neither Greese nor Rome achieved their successes through peace, love, and sexual activity. You do realize that right?



Absolutely....I am simply pointing out to our newest propagandist that his assertion that sexual debauchery signals the downfall of society is absolutely incorrect.  In fact from a historical perspective it's actually the opposite. Now I will certainly concede that Rome and Greece did not achieve their power *because *they were societies where sexuality was open and liberated, but to state that that sexual liberation and sexual culture signaled the downfall of the society is a) logically ludicrous and b) historically completely inaccurate.


----------



## Networker1100 (May 5, 2012)

God is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution for OUR NATION. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me!

Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemers mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

Sounds like "THE NATION" you speak of was build on these same beliefs. You live in a free nation able to do whatever you please because of christians that fought and sacrificed themselves. Homosexuality goes against everything this NATION was built upon. So try again...


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> I am unaware of 1,400 benefits. I challenge you list 10 that are not related to children.




I'm thinking of these off the top of my head so they are in no particular order:

1.  Military recognition of a legal spouse resulting in increased allowance for quarters and relocation of the spouse when executing permanent change of station orders.  No children required.

2.  Military health care for the spouse. No children required.

3.  Eligibility for the spouse under Military Survivor Benefits Program if the retired members dies.  No children required.

4.  For honorably discharged veterans and retirees, burial of the spouse next to the service member in National Veteran's Cemeteries.  No children required.

5.  Tax free transfer of real property to a spouse.  No children required.

6.  The exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that.  (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple.  When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold.  No children required.

7.  Spousal privilege against testifying in a criminal court case against a spouse.  No children required.

8.  Establishment of a family relationship for the spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act so that one spouse can care for an injured or sick spouse in a job protected status.  No children required.

9.  The ability to file join income tax statements.    No children required.

10.  Survivor benefits for Social Security whereby a spouse can receive benefits at the deceased spouses rate if they were married for a certain period and the deceased spouses benefit as/is higher then the surviving spouses benefit.  No children required.

11.  Sponsorship of a spouse for immigration purposes and preferential resident alien status.    No children required.

12.  Federal exemption from Federal Unemployment Tax when one spouse works for another as part of a small business.   No children required.

13.  Filing joint bankruptcy.    No children required.

14.  Legal next-of-kin status recognized by all 50-states and the federal government for emergency medical decisions.    No children required.

15.  Ability to file wrongful death claims against an individual or organization responsibile for the death of a spouse.   No children required.

16.  Preferential hiring of spouses of a veteran for federal jobs.  No children required.

17.  Right of property inheritance upon the death of a spouse under tax free status.  No children required.

18.  Consideration of spousal income under certain federal insured home loan programs.  No children required.

19.  Access to Hope and Lifetime learning credit programs for taxes for the education of a spouse.   No children required.

20.  The additional cost of health care insurance provided by employer to cover a spouse is not treated as taxable income for a legally married spouse.  Such coverage for a non-spouse is treated as income for the individual and is therefore taxed.  No children required.​

Sorry, I know you only asked for 10, but hey, I was on a roll.

>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire: (click on link)  Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire

excerpt: One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Networker1100 said:
> 
> 
> > Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> ...



Show me the part where you have to accept the religious views of others forced on you.

If your religion says you should not accept homosexual activity as normal, no one should be required to do that.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> God is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution for OUR NATION. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"
> 
> Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me!
> 
> ...



"God" is mentioned occasionally in official documents....Jesus never.  The freedom of religion was central to their beliefs and *the freedom from state sponsored religion and laws based upon religion made up the first sixteen words of the very first thing they guaranteed the people*. Some of the FFs were very religious men.  Some were not and in fact the most influential (i.e. Jefferson and Adams just to name a couple ) were at best agnostic. To suggest that Franklin, of all people, would endorse Christianity in government is an appalling display of historical ignorance.  BTW...you *do *realize that JQA was not a founding father, right? 

Regardless, Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established the "*Lemon Test*" which identifies whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2 The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Your argument violates all three of these criteria and is therefore completely irrelevant from a legal perspective.

The Lemon Test - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > I am unaware of 1,400 benefits. I challenge you list 10 that are not related to children.
> ...



Civil unions and legal contracts between partners can remedy most of your objections without redefining the word marriage.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Networker1100 said:
> ...



Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexual marriage as normal. In fact, you are free to hate anyone you wish

What you can't do is force the government to accommodate your hatred


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> God is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution for OUR NATION. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"
> 
> Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me!
> 
> ...



Try again??   The US Constitution states there will be a separation of church & state.  The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that way.

Please show me anywhere that states you have the right to base our laws on your religion??

Yes, many of our founding fathers were christians.  But many were also deists and not christians.  Plus, you have to take into account that people could be run out of town or even killed for not being christians.  

Perhaps you have heard of this little thing called the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution??   It contains some important words that you might want to know:
*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".*

Now you can argue whether or not this creates a separation of church and state.  But you cannot possibly quote biblical scripture as a reason for not allowing gay marriage without being in complete violation of this amendment.


----------



## Networker1100 (May 5, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Networker1100 said:
> 
> 
> > God is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution for OUR NATION. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"
> ...



What a sad warped perception... Anyway you can twist facts to fit your sick agenda for this country. I can't wait for the next civil war.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire: (click on link)  Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
> 
> excerpt: One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.



 So Tiberius and Nero's sexual practices in 14 - 68 AD was a major contributor to Rome's collapse under Justinian II in 578 AD.....over half a millennium later?  Not to mention that Tiberius was Rome's second emperor and Nero was the fifth.  I tend the recall that Rome expanded quite dramatically after them. Who the fuck wrote *that *website? *You*?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Most?  So being close is fine with you?   And isn't having separate standards for different groups pretty much the definition of bigotry and prejudice??

I don't mind you being prejudice.  But I demand that our government not be.

The fact that you insist that a gay couple who have lived together in a mongamous relationship for 40 years must hire a lawyer to get the same benefits that are automatically granted to any straight couple who go to the courthouse for a quickie marriage, is far more disgusting than any redefining of a word.

That you demand that a portion of our population be denied basic benefits based on semantics is a sign of hatred more than anything.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> What a sad warped perception... Anyway you can twist facts to fit your sick agenda for this country. I can't wait for the next civil war.



Translation: "well.....I guess I can't really refute any of that factually so I will just call you sad, warped, and sick".  Gotcha,


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Networker1100 said:
> ...



What he quoted has been consistently accepted by the highest courts in our country.  That you call it "twisting facts" shows a lack of genuine argument.

Be careful what you wish for.  The majority of the population is becoming more and more tolerant of homosexuality.  The next civil war might just destroy your ilk rather than create the theocracy you seem to crave.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I don't believe in any standards for "groups" in America. We are all individuals. Our constitution does not address groups, only individuals. We are all entitled to equal justice under the law. People with homosexual desires are not excluded from getting married. Gay activists are demanding that we redefine marriage.  The redefinition of marriage is not a right. Marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



All civilizations fall but not because of debauchery.  You have no solid evidence to conclude such a thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> 
> Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
> 
> ...



We are governed by the Constitution, not your interp of the Bible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



But the reasons given for denying gays access to marriage is religious dogma.  And basing laws on a single religion's laws is clearly unconstitutional.

Also, marriage has been redefined in the past and it did not lead to the downfall of the world.  This will not do that either.


Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you.   Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Networker1100 said:
> ...



From whom?  The minority wacks like you?  Your neighbors will stand you against the wall if you are raise arms against the nation.


----------



## Networker1100 (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Networker1100 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...




January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.







Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

I'm really not worried about it.... You seem to have some strange illusion that you are a majority... Sorry to burst your bubble...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Network misunderstands that even a sizable minority thinks like him on this issue.  Americans don't, and the under forty generations are overwhelmingly in favor of universal marriage.  End of story.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Networker1100 said:
> ...



You seem to be operating under the delusion that all conservatives oppose homosexuals and gay marriage.  Or that this single issue makes one conservative or liberal.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am quite conservative on most issues.  I am pro-2nd amendment, pro-tax reform, anti-affirmative action, and pro individual rights. 

But if you look at the numbers of people who are tolerant of gays and pro-gay marriage, your numbers would change.


----------



## PredFan (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Network misunderstands that even a sizable minority thinks like him on this issue.  Americans don't, and the under forty generations are overwhelmingly in favor of universal marriage.  End of story.




lots of people feel differently on things as they get older. There is no guarantee that tolerance of gay marriage will stay steady as the population gets older. the recent vote in California tends to show that perhaps the majority of voters are not supportive of gay marriage, and you certainly cannot say that it was only older people voting. We live in a country that was designed to follow the rule of law, and voting shouldn't enter into it, but to say that the anti-gay marriage croud will die off is most likely not true.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Looking at the trending over the last four decades on sexuality, teenage mother hood, single mothers, plural relationships, universal marriage, civil rights, and so forth, predfan, it is obvious the trending on this is leaving the Networks behind.  It is pretty safe to say this is a done deal.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Almost all are federal, Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government - on top of that none but the medical decisions can be done by contract and then there are some states that could void those contracts under State Constitutonal provisions which precent the state from recognizing contracts which attempt to duplicate rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with civil marriage.

"Marriage" already has multiple definitions:

1.  In some places it is one man and one woman.
2.  In other places it is one man and multiple women.
3.  In some places it is two consenting, non-related adults.​
Let alone the fact that speaking properly there are two types of "marriage": Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.  The two not being interdependent upon each other.  A couple can enter into Religious Marriage without state recognition and couples can enter into Civil Marriage without Religious recognition.


Now if you mean replacing Civil Marriage with Civil Unions for all under the law, as a replacement to Civil Marriage for both same-sex and different-sex couples.  The couples (both same-sex and different-sex) could then get Religiously Married of the religious organization of their choice. I could get on-board with that.

Are you open to that compromise?


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> I don't believe in any standards for "groups" in America. We are all individuals. Our constitution does not address groups, only individuals. We are all entitled to equal justice under the law. People with homosexual desires are not excluded from getting married. Gay activists are demanding that we redefine marriage.  The redefinition of marriage is not a right. Marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution.



Since you make the claim that the government deals with individuals and not groups, then to you disagree with the SCOTUS overturning Virginia's interracial Civil Marriage restrictions since under the law each individual still had the right to marry, just that they couldn't marry someone outside their race?


Under your "individual" only evaluation, the SCOTUS would have erred in barring laws based on group classifications such as race.



>>>


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Neither Greese nor Rome achieved their successes through peace, love, and sexual activity. You do realize that right?



Nor did Greece, apparently.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Networker1100 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Networker1100 said:
> ...













Since you seem to accept Gallup as an authoritative source.  Let's look at views on same sex Civil Marriage.

1.  The majority of Americans support Same-sex Civil Marriage.

2.  Not all conservatives are lock-step with the anti-homosexual agenda and 28% (and growing) feel same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law.​

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx


I consider myself quite conservative on a lot of issues centered on the military, immigration, smaller government, tax reform, etc. and so would most likely fall into that 28%.
>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

Network makes the obvious mistake of identifying "conservatives" as holding his opinions.  Not the case.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is a very hateful pejorative to call those opposed to gay marriage, haters. This is proof that liberals are VERY intolerant of opposing beliefs.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Gay marriage will not change straight marriage at all.    Gay marriage will not effect you at all.  And yet you fight it.   I'd call that hate.

Gays do nothing that straights do not do, and you would deny them something so basic.  I'd call that hate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



When you attack those defending universal marriage as perverted and or whatever, you clearly are the hater.

Now you are victimizing the victim.

You are in the growing minority, shrinking ever shrinking, and your kind will just wink out . . . just gone.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered.   I notice you refuse to do the same.

I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):

*Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you.   Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??*


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered.   I notice you refuse to do the same.
> 
> I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):
> 
> *Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you.   Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??*



Winterborn, I did not make any arguments based on religion. Please re-read my original post and all of my comments for arguments that do not involve religion.

As for your second question, here is the answer:

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem. 

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered.   I notice you refuse to do the same.
> ...



Okay, you lost me immediately. "When you celebrate and embrace something that is unnatural and unhealthy."

No.

If you think being gay is a choice, I want to know how much of a chance you gave it before you decided you were straight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

If anybody honestly is curious about the videos I've posted, Google "John Barrowman, the making of me."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Dear sweet BDBoop, I never wrote that homosexual desires are a choice. All I wrote is that this behavior should not be celebrated, embraced and encouraged by schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and today's popular culture.

Although homosexual desires may not be a choice, bi-sexuals certainly do have a choice. why are our schools and popular culture encouraging those who have various degrees of bi-sexual desire to experiment with homosexuality which is unhealthy. We do not encourage experimentation with, tobacco, drugs and alcohol which are also unhealthy.

The unpredictable popular culture also celebrate and embrace various forms of "thrill seeking" behavior which are also dangerous including motorcycle riding, skydiving and pot smoking.


----------



## syrenn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> 
> The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.
> 
> ...




Here is a reasonable solution....

Mind your own business. 

easy.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Yes you did. If they are born that way, then they are entitled to be married. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about them. Therefore.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

syrenn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> ...



Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.


----------



## syrenn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...





Did i say that it was none of your business? And since you are new here and know zero about me...why would you assume i am a liberal? Did i tell you to shut up and try and stifle you in any way? 

You asked for a reasonable solution.... a reasonable solution is that you mind your business and let others mind theirs. I would not think that was so hard to understand. I used small words and not to many of them.... 4 to be exact.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.



She's not a liberal, so you missed the mark on that one. I am, though. And when the 'opposing view' is that people who are gay are somehow "less than"? There is no debate to be had. I refuse to entertain, respect, or support that view.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

syrenn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I always think your motto is "Doesn't suffer fools gladly."


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I agree, homosexuals are entitled to be married according to the tradition definition of marriage. 

It is an abnormal sexual desire to be attracted to the same sex.  

There are many other abnormal sexual desires. Many of them are harmful to others but homosexual behavior between consenting adults is not harmful (except to themselves because of reduced lifespans). Isn't addiction to pornography and addiction to prostitutes abnormal?

 Is pedophilia abnormal just because it harms children? Is bestiality abnormal just because it is harmful to animals. The point is that harmful and abnormal are two different things.

For example: It is normal for virtually all parents to hope that their children provide genetic grandchildren for them. Parents of Gay children are always disappointed to some extent when their children do not produce grandchildren. Homosexual children are unlikely to produce grandchildren and it is normal for their loving parents to be disappointed.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Okay, well as long as you agree they have the right to be married, I don't really care about your other four paragraphs, but thanks for playin.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

We are fortunate the garyganus of America are having ever less to do with choosing the final decision on universal marriage.

His type of thinking will soon be extinct, America will be a better place, and God will be happier.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

syrenn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Are you a liberal, conservative or something in between?


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> We are fortunate the garyganus of America are having ever less to do with choosing the final decision on universal marriage.
> 
> His type of thinking will soon be extinct, America will be a better place, and God will be happier.



If conservative thought is extinguished, America will become extinct.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered.   I notice you refuse to do the same.
> ...



Abnormal and unhealthy?   
First of all, no where in our laws is "normal" part of the equation.   That someone does not toe your line does not make them wrong or bad.  If they harm no one, and they break no laws, they are just as valuable a part of our society as you are.

As for the "unhealthy" part, that is simply ridiculous.  Unless you can show how homosexuality is unhealthy, and is unhealthy in ways heterosexuals are not, you have no case here either.

Now, as for your rant:  "As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc.", WTH??

All of that happens because we allow two consenting adults to marry?  All that because two people, who love each other and wish to spend their lives together, are allowed to gain the same benefits that straights enjoy??   Ending bigotry and prejudice will result in all that??


What you either cannot or will not see is that homosexuality exists whether we allow them to marry or not.   It is not about sex.  It is about a relationship.  I did not marry my wife because of sex.  And gays will not marry for sex either.  It is the relationship between two people that matters.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

That's not conservative thought you're exhibiting. It's fundamentalist.


----------



## garyganu (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I have no objection to gays loving and living with who ever they wish. I only object to the redefinition of marriage. You are making much ado about nothing.

I do not know anyone who object to homosexuals having the freedom to live and love as they please. Do you?


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You might want to edit one of your last five posts, which states gays are entitled to marry. After that, you don't have an argument.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So being gay is fine, just don't get married?   And if we allow them to marry we do all that stuff you ranted about??   LMAO!!

That is rich.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> I have no objection to gays loving and living with who ever they wish. I only object to the redefinition of marriage. You are making much ado about nothing.
> 
> I do not know anyone who object to homosexuals having the freedom to live and love as they please. Do you?




46.85% of the State of Washington.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2012)

> What I am proposing is exactly that. The exact same privileges of marriage. What's the problem? you want the title too? So there is a total refusal to compromise on your part?
> 
> Mkae civil unions the same in every legal way to marriage.the gays and the anti-gays will have to compromise. The homophobes get to keep the official title of Marriage, and the gays get complete legal status with all of the privileges that grants them. it's a completely reasonable compromise.



A citizen should not be expected nor compelled to compromise on his Constitutional rights.  



> Rule of Law rather than Rule of Man. Interesting to hear a lefty saying that.



Not really, and you need to get out more often  for well over a century liberals have been at the forefront of defending citizens rights in the context of the rule of law. 

Its conservatives, for the most part, who attempt the undermine the rule of law, as they complain about activist judges, legislating from the bench, violating the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.   


> The bill of rights only restricts the government. For example: The government can not abridge your right to free speech but your boss can, your teacher can, your parents can, etc. *The 14th amendment only requires states to treat individuals equally.*



Correct, including allowing same sex couples equal access to marriage laws. 

Congratulations, youve just destroyed your own argument.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > I have no objection to gays loving and living with who ever they wish. I only object to the redefinition of marriage. You are making much ado about nothing.
> ...



46.85% of the State of Washingtn objects to homosexuals having  the freedom to live and love as they please??


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We are fortunate the garyganus of America are having ever less to do with choosing the final decision on universal marriage.
> ...



You are not conservative, for no real conservative would limit a person's right to marry whom s/he would.  It's that simple.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




That's the percentage of people that voted for Referendum 71 AGAINST allowing homosexuals to have the freedom to live and love under Civil Unions equal to Civil Marriage under the law but not called "Marriage".


>>>>


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Gay is a choice PERIOD!!!! It is learned behavior and a mental deficiency.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I guess its a good thing we don't live in a democracy, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Just because someone does not follow Christianity does not mean they are anti-christian.  To claim otherwise is nonsense.

No one is saying anything about your right to worship as you please, so long as you harm no one.

No one is forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.  We are discussing federal law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2012)

> As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian.



lol A classic example of conservative logic. 

The kids on the right must be overjoyed to have you on their team.


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in any standards for "groups" in America. We are all individuals. Our constitution does not address groups, only individuals. We are all entitled to equal justice under the law. People with homosexual desires are not excluded from getting married. Gay activists are demanding that we redefine marriage.  The redefinition of marriage is not a right. Marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution.
> ...


You can not equate the choice of gay with race.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Scientists have not determined this as a fact.  Nice of you to save us all that research and stuff by just proclaiming it a choice.

I don't suppose you have any facts to back this up??


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 5, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope they are, better than being on the idiot left.


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Scientists are not always right.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No one equated homosexuality with race.  But they did equate the SCOTUS rulings based on group classifications in a race related case with group classifications in the case of gay marriage.

What they are equating is the group classifications, not race and homosexuality.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



But you are?

So share the facts you have that back up your claim?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Civil Marriage isn't denied to same sex couples based on sexual orientation, it's denied based on gender.  Last I checked gender was a biological condition just like race.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Correct: 



> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. *This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.* Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).



Just as the amendment to Colorados constitution forbidding homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws is un-Constitutional, so too is it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to deny same-sex couples access to a states marriage laws.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And you didn't watch the video, did you. The brain is hardwired BEFORE BIRTH.

I still want to know when and how you chose to be straight.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I want to know all about your first gay experience, and what made you choose straight.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2012)

> And you didn't watch the video, did you.



Clearly not, that might expose him to facts.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > And you didn't watch the video, did you.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, that might expose him to facts.



Well, hell; what was I thinking!? We can't have THAT.


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2012)

This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense  and reason for fleeting sensibilities.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense  and reason for fleeting sensibilities.



Some scientists?   How about the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Associations?   In other words, the largest organization of medical doctors and psychiatrists say homosexuality is not a mental illness.

And why is it so bad when men perform oral sex or have anal intercourse with each other, but we don't limit the benefits of straight couples who have oral sex or anal intercourse??


----------



## syrenn (May 5, 2012)

garyganu said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You asked for a reasonable solution.... i gave you one. 

Does my being liberal or conservative or somewhere in between change that? You came out of the gate assuming anything other then your opinion of the way life should be ordered was on the opposite side of your fence, claiming my "view" was prof of liberals stifling opposing views.

Hypocrite much?


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense  and reason for fleeting sensibilities.



Slippery slope fallacy, MaryL. 

If homosexuality is a perversion, then why is there so much of it found in nature?


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense  and reason for fleeting sensibilities.
> ...


Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I don't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



My parents had a horrible relationship. It's kept me single most of my adult life.

My sister has been with her partner for going on 20 years. There is nothing sick about their relationship. In fact, they face all the same little bickering squabbles, highs and lows that most couples face.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Do you think homosexuals are incapable of love?  Do you think you were created by your parent's love?  News flash, you were created when your parents gave in to lust and got naked and sweaty.  

You see that is just another of the anti-homosexuality crowd's ideas.  That heterosexuals feel emotional love and base all on that, while gays base everything on sex.  It is absolute and utter nonsense.

My ex-wife is a lesbian.  My work requires travel.  Our three children were raised as much by her and her partner as by me, and spent more time with them.  And they turned out great.  All three are in stable relationships.  All three graduated from the honors programs in high school.  All three got scholarships.  Two graduated with a bachelors degree, and one has his master's degree in aerospace engineering.  

So how were they harmed by being raised by lesbians??   Can you please tell me that?  Out of three kids we have 3 college grads who never had any disciplinary issues and are great people.   Is this what you are afraid of?


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I am sorry to hear that. I have had this debate  late at night with relatives around the fireplace,  about such and such this  or that relative that is gay, that relative that is transsexual and so on. My parents were not saints. They fought. Gays love each other, I think. Nothing wrong with love. I don't see  homosexuals on par with heterosexuals. I just can't do it.  Hetrosexuals, our parents,  they transend this debate in a way gays can't.


----------



## BDBoop (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



No, they really don't. People are people, period. There is nothing to be gained by trying to label them as "less than."


----------



## BluePhantom (May 5, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!



Pfft...that has nothing to do with being a conservative and everything to do with being a bigot with homophobic tendencies. See that Romney icon in my signature?  I aint exactly "Mr. Liberal" here.  Ask Boop.  She'll tell you.  

Conservatives respect the constitution.  In fact one of the main things conservatives will claim is that they want....nay they *insist *that the Constitution is a literal document that should be strictly enforced. So I have to wonder what kind of a "conservative" you are that you would reject one of the most fundamental planks in the conservative platform (enforcing the constitution) when it comes to homosexuals.  A conservative would say "I may not agree with this or that that these people are doing over there, but I defend their right to do so under the Constitution"


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



In what ways, exactly?   You are trying to make a point, but you are saying nothing that shows anything except your own lack of knowlege.

I know my ex-wife and her partner love each other.  The only difference between them and any couple raising kids is that their genitals match.  That has absolutely nothing to do with raising kids.  I never saw my parents naked and I never saw them have sex.  So what possible difference could it make whether they are gay or straight?


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



 I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL  have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I  am not  seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 5, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!
> ...



THIS!!!

The reason I am conservative has nothing to do with worrying about who is sleeping with who.

That so many conservatives claim to want less gov't interference and more freedom, and then they want the gov't to decide which sexual orientation is worthy of benefits and which should be labeled perverted, is pure hypocrisy.  If you want less gov't, that means no gov't in the bedroom, not just no gov't in the boardroom.

(unless you are having sex in the boardroom)


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Mary, why does it matter to you whether the gov't recognizes gay marriage or not?

And how is the love of straight parents different than the love of gay parents?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

MaryL said:


> I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL  have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I  am not  seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.



You don't see how it's an offense to human rights to allow one segment of society one set of rights and protections and another segment a different set based upon nothing more than opinion of what is "acceptable moral behavior"?  You don't see something slightly unconstitutional about that?  Good Lord.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



You are damned right.  It's one of the most blatant examples of unbridled hypocrisy I have ever seen.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

MaryL said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



You're right. You didn't imply it. You flat-out said it. "I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals."


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Get your terms and motivations correct, please.  As a *Christian*, you might "believe marriage is between a man and a woman."  As a *Conservative*, you would allow people to make their own choices.

You got a problem in understanding the terms.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2012)

MaryL said:


> This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense  and reason for fleeting sensibilities.



MaryL is sick and throwing a temper tantrum.    Get over yourself, sister.  Universal marriage is inevitable.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

MaryL said:


> Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I donn't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


"Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love?"  Yes, I think homosexual parents can love their children just like heterosexual parents.


If you meant "Do YOU equate the love of a homosexual couple with the same love that can exist between infertile heterosexuals?"  Then again the answer would be yes, and it really depends on the individuals involved.  I think Zack's parents are probably much more in love and willing to commit to each other (IIRC, dispite one of them having MS) then say the "love" of Brittney Spears getting married for like - what - 56 hours?  Or the love of Gingrich's serial affairs and marriage.  Or Edwards affair on a wife dying of cancer.

If two people want to establish a family (and yes spouses are family with or without children) and commit to each other in a legal way then the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender.


>>>>


----------



## Gremlin-USA (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I want to marry a girl.



Me too, as long as she is over 18, at my age maybe two 18 year olds would work 


.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> 
> The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.
> 
> ...



The flaw in your argument here is that marriage has always meant the same thing, which it has not.   

Marriage for most of history, and still in many countries, is more a transfer of property than an equal partnership.  

Many marriages were arranged by families, not done for love.   A woman was considered property and she had very few rights to initiate a divorce.   Beating your spouse was considered acceptable until far too recently.  (Seriously, Ricky Ricardo and Ralph Crandem made spousal abuse funny!  On national TV.)  

So as marriage became redefined as the equality of the genders became redefined, it is hard to argue that marriage is what it was even 100 years ago.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I donn't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.
> ...



It is true that most parents of gay and straight children love them unconditionally. Most parents of "downs syndrome" children also love them unconditionally. However, it is also true that most parents are disappointed if a child is not born normal. That is why they count the fingers and toes at birth. 

Most parents are disappointed when they learn that their child is not likely to produce grandchildren for them. When parents learns that his child is gay, they realize that the chances of having grandchildren from them is very slim.  Most all parents want their children to grow up, get married and raise a family of their own. This is very unlikely with gay children and it is disappointing for most parents and grandparents. 

All of the gay propaganda in the world will never change this basic fact of human nature.

If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome. 

I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...




Let's say my daughter decided to marry a man that had testicular cancer and could not have children because she decided to marry a man she loves but with whom she could never have children.

Would I be disappointed because they would not produce a grandchild together?  Probably.

Would I oppose their marriage because they would not produce a grandchild together?  Absolutely not.



>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



World Watcher, That is a very good example.  We seem to be in total agreement about the point of my comment.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.
> 
> I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.



You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> World Watcher, That is a very good example.  We seem to be in total agreement about the point of my comment.




No, actually we have opposite position on Civil Marriage.

It seems your position was to support same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage because they cannot biologically produce children together.

I have the opposite opinion in that children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage and therefore it is irrelevant as a function of the law.  Now if you were suggesting the fertility become a condition of Civil Marriage, that is a whole different discussion - one I think most heterosexual would oppose.


>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.
> ...



The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms. 

However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.

Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So it is not a choice to be gay or straight, but it is a choice to be bisexual?   Or is it that a bisexual isn't making the choice you want them to make?

There is simply no place in marriage for this sort of discrimination.



Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage.  I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business.  I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Acknowledging that homosexuals exist is not "celebrating and embracing" sexual orientation and the filp side is that homosexuals should also not be demonized (opposite of celebrate) and shunned (opposite of embraced).  Homosexual have existed  throughout human history, so ya some people being homosexual is probably normal.  If you mean "normal" in the statistical sense, then they of course will never be "normal" as they will not be be the majority in any population.


>>>>


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Well said.    I think "celebrating" is the wrong word.   I think we should just let people live their lives.  Unless they are doing harm, it is none of my business.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage.  I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business.  I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.



Hallelujah! Amen brother!  Marriage is the declaration of a union before God (whatever God those involved chooses to recognize) among those of faith and a declaration of a union to each other by those who are not people of faith.  The government has absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage.  I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business.  I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
> ...



It is a legitimate function of local governments to keep records of vital statistics. Birth, marriage and death are recorded by local governments. Local governments issue birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates. 

The federal government has WAY too many regulations and should have nothing to do with marriage what-so-ever. Marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.



Nonsense.  The human animal is built to eat both vegetation and meat.  Our bodies are designed to require both, consume both, and digest both (meat far more easily than vegetation I might add).  We are omnivorous by design.  Some people choose to be strictly carnivorous and some people choose to be vegetarians. But the vast majority consumes both plants and animals and those who don't frequently have to take artificial supplements to compensate for the nutrients they are not receiving in their diet.

Now your argument will be "AHHHHH....but we are designed that way by nature.  Two men are not designed to have intercourse" to which I will respond quite simply...our bodies are not well designed to eat plants although we require it.  Our teeth are sharp and designed for cutting and tearing not for grinding down tough fibrous materials like a cows tooth.  Eat a stalk of celery and you'll see what I mean...the strings get between our teeth, we are not able to effectively mash and crush the material, etc. Our stomach can handle plants but it's really designed to break down meat far more effectively. We don't have a four compartment stomach, chew cud, etc.  So even though it's far more difficult for us to eat plants...we eat them because our nutritional needs require us to do so and we enjoy the flavors. It is not as easy for homosexuals to have intercourse but that doesn't mean that they are not designed genetically to require that kind of a relationship very much like our need to consume plants and our lousy design for doing it.  And like our diet, simply because we are designed to process meat more effectively, it doesn't mean that we *only *require meat.  How is bisexuality different?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Local gov't recordkeeping also has nothingto do with marriage.  I see a need for recording births, deaths and criminal records.  Beyond that it is simply an invasion of privacy.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Two spouses are not a family.  When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family




Restaurants? Movies? Vacation spots?

Can not a family of two spouses go to a "family" restaurant?  Can not two spouses not go to "family" movies?  (My wife loves animated movies and will drag me along, the flip side is she then has to go to superhero movies).  Vacation spots don't take two spouses?

I'll submit instead the United States Code establishing the Family Medical Leave Act providing for job protected leave for members of the employees immediate family - which includes the spouse.  How about United States law that establishes the poverty level for a family consisting of two persons (in this case two spouses) at $14,710.



>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.
> ...



Your argument is very far fetched.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Our society is crumbling as this foundation has been cracking over the past 50 years.  We need to encourage marriage and intact families not dilute the meaning if it.



Horseshit.  We are currently in a liberal sexual phase in our society.  The 80s were very conservative, the 60s were very liberal, the 40s and 50s were conservative.  It flips back and forth and has been doing so for centuries.  Let's not forget "the roaring 20s", "the gay 90s", etc. Extramarital sexual activity has been widespread throughout American and human history since the beginning. Ben Franklin, as a single example, held several mistresses and advised young men that wives are for money and social status and mistresses were for love and pleasure. No one batted an eye.

Now it is more "out in the open" in modern culture?  Yes. Are marriages ending more often because of it?  Yes but not because there is more fucking going on than any other time.  It's because historically, women were forced to endure their husband's extracurricular sexual life in silence due to the demands of society and the church.  For men it was quite different. A man could divorce his wife if she was cheating and he would suffer far less disgrace. When women began to demand equal standing in society they suddenly had the freedom to say "I am not putting up with this shit.  I am out of here".  That's not something they could do before and hence there were fewer divorces....there was *not* however less fucking going on.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Two spouses are not a family.  When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
> ...



I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There  are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Please feel free to attempt to discredit it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



His argument is no more farfetched than yours against bisexuals.   If we get beyond the "homosexuality is evil", then which ever way a bisexual goes at any given time is simply a personal choice.

Now, having said that, I am not saying that being bisexual is a choice.  I think being attracted to both genders is no more a choice than being attracted to one or the other gender.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family".  Don't like the federal definition?  That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone.  Ask them if they think of their spouse as family.  Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?



I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this.  Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.


----------



## Dante (May 6, 2012)

Dante said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion.
> ...


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So you have to change the subject to make your point? Not cool.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Oh good. Let's dissolve all the marriages, and start all over. This time, we promise to be fair.

Norly.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You're treading dangerously close to the "obvious troll" line. Pull back a bit.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What? I don't have much of an opinion about a gay gene. I haven't thought about it much. What is the difference. How does that affect a discussion about the redefinition of the word "marriage"? If they discover an alcoholic gene, does that excuse alcoholism? I don't get it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I'm not normal, and there is no gene, either.

I'm a lefty.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?
> ...



No, it's just that the definitions of "good" and "bad" are changing.  Those definitions are constantly changing and have been in a constant state of flux throughout history.  The United States is an extremely conservative society when it comes to sexuality.  While, we are not as bad as Islamic nations, even the stuffy British are far more liberal and open about the sexual nature of humanity than we are. A French soap opera borders on what we would call porn. When a foreign head of state has an affair, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "yeah and?" 

The reality is that regarding sexual culture the United States is so completely uptight we are out of sync with the vast majority of the rest of the world and as is natural and to be expected we are slowly and constantly evolving as a society and making new determinations upon what is acceptable and what is not.  It's not a change in behavior.  The behaviors have been going on all the time.  The difference is in the attitudes about the behavior and you will never stop a society from redefining itself. 

The trends on those attitudes are pretty clear when you look at American society as a whole. So what's happening is that you are simply refusing to adapt to society's natural evolution (which is of course your prerogative) but as that lands you in the minority then the problem is not society's evolution so much as your refusal to accept it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I don't think so. I'd like to see some brains can results like the ones John Barrowman went under. Not sure I linked the scan, so I will now.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?
> ...



If kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore, you need to blame the parents.  If two gay men or two lesbians marry, it does not have any effect on whether kids know good from bad.  This is a typical propaganda tactic.  "We have to save the kids!" is nonsense.

Want to know what is messing up kids?  Greed.   Both parents working so they can afford a bigger house, 3 cars, vacations in Tahiti ect, has done far more harm to children than gays, swingers and whatnot.

But I notice no neocons are crying for regulations to prevent both parents working.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I don't understand what you object to. Please clarify.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



It's obvious that people become a family when they become wed. Whether children come along or not is irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



My kids have 4 uncles.  Only 2 of those uncles had kids.  So are they all family or are only two of them family?


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

And singles? They are just useless, empty wasted shells until two of them connect and one turns into an incubator.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It's not a conservative issue Winter.  The media portrays it that way but in reality opposition to gay marriage exists on both sides.  Oregon, where I live, passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by a wide margin.  Let me tell you...Oregon is about as conservative as Pol Pot.  I recently had the entire Oregon Republican Party to my house for a barbecue and it ran me $35.28.  So who were all these people voting to ban gay marriage....liberals.  How interesting.  Same thing happened in California.  So it's not a conservative or liberal thing.  It's an issues which shows pretty clearly that bigotry and homophobia exists on both sides of the aisle in strong doses.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Dear BDBoop. This is the first defintion listed when I Googled "define: family" 

fam·i·ly/&#712;fam(&#601l&#275;/

Noun: A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.

Adjective:	Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I would say Webster (or whoever it was) needs to update their database. It's a dictionary's responsibility to adapt to society's definition.  Society is not required to adhere to a dictionary's definition.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Your two childless uncles are part of a family but they don't have their own families.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?
> ...



Becoming more accepting of homosexuals is not "glorifying".  Since homosexuals aren't being locked up in mental institutions for electroshock therapy and arrested and thrown in jail - more and more people are coming into contact with homosexuals that are open about their sexuality, and realizing that vast majority of them are the same as the rest of us.

It's not that kids can't recognize the difference between "good" and "bad" its that their definition is different then their parents generation who think their definition is absolute and unchanging as it pertains to consensual adult relationships.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Not parsing words, my wife is a member of my family and that would be true irregardless of if we'd ever had children.


>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Don't worry, they will as soon as they get bullied and intimidated by the gay activists. Marriage is not the only word that gay activists will try to redefine.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I should have said "normal and abnormal" instead of "good and bad" in that context.

Now you are saying that kids know better than their parents. That kind of thinking undermines a society.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Both eyeballs have landed in the same socket, now that I know he thinks 'man and wife' are not family. I cannot go on. Good luck, y'all.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Oh, so they ARE family but they don't have families?   lol


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



But if someone says "bring the family", they usually mean your wife and kids.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Right, because we all know its better to have everyone just alike.  Since when is "normal" regulated by our gov't?


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Exactly, Now you get it.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I never said *anything *of the sort. I said society changes and evolves.  Children grow up and hold their own opinions and redefine society according to their needs and desires.  Frequently that is different from their parents' needs and desires.  I never said that those definitions were "better" or "worse". I certainly don't agree with my parents on everything and they didn't agree with my grandparents on everything.

What undermines a society is forcing society into a pattern of behavior that they no longer embrace or feels is an accurate definition of "who they are" and/or "what standards describe their belief system"


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Maybe he should really go out and tell lots of people that a man and wife are not a family.  I'm sure that would gather great support.


>>>>


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Sure!   But this sidetrack is largely irrelevant.   If someone invited my ex-wife to a gathering and said "Bring the family", she would've shown up with kids and her partner.


This stuff about kids is not any reason to refuse to allow gays to marry.  Either through adoption or outside assistance, gay couple have kids.  First you claim that marriage is all about protecting kids and then you refuse to allow those gay couples the same benefits that childless straight couples enjoy.

So it seems that kids are not the true basis for your issues.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> I should have said "normal and abnormal" instead of "good and bad" in that context.
> 
> Now you are saying that kids know better than their parents. That kind of thinking undermines a society.



And I might add that what is "normal" right now is to endorse the rights of gays to marry.  The polls are pretty clear that over the last couple years that has become the majority opinion.  Therefore, your position is currently "abnormal".  That may change again in the future...who knows.  But that of course simply sticks the point that definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" evolve over time.  Five years ago your position would have been "normal".  It no longer is.  Hence, don't blame society for choosing something else.  Blame yourself for inadequately adapting to the evolution of society,


----------



## Katzndogz (May 6, 2012)

There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.


----------



## Unkotare (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And singles? They are just useless, empty wasted shells until two of them connect and one turns into an incubator.



You seem very angry about this whole thing.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You are putting words in my mouth.

What does it mean when someone says "bring the family" ?

What does it mean when someone says, "I want to have a family"?

What does it mean when an establishment advertises that it is "family friendly"?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.



The big problem with your statement is that drug use, alcoholism (in children or adults) abortion ect, are all harmful.  Your comparisons are nonsense.

Being gay is not harmful, unless you consider the hatred and possible violence you will face from the bigots.  And getting rid of gays is not the answer to that particular problem.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And if someone says "bring the family", my wife is not excluded even if we don't have kids.



>>>>


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



They say 'bring the family' to let parents know all are welcome. Otherwise they say "Find a sitter, and I can't wait to see you and Sue on Saturday." 

And if there are no kids, it's still "And we'll see you guys this weekend." Family is only mentioned when more than the couple is involved, and it does not negate them being family if they don't have any offspring.

This whole concept he's come up with is so ridiculous, it's bordering on pathetic.

It's like the time my mom tried telling me I was still a child at 25, because she heard the phrase "and children up to age 25 are included." No, they should have used the word 'offspring.' She was like ".... oh."


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > And singles? They are just useless, empty wasted shells until two of them connect and one turns into an incubator.
> ...



Nope, just reflecting your 'logic' back at you.

Nice try, troll.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



This conversation is getting ridiculous. 

If they knew that you don't have kids, they would probably say "bring your wife" instead of "bring your family".


----------



## Unkotare (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




Nice try at what? Do you think you DON'T seem angry about this?


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/222040-define-family.html

Have at it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



No I'm not you said in post #223 "Two spouses are not a family."

I disagree, spouses are family.



garyganu said:


> What does it mean when someone says "bring the family" ?



To bring members of your family.  For a couple that would include the spouse.  For those with children bring the children.  For those with a spouse and children bring both the spouse and children.



garyganu said:


> What does it mean when someone says, "I want to have a family"?



Get married, to create the family unit, then have children.

For some people it means adopting children without having a spouse at all though single parent adoption or IVF.



garyganu said:


> What does it mean when an establishment advertises that it is "family friendly"?



Depends on the establishment.   In general it means there is little to know alcohol served, that there is little to no violence, and that it can be regarded as a pretty safe place.

I live south of Bush Garden's Williamsburg in Virginia which is a family friendly environment.  We will usually go up 2 or 3 times during summer evenings for "date night" with no kids.  Families of 2 are just as welcome as families of 5.


>>>>


----------



## BluePhantom (May 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.



Sigh....do I have to go through the whole Greece, Egypt, and Rome thing with you *too*?


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.
> ...



You don't have time.

Laterz.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/222040-define-family.html
> 
> Have at it.



The answer is not so obvious as you first thought my dear BDBoop


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



She unwittingly proved your point. People usually throw insults only when they are angry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.



We are simply less accepting of the perversion of civilization practiced by the katzdogzs.

The bad old days are ending.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

Let's put a little sanity to this, shall we?  

The three main arguments people give against gay marriage are 

1) The Bible says it's wrong. 
2) I find it icky (when dudes do it anyway. ) 
3) Marriage has always been defined as this, so we shouldn't change it.  

The first one is easily dipsensed with.  The bible has a whole lot of rules most of us don't follow, and we invent a thousand denominations to give us an excuse as to why we do or don't follow the rules we don't like.  And that's a personal choice.  

The second one is that yes, certain things are not an image I'd want in my head. But there really isn't anything gays do to each other than straights do to each other. 

The third is that marriage has not always been what it is now.  Women don't pledge to obey their husbands anymore.  That's considered passe.  Marriages have become unions of equals, as opposed to transfers of property.  True, we have a few vestigates of the "Women as property".  Wedding gowns still have veils because at one time, you didn't see what you got until your arranged marriage was in progress.  Fathers still walk their daughters down the aisle, but it isn't a transfer of property along with a dowry and an expectation you could beat your wife with impunity. 

So once you've dispensed with those three flimsey arguments, you don't have anything left.  

Now, that said, I think that if we are going to make it legal, as we should, it should be done by votes of the legislature, as NY did it, and not by judicial fiat as CA has done it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.
> ...



When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is a huge social movement to indoctrinate each generation into the normalcy of homosexuality.  So it isn't surprising that acceptance of homosexuality is growing.  Like the acceptance of promiscuity, drug use, alcoholism in children, abortion.   We aren't becoming more accepting of homosexuality but across the board degeneracy in every form.  Fortunately degeneracy has a half life and cultures that do become wholly degenerate don't last very long.



Okay, I got to call you out on this.   

Instead of lumping homosexuality in with alcoholism in children (which most people agree are bad thing)  and drug use, (which agian, most people think is bad but they disagree on how to address it.  What you jokers are trying sure as hell ain't working) why don't you explain to us why homosexuality is wrong without quoting the bible or telling me we've always done it this way or expressing your personal ick factor with it (which again, sounds like a personal hangup.)


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.



Yes, it is. But not for the reasons you think.  

We are not in decline because Gay people don't have to fear people beating them up.  

We are in decline because there has been a huge shift of wealth from the working class to the investing class and from the West to the East.   None of this really has to do with social or sexual morals.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Dear BDBoop, you are beautiful when you're angry. (I couldn't resist)


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.
> ...


 
I respectfully disagree Joe. Our moral foundation is crumbling. Our society is lost like a ship without a compass. This crumbling moral foundation is the cause, everything else is the effects.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So can you actually show cause and effect?  Or are you just looking for scapegoats.  

For instance, I can make the case that greed is the cause and effect of our problems.  

Cause- Greedy CEO's move jobs to China to make bigger profits.  

Effect- Middle class wages go down, money transfers outside the US, jobs become more scarce, people can't keep things up anymore.  

Now, you can complain our "moral foundation" is crumbling, but our moral foundation in this country was slavery, genocide of the native americans, and sexual suppression of women, which today, nearly everyone sane agrees were bad ideas.  

I think there are moral issues that are problems.  Marriage in decline, but that has more to do with the stresses placed on working people (who has time for marriage when you are working three jobs to keep a roof over your head?) by the greedy than the fact that someone who is gay having other options than trying out loveless marriage they have no interest in.  

I had an aunt who was without a doubt a lesbian. But in the oldy days, you just didn't do that. So she entered sham marriage which lasted a year. She had a kid she was completely unable to parent.  Seriously, she'd have been a lot better off had she been able to be true to herself.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Joe, I think that it is clear that the break-up of the intact family as the foundation of our society has had disastrous effects. There is no greater obstacle to a child than to be born to a single mother. Statistics show that children born out-of-wedlock have much greater chances of becoming criminals, living in poverty and dropping out of school. This is where the moral issues begin.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



My daughter and nephew didn't get that memo. I'd better give them a call.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And how is preventing gay marriage helping prevent single parent homes??


----------



## Unkotare (May 6, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> My daughter and nephew didn't get that memo.




I don't believe you. (Isn't that how your thing goes?)


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

Since the entire debate on the definition of family is based on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, the only question is whether or not two people of the same gender in a long term relationship and their children are a family.

Are two lesbians raising children or two gay men raising children together, in a long term relationship, a family?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



No, dear friend, I do not.  The bad old days were days of sexism, racism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, and rich oppressing the poor.  Some of that is gone, and, as scripture says, we will always have the poor with us, but homophobic social customs are ending.  That is good.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Not "our" American foundation, dear Gary, merely yours, and it is good it is ending.


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

Thank you, Dear Jake. Dear Gary has a lot of thinking ahead of him.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Joe, I think that it is clear that the break-up of the intact family as the foundation of our society has had disastrous effects. There is no greater obstacle to a child than to be born to a single mother. Statistics show that children born out-of-wedlock have much greater chances of becoming criminals, living in poverty and dropping out of school. This is where the moral issues begin.



How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".  

There isn't a couple I know of who ever got a divorce because they said, "Damned, look at them ka-weeers getting married, our marriage is a sham, I'm out of here!"  

If you want to address the issue of out of wedlock marriage, fine. That's a problem. If you want to argue we should get rid of the marriage penalty, that's fine, too.   

It has nothing to do with what you were arguing about people who are gay not being able to get married.   Let's try to keep on the subject, okay?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It&#39;s All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2012)

You're an evil man...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 6, 2012)

> It has nothing to do with what you were arguing about people who are gay not being able to get married. Let's try to keep on the subject, okay?


Yes, but keeping on the subject would compel one to concede the failure of his argument; deflecting with non-issue is a lot more fun.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".
> ...



Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem. 

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yes, you are repeating yourself.  But this was debunked the first time, so reread what someone said about the difference between celebrating and just not hating.

Plus, you also claimed that children of single parent homes is the cause of the decay of society.  And yet you still want to not allow certain people to create two parent homes.


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I think the more accurate term would be "accept".   Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??


----------



## garyganu (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads.........


----------



## BDBoop (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



It's not abnormal, nor it is unhealthy.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Ok, first you must define or explain how homosexuality, in and of itself, is unhealthy.

The whole "abnormal" thing can be tossed out.  There are straights who are far more abnormal than many of the gays who want to marry.  And there is no statute or regulation requiring anyone be normal.  In fact, one of the greatest evolutions of our societies is throwing off this yoke of the nonsense of requiring that we all be alike.   You and I have no right to require anyone to be normal, unless their abnormality is dangerous or harmful.

I am sure the neocons would prefer obedient, compliant slaves walking lockstep to do their master's bidding.  But that is not what humanity is about.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



One more thing, perhaps your reason and common sense is turned on its head by the actions of others, but mine is not.

You keep making these wild accusations without a single shred of evidence.

Your first step should be to go and look at the studies of kids raised by gay parents and the comparisons to kids raised by straight parents.

I'll give you a heads up, there is no documentable evidence of any significant difference.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 6, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> 
> The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.
> 
> ...



If gays want to live together thats fine if gays want the government to stay out of their life maybe they should not press the government to get involved with their life style.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> ...



I think the gov't should not be in any of our lives where marriage is concerned.  So how about we remove the 1,100 or so benefits the federal gov't gives married couples and the 300 or so benefits given by state and local gov'ts.

Otherwise, how about we have our gov't base its benefits on facts rather than on bigotry and prejudice, m'kay?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 6, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Let's put a little sanity to this, shall we?
> 
> The three main arguments people give against gay marriage are
> 
> ...



You going good there until your last paragraph

Although it would be preferable to have all 50 states follow the Constitutional mandate as established by the 14th Amendment, thus avoiding court battles altogether, we all know thats not going to happen. 

Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority. That a majority of a given state vote to deny same sex couples equal access to the law is anathema to the Constitution and its case law: _a state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws_.

A court upholding the rule of law is not judicial fiat, as the onus is on the state legislatures to obey the Constitution in the first place.   



> When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.



That may be the perception of those that have benefited or profited from institutionalized discrimination, or who have enjoyed power and privilege as a consequence religious affiliation alone. But such discrimination and unwarranted privilege have always been in conflict with fundamental Constitutional principles.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 6, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 6, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If we were talking about natural procreation, you might have a point.

But we're not.  You don't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes you were so shut the fuck up.


> So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?


What the fuck is this? What type of fucking question is this for you too ask and then come back and say we aren't talking about natural procreation. What the hell man don't be stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:
> 
> When you celebrate and embrace something that is *abnormal and unhealthy*, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture *has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."*
> 
> ...



Okay, guy, the problem with this argument is that you apply all these negative things to homosexuality, yet fail to offer any reasons why it is any of these things.  Your whole argument is that your imaginary sky friend is against it, so it must be bad.  

I could make a greater argument that religion is more evil than homosexuality.   Crusades, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, molestation and abuse of children, all things done by religious institutions, and your "God" usually doesn't say boo about it. (Because he doesn't exist.)


----------



## JoeB131 (May 7, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's put a little sanity to this, shall we?
> ...



Clayton- two things. 

First, the way you quoted this, the last portion would seem to be attributed to me when I didn't say this.  

Secondly, I reject the notion that the 14th Amendment is this grab bag of rights that the courts can hand out because you can't get changes in the law through the legislatures.  This is judicial activism of the worst kind.  If there was a right to gay marriage hiding in the 14th amendment, they should have noticed in 1880, not 2012.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That was a response to the post "Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." and was meant as sarcasm.  (unless you want to base our laws on the idea that two people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago.  In which case it is ridicule)

The topic is about gay marriage.  If you are making the point that marriage is strictly for producing and protecting children, then you need to remove the benefits from childless straight couples and allow gay couples with children to marry.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



First of all...Adam and Eve were not married
Secondly, marriage is not required to create life nor is the ability to create life a prerequisite for getting married

The purpose of marriage in our society is to encourage monogamous relationships


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



First of all they were male and female, not male and male or female and female
Secondly They were married in the eyes of God.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You didn't like my answer because you don't have a rebuttal nor a logical explanation. Marriage is between a man and a woman


----------



## Ariux (May 7, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority. That a majority of a given state vote to deny same sex couples equal access to the law is anathema to the Constitution and its case law: _a state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws_.



Hey fag, you're so full of shit, compacted shit.  

The same laws have applied to faggots as to normal people, either one can have the government recognize a marriage to the opposite sex, one with the potential to create children.  And, _you don't just get to pull out of your ass what constitutes a class._

Faggot marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution, rule of law, or Democracy.  It has to do with activist, liberal judges being placed in the courts, while otherwise decent people people are distracted by Zionist neocons, clearing the way for faggots to rape society.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.



How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.
> ...



Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.
> ...



How does the fact that gays can't marry diminish their rights? Why do they want something which in its essence is something between men and women?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?



There are many societies historically and today that allow polygamy.  Frankly I don't see a problem with it if that's the lifestyle they all choose and willingly enter into.  Personally, I will pass...I have enough trouble dealing with one. Men can't marry their daughters because of the potential genetic defects in offspring and 10 year olds because we as a society have determined that 18 is the minimum age without parental consent in most states.  However, in some states it can be 16.  In other nations they have other customs and arranged marriages at a younger age is perfectly acceptable in their culture.  Usually in those cultures there is not a formal joining until the onset of puberty which in regard to world history has been the marker for when a child becomes an adult. 

Why do we choose 16 or 18?  Various reasons.  Religious influence on our decision making, a different philosophy on what makes a person an "adult", to some degree even arbitrarily...basically our society chose something that differed from the norm of human history.  That's our right and our prerogative.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage.  But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults.  I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults".   Marriage is a social contract.  Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.



I answered your questions.  Now answer mine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





> Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage.



It is? Just because you don't have an answer doesn't diminish the meaning of the question.



> Marriage is a social contract.


What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I like that you cherry-picked my answer to try and show that I had no answer.  I said, clearly, that I see no reason why multiple partner marriages should be illegal.   Why should it??  Can you give me an answer that does not rely on religion or on the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition??


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If marriage is nothing but a "social contract" then why don't we abolish marriage altogether? There is contract law in civil law, no need to have anything like marriage then is there?

Or could it be that marriage is just a little bit more significant in societal terms than you're letting on?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?



Well why don't we try to stick to reality here.  That's never going to happen so it's a completely irrelevant point.  I mean what if the oceans turned to jello?  Come on man.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No cherry picking. but I like to way you ignored the last part of my post could it be you over looked it? Or could it be you can't refute it?



> What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I think marriage is quite significant.  That is why I am so adamant that gays be allowed to marry.

Those who try and reduce gay marriage to nothing more than sex are the ones who diminish the meaning of marriage.

The gov't sanctioning of marriage is, however, a social contract.  I am not in favor of abolishing marriage.  But I am in favor of removing teh gov't from the equation, along with the benefits granted.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I have no issues with polygamy if it is between consenting adults
Incest is illegal as is sex with a 10 year old

You still didn't answer the question. How does gay marriage diminish your own marriage?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?
> ...



People in America long ago once thought Marriage was between a man and a woman, now they are trying to make it man and man. Gay marriage was not in most peoples reality, but as time goes by it has become a reality. With that said society may just go that way in time. Not in my life  time but it may just come.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The "What if everybody turned gay?" part?   I ignored it because it is absolutely ridiculous.

Do you actually think there is the remotest chance that allowing gays to marry will cause everyone to "turn gay"??   Is that even in the realm of possibility??

What if everyone suddenly became uninterested in sex at all??   What if everyone suddenly grew a third eye in the middle of their forehead?  What if pigs started to fly?   All of those are as likely as everyone turning gay.

What you are trying is a ridiculous scare tactic based on the idea that allowing gay marriage will increase the number of gays.  It won't.  Not allowing it also won't decrease the number of gays.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is because it is so significant that I oppose undermining it in the name of the flavour of the day. Marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, is one of the cornerstones of our society. Compared to these sorts of fundamental norms, al recent (i.e. not more than a few hundred years old) written laws and constitutions are really pretty minor scraps of paper.

If indeed the government sanctioning of marriage is merely a social contract, than the solution is simple: abolish civil marriage and return to the tradition of marriage as a religious ceremony (personally I don't favour this).


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



If everyone turned gay there would be no procreation if there were marriage or not. Which means your concern is irrelevant

Unless you are making the ridiculous claim that gay marriage will somehow make everyone gay


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Marriage with several people is just as illegal as sex with a ten year old. Why do you feal one sort of legal restriction is permissible but another isn't?


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Ten year-olds can't give permission.

No normal, healthy male would want to marry his daughter - or vice versa.

Multiple partners, as I have stated numerous times? That's their fight.

This is my fight. If you can marry a woman, I should be able to marry a woman.

If I can marry a man, RW should be able to marry a man.

The law as it stands is denying roughly 10% of the population their right to marriage, and don't tell me marriage isn't a right, because fuck-all 90% of the country can marry their dearly beloved.

But my sister and her partner cannot.

And that is bullshit.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



What is the point of my answering questions if you refuse to read my answers??

*CONSENTING ADULTS* is, as I have pointed out numerous times, the key.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And like wise gay marriage is ridiculous. You want to live together fine do so. But come tomorrow I will put my opinion to a vote as far as North Carolina and gay marriage is concerned.

Same-sex marriage measure set for vote in North Carolina - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
The hell NO. will be my vote.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

And none of you pansy ass straights have YET to answer - when did you choose to be straight. What gay experience did you have that made you CHOOSE straight?? Because if it's a choice, you must have made it.

Strap on a pair and answer me.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well, you're talking to someone with constant wood, as he so politely informed me, so there's no blood flow to the brain.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The issue is laws are passed against actions which harm society. Murder harms society, stealing harms society, incest harms society, pedophilia harms society

Two people of the same sex getting married does not harm society


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Homosexuality has been around as long as we have recorded history.  The fact that we have only recently stopped actively persecuting it does not make it the "flavor of the day".

These people are in dedicated, long term relationships.  If you look at the people who get married when states wake up and allow it, the couples have often been together for decades.  Flavor of the month?   Before you call those couples that, try and look at  the number of straight marriages that do not last a single year.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



People in America long ago used to hang witches too. And I am sorry to tell you this but unless you plan to be dead in the next 5-10 years it's going to become nationally legalized in your lifetime.  Fight it all you want, but the momentum is not going your way.  You're fighting a losing battle.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Actually the Civil Marriage contract and multiple partners is a different topic.  There is an implication in the contract to sexual exclusivity (monogamy) within the bounds of the contract.  However the actual conduct is up to the individuals to determine.

A couple can commit to a monogamous sexual relationship, if one of them violates that agreement then the other party can obtain a divorce.  On the other hand if the agreement between the parties is that sexual monogamy is not a requirement (for one or both of them), if there is outside sexual activity the state will not step in and force the parties to divorce.  To this day there are swingers clubs where married couples participate, there are famous examples like Bill and Hillary Clinton (no one forced them to divorce and they choose to stay married) and his famous affair, and (anecdotal I know, but...) there was a gay officer that I knew of in the mid-80's who married a lesbian who was also a military officer so they could put a front of for their respective chains-of-command.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> > Marriage is a social contract.
> 
> 
> What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last?



What if the polls reverse on December 21st of this year and gravity disappears and we all float off into space?

If everyone turned homosexual at the snap of a finger then humanity would last, the resulting society would just look a lot different then the one now.

1.  There would be an immediate decrease in the worlds population as some would not be able accept themselves and would suicide.

2.  There would be a long term decrease in the worlds population as fewer children would be born, while this would occur everywhere, it would especially be prevalent in third world countries without access to technological assistance for pregnancy.

3.  A new model of society would evolve whereby men became the sperm donors and women egg donors, then IVF, sperm donation, and surrogacy would become the primary means of procreation.  

4.  The population would stabilize at a new lower level as new interactions and socials rolls worked themselves out and economies restabilized for smaller populations, over time (probably in the neighborhood [just a guess] of 50-100 years] you would see populations start to rise again.​



bigrebnc1775 said:


> What if everybody turned gay? <<SNIP>>  How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?



If everybody turned homosexuals, I doubt if homosexuals would outlaw married for themselves.

Probably they would promote options for pregnancy and maybe even cloning technology where the chromosomes of same gender parents could be combined to produce off spring.


>>>>


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



LMAO!!  That must have been some conversation.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B237YJBK_Tw]CNN - NY Gay Couple Waiting 61 Years To Marry - YouTube[/ame]

After 60 Years, a Deep Desire to Make It 'Legal' - NYTimes.com



> Richard Adrian Dorr first sang for John Mace at the Juilliard School of Music in 1948: a rendition of the show tune All the Things You Are, in which the singer elegantly explains all the wonderful things his lover is to him.
> 
> Mr. Mace knew the song intimately and he accompanied Mr. Dorr on piano, with no sheet music.
> 
> ...


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



First of all you are of course being hypocritical. For others it's "their fight", but for the issue you defend it's somehow a "right".

You say that no healthy man would want to marry his daughter. Well there arte some people who say that no healthy man should want to marry another man.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You wish to dump this fundamental social norm on the altar of some political correct flavour of the day. That is frankly - in the most literal sense of the word - uncivilized.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And none of you pansy ass straights have YET to answer - when did you choose to be straight. What gay experience did you have that made you CHOOSE straight?? Because if it's a choice, you must have made it.
> 
> Strap on a pair and answer me.



Oh I didn't realize I was one of those "pansy ass straights" you were directing the question at.  Well I guess when I was a small child and saw Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Faltskog singing "_Take a Chance on Me_".  At that point I sprung a little boner and realized I was destined to be a straight man in adulthood.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And none of you pansy ass straights have YET to answer - when did you choose to be straight. What gay experience did you have that made you CHOOSE straight?? Because if it's a choice, you must have made it.
> 
> Strap on a pair and answer me.



I was born normal I have never had any desire or thoughts of having any type of a relationship with a male other than friendship.
I love pussy so much since I left it the day I was born I am still trying to get back in it 50 years later.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So all consenting adults should be able to marry? brothers and sisters; fathers and adult daughters; mothers and adult sons. etc?


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Not the point. Goes to action, not opinion. Nobody cares what 'some people' think, when 'some people' are trying to deny others their rights. The man in question would not want to marry his daughter. 

I notice you had to cherry pick your argument. Not a good sign.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Let me know how many of those you can find. Because I know it's probably about .000001% - and gays comprise 10% of the population.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Not sure what you're referring to here. But that you are stupid and can't hold up an argument I've learnt in other threads.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > And none of you pansy ass straights have YET to answer - when did you choose to be straight. What gay experience did you have that made you CHOOSE straight?? Because if it's a choice, you must have made it.
> ...



Exactly!! You didn't think. Your body let you know who you were.

Gays experience the same thing. My sister-in-law (who cares if they can't marry, that's who she is to me) says she knew when she was five. So obviously, there was no choice involved. She just always knew.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Two points:

First, it is not the flavor of the day.  It is a fundamental principle of equality for all.  Homosexuality is not new, by any means.  The people in question have often been in committed relationships for decades.

Second, using the logical fallacy of Appeal to Tradition is a bogus debate technique.  The fact that things have been one way for a long time does not mean that they are right.  Traditionally we burned witches, had slaves, and wives were property.  All of those were long standing, accepted practices.  But we woke up to the realitythat they were wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



North Carolina will always be a no we are going to have a Constitutional amendment. So if you want a gay marriage do not come to North Carolina.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There is actually no real proff for the figures you mention, but they are immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion. But I note that you feel all restrictions on brothers and sisters marrying should be lifted. Very "enlightened" of you.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Obviously not you, and now that you're down to attacking me, I know you don't have a leg to stand on in this particular fight.

Gratz!


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Also, since I said nothing of the kind, you are reduced to lying. Second strike.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'll remember you, when that day comes.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You asked why I think multiple partner marriages should be allowed and marrying a 10 year old should not.

I answered.   And my answer is correct for the question you asked.  This dancing around and changing the parameters of the question after you get an answer is simply dishonest.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 7, 2012)

PredFan said:


> The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.



The best solution is to get religion out of the law entirely.

All marriages should be done by a civil ceremony. Neither the state nor the federal government should recognize a religious rite as a legal binding contract.

If two consenting adults want to enter into a legal arrangement that combines their legal property rights, which is all a marriage really is, then so be it.

If people feel the need for a religious ceremony then they can have one but a marriage should not be legal until presided over by an officer of the court with the authority to ratify the contract.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You do realize this is a very recent demand of a very tiny minuscule fraction of humanity who feel that they are enlightened while 99,5% of the world's population are "unenlightened"?

It is NOT a fundamental principle of equality for all. It is nothing but an attempt to destroy a fundamental social norm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Well after tomorrow and the amendment get's past  gay marriage is dead in the water for North Carolina that is.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I note that you admit that you are not consistent with yourself. Pretty weak.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.

The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> First of all you are of course being hypocritical. For others it's "their fight", but for the issue you defend it's somehow a "right".
> 
> You say that no healthy man would want to marry his daughter. Well there arte some people who say that no healthy man should want to marry another man.
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You wish to dump this fundamental social norm on the altar of some political correct flavour of the day. That is frankly - in the most literal sense of the word - uncivilized.



Well first of all I would hardly call American society "civilized".  Certainly we are far more technologically advanced than any other culture in world history, but I can make a strong argument that that technological advantage hasn't resulted in an advanced sense of civility. 

Marriage is a definition.  Traditionally, it has been as you describe, but society has the right and indeed the obligation to redefine whatever they choose whenever they choose.  That's why we don't burn witches anymore...and very soon we will stop repressing the rights of homosexuals as well for a very simple reason.  We are in the process of choosing something different and redefining ourselves as a society and that's a natural, acceptable, and desirable thing for a society to do.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Only this time.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It does, because it undermines society.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And you have yet to say how. 

Tell me how the most popular woman in America 'undermined society.'


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



North Carolina seldom makes Constitutional changes if I were you I would not bet my last dollar.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Most of the polls I have seen do not show this amendment passing.   So I guess we'll see gay marriages being performed in Ashville in the mountains??


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> 
> The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.



Clearly you don't know much about the rest of the world.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Nice vague answer.  Give us some real information on HOW in undermines society??   Or are you relying on the idea that it will cause everyone to "turn gay"?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> 
> The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.



Well God forbid I open up a can of worms here, but in the religious wacko mind "_corporations are people but gays are not_."


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> ...



Enlighten me. And make it good. I have Google access, I can prove you wrong.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



So people who are gay aren't already part of the society?

Society benefits from happy productive people who are all treated equally under the law.

Extending legal rights and benefits to some and not all is what undermines society.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You note that?   lol   And from what did you draw that conclusion?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The idea of homosexuals getting married is an extremely recent demand and is very much "flavour of the day". Denying this is simply denying facts.


----------



## garyganu (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> 
> The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.



In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people, the people voted against gay marriage. This happened in 28 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

From wikipedia:

*Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a voter referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments*


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So you feel brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry as long as they are adults?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> ...



So maybe we should put to a vote anti discrimination laws as well.

The rights of minorities should not be put to a popular vote.  A republic is not supposed to be subject to mob rule.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Dude. Your record is stuck.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> 
> The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.



Even in California you couldn't get a majority for it, and that's a pretty insane state.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I can't help your cowardice. That's your problem.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



EXACTLY. 

Thank you.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> ...



Luckily we do not live in a true democracy where mob rule can vote against a minority.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You are advocating rule by flash mob.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You really are an intellectual lightweight.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Really? You call our House and Senate "flash mobs?"


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...





Okay, Naomi.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not.  It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?  

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically.  But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it?  Probably not.   As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.    

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Thanks for illustrating it again, but there really is no need.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And in their name? That's MY name. I AM friends, family and loved ones of gays and lesbians. And I've felt this way for most of my adult life so no. No flash mobs here. 

I personally know and regularly socialize with gay couples who have been together a grand total of 100 years. 

Your argument is invalid.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So you want the majority to suppress the rights of a minority yet you say you're against mob rule.

It must not be easy to be so deliberately obtuse.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



He's come undone. I think it's because he's Belgian.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



LMAO!!   That is rich.  This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay".  lol

Too funny.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Finally a good question. Well, contrary to you I believe that there is such a thing as Society. That we are more, as human beings, than just a loose collection of individuals without any relation to each other or without any mutual rights and obligations. Human beings achieve their full potential as human beings within the framework of a society. For this to function, every society needs norms which it agrees upon and imposes on everyone. Some of these norms do change over time, some remain constant, and some change very frequently (the usual legislative process in a democracy for example).


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The bit I gave him was based on an interview with Naomi Watts. She was working with David Lynch, and he went waaaay too deep while directing a rape scene. She was hysterical. Couldn't stop crying. Screaming "Fuck you, David! Fuck you!!" 

Apparently Lynch has this nasally monotone - he was trying to calm her down. So he's going "Okay, Naomi ... " 

My entire family does that now when somebody goes all drama llama.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.
> ...



This is true.  Even in ultra-liberal Oregon and California the people voted to ban gay marriage (which proves pretty clearly that the anti-gay agenda is not exclusively a conservative institution).  However, since those votes were taken society has apparently changed its mind according to the polls. 

Regardless, you cannot violate the United States Constitution even if the people want to.  The judges that have ruled in favor of gay marriage are not being activist in their opinions.  Quite the contrary they are being very conservative in their interpretation of the constitution: whether the people want it or not, you can't deny equal access to the law and deny rights to a certain demographic and not others.

Now according to the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) spelled out by the SCOTUS a law must meet three criteria:

1) It must have a secular purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It may not cause excessive entanglement between government and religion

Now if someone can provide me with a secular argument that neither advances nor inhibits religion and does not cause excessive entanglement between government and religion that explains why homosexuals should not receive equal access to the law and should not receive the same rights as any other United States citizen, I am certainly willing to hear it.  And good luck finding one because even the lawyers for the anti-gay establishment haven't been able to find one.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Apparently you can't even read. Where exactly did I write anything about everyone turning gay? Too bad you are too stupid to follow a fairly simple discussion.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



That sounds like your intellectual level, yes.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And you have arbitrarily decided that this particular norm should not change?

I understand that we achieve much as a society.  But the freedoms of the individual are paramount, and should never be dissolved for the "good of society".   It is also paramount that the individual not be forced to fit a preconceived notion of what is normal, simply to satisfy society.  If it harms no one, there should be no restrictions against it.

And my other questions were good questions as well.  That you have no good answer does not change that.

Have you come up with any details or examples of how gay marriage "undermines society"?  Because that was a very valid question that was asked of you.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal? 

Wouldn&#8217;t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I&#8217;m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the *power of choice* in the hands of *the individual*.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect  our rights and our property. It&#8217;s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily. 

.
.
.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Okay, now you're just sulking.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



If you follow that through logically the obvious solution is the abolition of marriage in civil law.


----------



## garyganu (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.  

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.



Go read the polls again.  It's actually the majority of the nation who want to change this social norm.



Artevelde said:


> As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.



That's your opinion which is probably influenced by your religious beliefs.  Give me a secular argument as to why gay marriage should be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage or how gay marriage has a negative impact on a family unit.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.
> 
> Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?



It's legal in San Francisco.  So long as they put a towel on a public chair they are using they are free to walk around nude if they wish....and they do.  I would ask why we think we should cover up and scream every time a child sees us naked.  It teaches them to be ashamed of their bodies.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.
> ...



You are the one turning this into a religious argument, not me. I haven't referred to religion a single time in this discussion. Why are you obsessed with religion?


----------



## garyganu (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.
> ...



So you can walk around nude in the streets of San Francisco? I don't think so. But why don't you go ahead and try.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I am all for removing the gov't from the marriage equation.  And removing the benefits that go with it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Some people yes.......others definitely no


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



This is hardly a whim.

But the important distinction you are ignoring is that these gay couples are already living together in our society.  They are already productive members of our society.  They are often already raising children.  We simply think they should have the same gov't benefits for doing so.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

And if anybody sees Isaiah Mustafa out there in the buff, you better call me!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE]Old Spice | The Man Your Man Could Smell Like - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I dont believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk. 

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am *free to choose,* vs a  communist state where the government makes those choices for me. 

What about you?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is a whim. You point it out yourself by writing that they are already living together. Obviously they are, so what?

And government benefits as an argument? Please. Personally, I don't see why there should be any government benefits to being married.


----------



## garyganu (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Wow, Your statement is proof that the gay marriage debate IS destroying the institution of marriage. 

However, I do agree that the federal government shout stay out of it. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. I also believe in a Flat tax with no deductions for anyone, the rich, the poor or the married.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



You know, its interesting that the conservatives claim to be about smaller and less intrusive gov't.   But they want plenty of regulations concerning personal issues that effect no one.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well after tomorrow and the amendment get's past  gay marriage is dead in the water for North Carolina that is.




Until a few years down the road when it repealed by a vote just like it was passed.

What can be enacted by the vote can be repealed by the vote.



>>>>


----------



## garyganu (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



I would like to live in an environment where local governments do ENFORCE laws against public sex, and disturbingly loud noises in public. How about you?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I would have to agree.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And who determines what those constraints will be??   If no one is harmed, what business is it of anyone else?

Also, any restraints by mutual agreement in society is fine.  But when you use the gov't to reward one couple and withhold that reward from another, without legitimate reason, you have reduced out gov't to an institution of prejudice and bigotry.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Most of the polls I have seen do not show this amendment passing.   So I guess we'll see gay marriages being performed in Ashville in the mountains??



Actually the polls do show it passing, mostly because the people voting don't understand what it really does.

The polls show the majority likely voters support the ban on same-sex marriage component, but don't support the ban on civil unions component.

PPP: NC Marriage Amendment Poised To Pass | TPM Livewire



The fact that this vote was scheduled on the day of the Republican primary I'm sure in coincidental.


>>>>


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Art &#8211; You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you&#8217;re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints? 

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup.  I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they&#8217;re a part of &#8211; so be it. I just don&#8217;t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it&#8217;s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And if it does not pass?  Will you say gay marriage is alive and well for NC?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Every single piece of legislation is the imposition of societal constraints. In most Western countries we have a democratic process for this.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...





Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.




Actually, let last to vote (Prop 8 California, and Question 1 Maine) both passed by less than 3%.

That means 47% voted FOR allowing same-sex couples to be treated the same under the law as different sex couples.


47% is not a "tiny minority", it is a significant minority and history shows that in general that minority has been growing in every demographic examined.



>>>>


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



My statement does nothing of the kind.  In fact, I would argue that removal of the gov't and the benefits would strengthen marriage.   There are couples who marry strictly for the benefits.  That certainly weakens the institution.  Without those benefits and without gov't interference, the institution itself would be stronger.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And any legislation that bans something that does no harm is wrong.  Yes, we have a somewhat democratic process for this.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.
> ...



I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



So what? They should be able to live together with full legal and religious rights accorded. I know this will come as a total shock to you, but some among them are christians, and feel they are living in sin.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And those societal rules are great when they protect someone, or prevent harm.  But to have societal rules (enforced by the gov't) against things you simply find distasteful is simply using the power of the mob to enforce worthless restrictions by busybodies.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Well, most people disagree with you that it does no harm. Many things are banned "that do no harm." And for the record: nothing is "banned" here. Marriage is simply what it is meant to be and not what it is not meant to be.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



So broadcasting hardcore pornography on a big screen in the middle of town shouldn't be banned according to you?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I know you are too stupid to grasp this, but "extrapolation" is not a democratic process.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Kind of extreme example, isn't it?    Also, showing pornography in public would expose children to it.  And that would cause harm.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...











OK, I show you were those who support Same-sex Civil Marriage are not a "tiny minority" based on state actions, now the claim is that those who support Same-sex Civil Marriage are only a tiny fraction of the US population.  Yet voting history comparing 2000/2004 and 2008/2009 shows huge shifts in the support for Same-sex Civil Marriage and polling data going back 25-years shows a consent trend in continued support.


Any way you slice it, voting history or polling history - the idea that support for Same-sex Civil Marriage only exists in a "tiny minority" or "tiny fraction" of the population is - well - false.


>>>>


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Christ! It's like the entire season of Dancing With the Stars being broadcast in one thread. You make a good point, he switches partners and does the fandango. Then the cha-cha. Then the morange. The the foxtrot, generally at the end of whiskey-tango.

Pick a hill and die on it. You lose, you lose but you've changed the dance so many times, half the board is seasick.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Meant by whom?

And yes, there is something banned here.   Gays are banned from receiving the gov't benefits for marrying the person they choose.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I know you're too stupid to grasp this, but you can't throw away the rest of the world and declare California's 47% a tiny fraction of fuck-all anything.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It may come as a shock to you, but I know quite a few homosexual people, including friends of mine.

That being said, how come you are so dumb that you don't realize that people who contract a civil marriage will still not be married religiously and therefore will still not be married as Christians (or other religions for that matter). And why do you bring in religious marriage in a discussion about civil marriage? Are you too ignorant to differentiate between the two?


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Yes, bacause that minority of Californians are so much more "enlightened" than all the other people in the rest of the world I guess? Can you be more provincial and narrow-minded?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




Art &#8211; Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from *infringing on my rights*, such as burglary, or assault. 

However, as for things that don&#8217;t infringe on the rights and property of others &#8211; such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect &#8211; these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals. 





.
.
.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Christ! It's like the entire season of Dancing With the Stars being broadcast in one thread. You make a good point, he switches partners and does the fandango. Then the cha-cha. Then the morange. The the foxtrot, generally at the end of whiskey-tango.
> 
> Pick a hill and die on it. You lose, you lose but you've changed the dance so many times, half the board is seasick.



I realize you're intellectually challenged.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Because I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not in some way based upon religious dogma.  Even the suggestion that homosexuality is immoral or leads to the downfall of society is religious in nature.  It is religion that has forced this belief of homosexual immorality into people's brains.  There is simply no secular argument to make against gay marriage and *THAT'S *why the courts keep deciding in favor of gay rights.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No problem:



> Public nudists in San Francisco will have to cover up *in certain situations* under legislation given unanimous initial approval Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.
> 
> The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener, prohibits public nudity in restaurants and outlaws sitting on benches or other public seating in the city without placing clothing or other material atop the seat first.



In other words it's perfectly fine to walk around nude as long as you are not in a restaurant and you must put a towel down on a public seat.  Other than that you are good to go.

San Francisco Supes Approve Public Nudity Restrictions « CBS San Francisco

Public nudity in San francisco is legal


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Well, just to set the record straight (I know it&#8217;s off topic), but there are many Christian Churches who will marry same-sex couples.

If you're gay and a member of a church that does NOT marry same-sex, well too bad, it&#8217;s up to the individual to choose what private organizations that wish to be a part of. 

.
.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Again, you are the one bringing religion into this, not me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Art, you fuckin' meathead, listen up!  Your opinion is not the basis of law.  The Constitution is: got that, meathead?

(now talking normally) 47% is a very, very, very signficant minority, which in itself on this issue informs the future.  Because the great majority (MAJORITY) of the forty and younger generations favor universal marriage, as their numbers grow larger as your generation dies off, the likliness of universal marriage extrapolates into an almost certainty.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



If same sex individuals are allowed to be recognized as "married" under the law, how is that going to &#8211; in any way &#8211; infringe on any of your personal rights or freedoms as a citizen of the United States of America?



.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Yes, it involves more than one person.  And, in this case, both parties want to be married.

As for involving society, I would argue against that.  Since the couple in question is probably living together already, changing from living together to married would only effect them.  They would receive the benefits the gov't give married couples.  But society would be uneffected.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You know very well that you're talking about a fringe, which calls itself Christian, but wouldn't be recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of the Christian community in the World. As a matter of fact, any Christian would consider somebody making such a mockery of one of the sacraments as far more sinful than somebody living together unmarried.

You really are extremely provincial. You need to try to look outside your own limited backyard a bit more.


----------



## Artevelde (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



If society would be unaffected by that, then this would mean that marriage is a completely meaningless institution. And there again, you've proven my point.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



This is the question I have yet to see properly answered.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



What?   lol   You are dancing the two-step now.

That society is uneffected by gay marriage does not equate to marriage being a meaningless institution.  

Society was not effected when my wife and I married.  So was it a meaningless institution already??

Unless you have some reasons society was effected by my marriage or way it would be effected by gays marrying?


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



"He can do the innuendo, he can dance and sing ..." - Name That TUNE!!!


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



And without a religious argument there is *no *argument to be made.  And since a religious argument is irrelevant in the eyes of the courts then gay marriage must be accepted as legal.  There's *no *other way around it.  Now you can personally approve or disapprove all you want, but your personal approval means *nothing *in regards to what is legal and constitutional.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> "He can do the innuendo, he can dance and sing ..." - Name That TUNE!!!



"He can dance if he wants to.  He can leave his friends behind.  'Cause his friends don't dance and if they don't dance well they're no friends of mine."


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> You know very well that you're talking about a fringe, which calls itself Christian, but wouldn't be recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of the Christian community in the World. As a matter of fact, any Christian would consider somebody making such a mockery of one of the sacraments as far more sinful than somebody living together unmarried.
> 
> You really are extremely provincial. You need to try to look outside your own limited backyard a bit more.



You mean fringe as opposed to....say.....Westboro Baptist Church for example?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Because there is *no *answer that can be made except: "it won't".  Therefore the question will be ignored.  Same with my challenge for someone to provide an argument that meets the standards of the Lemon Test as to why homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and be denied their rights as US citizens.  There is no argument that *can *be made....hence why the challenge has been ignored.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




The song name is the same as what I have a pile of...Dirty Laundry.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The question is not: does this action have an effect on society?

The question is instead: will this sort of action infringe on the rights and property of other individuals within the society? If the answer is &#8220;yes&#8221;, then it should be regulated. 

It&#8217;s really a very simple concept to grasp. 
.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bluephantom said:


> artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > bluephantom said:
> ...



this!!!!


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > "He can do the innuendo, he can dance and sing ..." - Name That TUNE!!!
> ...



Naw, man!!  "Dirty Laundry."

We can do "The Innuendo" 
We can dance and sing 
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing 
We all know that Crap is King 
Give us dirty laundry!


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Good point.

/toddles off to see if the W&D are available


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I think that's because there exists no good answer to the question.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...




It infringes on religious freedom, religions should be free to dictate public policy as it pertains to other people with the force of the secular government.


Instead of an individual saying "My belief is that homosexuality is wrong, therefore **I** will not engage in homosexual activity or marry someone of the same sex"  they feel that means religious freedom means "My belief is that homosexuality is wrong, therefore **others** will not engage in homosexual activity or marry someone of the same sex".



>>>>


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was born normal I have never had any desire or thoughts of having any type of a relationship with a male other than friendship.
> 
> I love pussy so much since I left it the day I was born I am still trying to get back in it 50 years later.



Really weird post Bigrebnc.

Daily affirmations, lol?

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I was born normal I have never had any desire or thoughts of having any type of a relationship with a male other than friendship.
> ...



It's not my fault you don't like pussy like I do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


It's not going to happen
Many voters still dont understand what the amendment would accomplish, pollster Tom Jensen said, noting that a majority of North Carolinians support some legal recognition for same-sex couples. Opponents of the amendment had an uphill battle in convincing voters that it was anything other than a referendum on gay marriage, even though it does go a lot further than that by forbidding civil unions and domestic partnerships, he said.

Jensen, whose firm worked for the anti-amendment campaign, believes the vote could get even more support, possibly as high as 59 percent. The vote brought a half-million people to the polls to vote early, exceeding even the huge jump in voting for the 2008 Democratic presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Read more here: Final poll gives North Carolina marriage amendment clear advantage - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Big - as a happily married adult male, I want to let you know that you sound like a fourth grade child.



.
.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



He sounds like Beavis/Butthead.

And we all know that those who actually ARE getting it, don't talk about it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

Does anybody here own a 'science-to-English' handbook?

BMC Genetics | Full text | Male-like sexual behavior of female mouse lacking fucose mutarotase


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Is that the best you can do? The old adults don't talk about such things? Or if someone talks about getting pussy they ain't getting any? Thats one of the things that is wrong with Americans they don't talk about it. They are too fucking scared of the PC police.  I really don't care how many people know how I like pussy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Way after my time


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It's more like ... the button that lets people know what is or isn't appropriate? You don't have one.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Nope. Same as it ever was. You are showing a serious lack of class.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You might try being a fan of women in general.   Focusing solely on a single orifice means you miss out on much to be relished and enjoyed.


----------



## BDBoop (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Well, his wife pretends she's sleeping, so he depends on salt peter. I feel sorry for the poor old sod.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It was just a bizarre post, Big. It's not every day that you come across adults who reaffirm to random internet people that they like vaginas and have been wanting to get back in one (?) ever since they were born. 

It was just a little unsettling, big, and caught my attention.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...


OH no I love walking in the moon light holding hands talking with my wife about what we want as a family, watching those chick flicks with my wife But I still love pussy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 7, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Thank you I'll place another order in for more saltpeter.


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > You know very well that you're talking about a fringe, which calls itself Christian, but wouldn't be recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of the Christian community in the World. As a matter of fact, any Christian would consider somebody making such a mockery of one of the sacraments as far more sinful than somebody living together unmarried.
> ...



No, I mean every bit as fringe as the idiots you are referring to. I have nothing but contempt for that so-called Westboro Baptist Church.


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Talk about circular reasoning.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Well now why is that?  They are simply motivated to drive out homosexuality in our society.  They exercise their constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and they further the anti-gay agenda which you clearly endorse.  They are your allies, pal. The only difference is they have the balls to actually say what other religious nut jobs are thinking in secret.  I will give them credit for *that *at least. 

See the point is that a church agreeing to marry a same sex couple is not at all making a mockery of scriptures.  Now it may be making a mockery of fundamentalist Christian belief, but that rarely has very much to do with what the scriptures say.  They are two completely different things. Indeed, to suggest that the Bible or Jesus spoke against homosexuality is what is making a mockery of the scriptures.

Read here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/214918-the-bible-and-gay-relationships-4.html#post5037034


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Talk about deflection.  I will pose the challenge again: provide an argument that meets the standards of the Lemon Test as to why homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and be denied their rights as US citizens.  I notice that in all the gay bashing going on, no one seems willing to accept that challenge. Everyone is simply misdirecting, deflecting, blah, blah, blah. 

I will concede on this very day that homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and they should be denied their rights as US citizens and all you have to do is provide the argument I ask for.

It's been what....three days since I asked for the argument?  I am patiently waiting.


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



It would seem you are every bit as much a bigot as the Westboro crowd. And in that sense, you really are perverted.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Good Lord.  Mr. Pot I would like you to meet Mr. Kettle. Now what in the world has led you to that conclusion?


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I actually read what you write and I can see that you are a bigot.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Jesus man.....is this all you can do?  "_You're a bigot because I say so_."  "_Gays suck because I say so._"  "_they are making a mockery of scripture because I say so._" "_Fuck the Lemon Test.  We should ignore the constitution and gay marriage should be banned because....well....because I say so._"  "_Damn...Blue hit me with that Lemon Test challenge again and since I can't meet that challenge I will.....*I KNOW*....call *him *a bigot to divert from the point._"


----------



## KevinWestern (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Why don't you make an attempt at Blue's challenge - what are you waiting for?

.


----------



## Artevelde (May 8, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Where did I say "Gays suck"? You said that, not me.
Where did I refer to scripture? You did.
Where did I say the Constitution should be ignored?

Are you too stupid to read? I don't think so. You are simply so bigotted that you can't get over the fact that somebody doesn't agree with you. Therefore, you are a bigot.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Where did I say "Gays suck"? You said that, not me.



Word for word...you didn't.  But that's essentially your message




Artevelde said:


> Where did I refer to scripture? You did.



Technically, you referred to the sacraments...however, the sacraments are supposed to be based upon scripture are they not?



Artevelde said:


> You know very well that you're talking about a fringe, which calls itself Christian, but wouldn't be recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of the Christian community in the World. As a matter of fact, any Christian would consider somebody making such a mockery of one of the sacraments as far more sinful than somebody living together unmarried.





Artevelde said:


> Where did I say the Constitution should be ignored?



If you oppose gay marriage you are ignoring the constitution.



Artevelde said:


> Are you too stupid to read? I don't think so. You are simply so bigotted that you can't get over the fact that somebody doesn't agree with you. Therefore, you are a bigot.



You may want to check your definitions.  I think on this thread I have a) listened to every opposing view offered and responded, b) for the most part avoided resorting to personal attacks, c) made it clear on several occasions that those who oppose gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions and defended their right to hold and express those opinions, d) refuted the claims you (and others) have made with a reasonable degree of respectfulness while providing supporting documentation when necessary to enforce my position.

What you are doing now is trying desperately to ignore the challenge I have made because you know good and damned well you can not meet the challenge and instead you are attacking me personally in the hope that the challenge will be forgotten and you won't be stuck to the wall on a point you know good and well you can't win.

Typical stuff really.  I am starting to think you are a tenured professor at the _*rDean Institute of Scholarly Debate*_.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 8, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Arte, why do you hate so badly?


----------



## BDBoop (May 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



He'll never know. He would have to check himself, and that won't be happening. He's focusing how he feels about HIM on THEM.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 8, 2012)

Eliminating the governments role in issuing civil marriage licenses, AKA "marriage privatization", won't work and is not in the best interest of the gay and lesbian community.

It's great sound bites for libertarians and conservatives who want only the churches to marry citizens.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 8, 2012)

Religion has the right to make its own private rules.  The state has no interest in regulating religion.  Thus the state can issue civil union licenses and leave marriages to the churches.  If a homosexual or heterosexual want to be married, they can go to the church of their choice.  If said couple is atheist but wants a marriage, let him or her go to a universalist minister.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 8, 2012)

Sky Dancer said:


> Eliminating the governments role in issuing civil marriage licenses, AKA "marriage privatization", won't work and is not in the best interest of the gay and lesbian community.
> 
> It's great sound bites for libertarians and conservatives who want only the churches to marry citizens.



And what kind of a sound byte is it for the 56.63% of the voters in ultra-liberal Oregon who voted in favor of Ballot Measure 36 in 2004 which amended the state constitution banning gay marriage?  How about the overwhelming liberal majority in the state legislature that refused to recognize civil unions? 

How about ultra-liberal Michigan? What kind of a sound byte does it make for that liberal state that voted 59% in favor of State Proposal 04-02 that not only banned gay marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnership benefits?

How about Proposition 8 in California? 52.24% voted in favor of banning gay marriage in that liberal stronghold. How are those sound bytes working out for them?

The anti-homosexual movement is not limited to conservatives and libertarians.  Liberal politicians love to claim that the Democratic party is a friend to the GLBT community but it's complete bullshit.  They take action *only *when they are dragged kicking and screaming, usually in an election year so they can give the appearance of giving a shit, and usually the action they take is as minimal as possible so they can get the votes they need and then push them to the side again. Liberal voters have shown pretty clearly that despite the friendly rhetoric coming from the DNC, they sure aint no ally of the gay community.  Oh and don't even try the "Republican obstructionism" angle.  Liberals had the white house and Super-majorities in both houses of Congress for two years and what did they do for the gay community?  Not a *fucking *thing. As the election year started to close in they got rid of DADT.....yippie fucking skippy. So save your breath on that one.

So cut the "libertarians and conservatives" bullshit.  Liberals are just as much to blame for the despicable treatment the GLBT community receives as anyone else.


----------



## Toro (May 8, 2012)

A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate is to allow gay people to get married. 

It's going to happen anyways. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Word for word...you didn't.  But that's essentially your message



Thanks for admitting that you are a liar.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Technically, you referred to the sacraments...however, the sacraments are supposed to be based upon scripture are they not?



I only referred to the sacraments when somebody changed the topic of discussion and started about religious marriage. I never referred to the sacraments when I talked about civil marriage.

Again, you're a liar.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> If you oppose gay marriage you are ignoring the constitution.



Really funny circular reasoning.

So you're contention is that for the past 225 years the whole of the US has been ignoring the constitution?


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> You may want to check your definitions.  I think on this thread I have a) listened to every opposing view offered and responded, b) for the most part avoided resorting to personal attacks, c) made it clear on several occasions that those who oppose gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions and defended their right to hold and express those opinions, d) refuted the claims you (and others) have made with a reasonable degree of respectfulness while providing supporting documentation when necessary to enforce my position.
> 
> What you are doing now is trying desperately to ignore the challenge I have made because you know good and damned well you can not meet the challenge and instead you are attacking me personally in the hope that the challenge will be forgotten and you won't be stuck to the wall on a point you know good and well you can't win.
> 
> Typical stuff really.  I am starting to think you are a tenured professor at the _*rDean Institute of Scholarly Debate*_.



No, in this posting you have again been illustrating how you simply can't tolerate the fact that somebody disagrees with you on this. Somebody who disagrees with you on gay marriage has to be anti-gay, anti-constitutional and can only be motivated by religion. You decide tyhat for other people.

You and Joseph McCarthy would have gotten on famously.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



You've got that backwards. You are the hater of diversity here, not me.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

Sky Dancer said:


> Eliminating the governments role in issuing civil marriage licenses, AKA "marriage privatization", won't work and is not in the best interest of the gay and lesbian community.
> 
> It's great sound bites for libertarians and conservatives who want only the churches to marry citizens.



Ah, there still are some people with a functioning brain left in this thread.


----------



## Artevelde (May 9, 2012)

Toro said:


> A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate is to allow gay people to get married.
> 
> It's going to happen anyways. It's just a matter of time.



It's an unreasonable solution to a non-existent problem.

The world will end. That's just a matter of time too. Doesn't mean it's a great thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 9, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Arte, you are now the hater of definitions as well.


----------



## nitroz (May 9, 2012)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 9, 2012)

nitroz said:


>



Dumb ass where is it legal to marry your cousin in North Carolina?


----------



## nitroz (May 9, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



statelaws

It's legal, but with exceptions.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 9, 2012)

nitroz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > nitroz said:
> ...



Activists, victims and prosecutors have lobbied over the last few years to change the law and similar statutes in 36 other states. By 2003, North Carolina, Illinois and Arkansas had repealed their incest exception laws; it's hoped that California's change will increase the ripple effect.
Incest Exception | Ending an awful irony - Los Angeles Times


----------



## BDBoop (May 9, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Word for word...you didn't.  But that's essentially your message
> ...



I've noticed you have a tendency to say that when you lost the argument.

Thanks for admitting you lost.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 9, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > You may want to check your definitions.  I think on this thread I have a) listened to every opposing view offered and responded, b) for the most part avoided resorting to personal attacks, c) made it clear on several occasions that those who oppose gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions and defended their right to hold and express those opinions, d) refuted the claims you (and others) have made with a reasonable degree of respectfulness while providing supporting documentation when necessary to enforce my position.
> ...



Do you realize you just posted four times in a row continuing to attempt to deflect from the point? How many times do I have to ask for this?  This is exactly what it all comes down torovide an argument that meets the standards of the Lemon Test as to why homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and be denied their rights as US citizens.

The Lemon Test again has three criteria and they are very simple:

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor hinder religion
3) It may not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion

Now cut out the personal attacks and the desperate attempts to avoid answering the question.  Provide the argument that meets those three criteria.  If you can't (and it's pretty *obvious *you can't) then be a man and say "I can't provide one". I imagine you will gain far more respect by simply saying "I can't" rather than throwing a tantrum and calling people liars, bigots, etc because of your inability to provide a legitimate legal argument.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 9, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> No, in this posting you have again been illustrating how you simply can't tolerate the fact that somebody disagrees with you on this.



BTW...you seem to be the one throwing the tantrum, not me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 9, 2012)

No one gives a shit if gays get married. It affects no one.
Only politicians pandering for votes and old mother hen busy bodies care if gays get married.
It is a non issue to everyone else with a brain.


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I know honesty isn't your strong point. But can you point out where I said anything anywhere near "gays suck"? I didn't, because that is not my opinion. 

I can say however that in my opinion you are pretty pathetic.


----------



## BDBoop (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I guess that would matter - if I actually ascribed value to your opinion.


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I can't help it that you are too stupid to read and have to resort to lies.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.


----------



## nitroz (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.



Last I remember, People didn't want government defining marriage and insisted that it should be left to the churches.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

nitroz said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.
> ...



Marriage is a government institution. We can't deny that at this point. But frankly, I'd be for govt. not sanctioning marriage any longer before I'd be for govt. needlessly endorsing gay marriage as a means to endorse the morality of one's sexual proclivities.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.



Again, why are you so concerned with it? 

I mean, despite you going on about Obama's "shaft" and some lurid fantasies. (ever notice homophobes are the first ones to graphically describe gay sex in the most lurid terms like bad slash-fic?) I'll assume you are totally straight. At least as straight as Rush Limbaugh, anyway.  

Gays can get married.  How does this effect your life in any way shape or form?


----------



## JoeB131 (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



So you'd burn down the clubhouse before you'd let them in?


----------



## Toro (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Big Gubmint Conservative


----------



## Toro (May 10, 2012)

nitroz said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.
> ...



I don't want only the church to define marriage.  Marriage is also a legal contract, and I don't want the church to be the sole determiner of the law.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.



How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.
> ...



Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I think marriage is a union between any two adult, consenting humans who love each other and wish to spend their lives together...

.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize you just posted four times in a row continuing to attempt to deflect from the point? How many times do I have to ask for this?  This is exactly what it all comes down torovide an argument that meets the standards of the Lemon Test as to why homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and be denied their rights as US citizens.
> ...



In other words you can't. And since you can't provide an argument that meets those criteria (which isn't terribly shocking because neither can anyone else including the lawyers arguing in favor of banning gay marriage) then it mean that you have no legal basis upon which to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights.  So you are endorsing an unconstitutional position.  That a) runs contrary to conservatives' claim of being "defenders of the constitution" and b) explains perfectly why, despite claims from conservatives about "activist judges", the courts keep ruling in favor of gay marriage.


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children should be able to marry according to you?


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I have on several occasions offered my rationale why gay marriage is a bad idea. You have simply chosen to ignore my arguments.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Frankly, I don't care. What are we talking maybe 1 couple out of every 500,000 or more in America? 

Zero effect on society.


----------



## Artevelde (May 10, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



If marriage is that insignificant to you then the logical thing would be to simply abolish marriage in civil law.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh you have already provided that argument?  Oh well, fantastic.  Just tell me what the post numbers are and I will have a look.  Now I have seen you make some argument's yes, but none that meet the standards of the Lemon Test.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



No, what I said was insignificant is the number of people who would actually want to take part in an incestuous marriage. 

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2012)

Here's a suggestion let everybody marry whom or what they want to marry as many times as they want to marry and when they want.  no divorces


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Yes, we should ban mass murderers from marrying.

I am sure we will save this nation from every problem we face if we ban two people that are committed to each other of the same sex to get married.
Just last night I woke up shocked by the fact that somewhere near me there may be 2 men or 2 women that love each other laying in their bed as they sleep. Then I had this terrible thought? What if they want to get married? I spent the rest of the night worrying about the devestating impact that would have on my life, my marriage and career if 2 gays or 2 lesbians were allowed to have a wedding ceremony to get married. If that was allowed I just do not know how I could go on with my life. What would be the purpose in my life if those 2 homosexuals were allowed to get married and make that kind of commitment to each other?
And now we have those that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and set all of us at ease. We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the GOVERNMENT what it can not do which is what the Constitution was founded on.
No, we do not need tax reform, we do not need to end the massive deficit, we do not need energy reform, healthcare reform, tax reform and earmark reform. We do not need fiscal responsibily.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marrying and all of a sudden that makes us a moral nation again over night and everything else is solved.


----------



## garyganu (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Why not redefine the word parent. If a parent is some one that loves you, and your friend loves, you then your friend can be your parent and sign your report card in grade school.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



"Why not" is all you have.
Gay marriage is a non issue. No one gives a shit if gays get married except busy bodies and fools.
Non issue. Quit wasting your time.


----------



## garyganu (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Then why was gay marriage banned in all 32 states that had a popular vote on the issue?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Because the voters are dumb masses.
Where was the popular vote on ending the deficit, tax reform, earmark reform, healthcare competition and the other 137 issues more important than gay marriage?
How stupid does that make you feel that once again the politicians have conned you?
Gay marriage more important to you than the deficit. Wow. 
Don't you see that ONLY at election time do these issues come up?
Where is gay marriage on your list of priorities? Is it the #1 issue with you.
It is to those that want votes on bans for it. If not then how come NO other popular votes on the other issues?
Where is gay marriage on your priority list of the issues we have in this country?
137th or 138th?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Gays care about getting married, and Americans who want to live in an equal, just, and unbiased Nation care about it as well.

Not a non-issue.

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Here's a suggestion let everybody marry whom or what they want to marry as many times as they want to marry and when they want.  no divorces



Why are gays given special rights over pedophiles or those who like incest, or those who are into Bestiality?


----------



## BDBoop (May 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a suggestion let everybody marry whom or what they want to marry as many times as they want to marry and when they want.  no divorces
> ...



Okay. If we let you marry your sister and your favorite stump-trained cow, will you agree to gays getting married.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

As an owner of 3 corporations gay marriage is a non issue.
I have 137 other more important issues to face each day.
Amazing how easily the dumb masses be they liberal kook or right wing kook are manipulated.
Can you please specifically tell us how banning gay marriage affects society and how those bans will change one thing in America.
How does banning gay marriage specifically affect your life? 
How would gay marriage affect you in any way?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a suggestion let everybody marry whom or what they want to marry as many times as they want to marry and when they want.  no divorces
> ...



They are not.  Someone who has been convicted of child molestation and has served his/her prison term is perfectly free to marry if they choose. Frankly, they have more rights than gays who have committed no crime.  For incest there are genetic reasons regarding offspring that make it legitimately illegal.  For those underage, our society has determined that if you are not 16 or 18 (depending on the state) you do not have the capacity to legally consent to sexual relations, although with parental approval someone under the age of consent can indeed marry.  And when the day comes that chickens and goats have the capacity to give consent...knock yourself out if you are so inclined.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



OH BUT NO

 What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




My question was why aren't those right of people protected that like that kind of stuff? Or is it that you see them as abnormal?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 10, 2012)

Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.


 It's called cause and effect.

When do we stop giving special right to everybody.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.



Thousands of posts and nobody has identified a compelling need for government sanctioned gay marriage.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> As an owner of 3 corporations gay marriage is a non issue.
> I have 137 other more important issues to face each day.
> Amazing how easily the dumb masses be they liberal kook or right wing kook are manipulated.
> Can you please specifically tell us how banning gay marriage affects society and how those bans will change one thing in America.
> ...



Wow. So you bought stock in McDonalds, Starbucks and Taco Bell?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 10, 2012)

> Why are gays given special rights over pedophiles or those who like incest, or those who are into Bestiality?



Theyre not. Everyone has a right to equal access to the law. Homosexuals are seeking nothing new or different. 



> My question was why aren't those right of people protected that like that kind of stuff?



Because they dont have a right to engage in those activities, the state has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities supported by evidence. 

Thats not the case where states prohibit same-sex couples access to marriage laws. 



> Thousands of posts and nobody has identified a compelling need for government sanctioned gay marriage.



That because the burden lies with the government to justify its desire to preempt a given right, supported by evidence. There is no need for government to justify its compliance with the Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Its always nice to see those who oppose gay marriage repeatedly ignore posts explaining things that ruin their "if we let gays marry then the next thing someone will want to marry their dog!" nonsense.

Let me post it for the 4th or 5th time.  It boils down to *consenting adults.*

As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> ...



Special rights?  We want to give ordinary benefits to more people.  Can you see the difference?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Classifying marriage as a mere right is shortsighted. It's an institution that serves a societal purpose.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Indeed it does.  And besides having children without outside assistance, gay marriages provide all the benefits to society that straight marriages do.  So they should receive the gov't benefits that married couples receive.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 10, 2012)

One of the big complaints from those who oppose gay marriage is that we shouldn't redefine marriage, since it has had the same definition since the beginning of time.

However, this is not true.

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 10, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



No one said it did.  In fact, if your marriage is based on your wife smoking your pole or you munching her carpet, you are debasing the institution.

This is about couples who love each other and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship.

But feel free to tell me what benefits marriage gives society that gay marriage does not?


----------



## BDBoop (May 10, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



It's whose, idiot. Whose.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 11, 2012)

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And the government doesn't need to sanction "love."


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Then what is it sanctioning when you get married?   Its not about pole smoking or carpet munching, and you say its not about love.   What is it about?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There's the implied possibility of a union that could result in children. Were it not so; then the govt. would not have a vested interest.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



So if gays agree to try and have children (with outside assistance) you would go along with them getting married?

Also, if this is the entire basis for a marriage, then post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Plus, shouldn't couples be required to agree to try to have kids at some point in their marriage?  

What about a woman who has had a hystorectomy?   Is she allowed to marry?


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> 
> LOL - Thanks for the tip.



Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 11, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



Yea, that sucks. I religiously stay away from auto pays b/c I'm scatter brained and I forget to cancel and I don't trust people generally when I've even canceled a subscription.


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



They did that $1 thing - I didn't sign up for auto-pay, that's what has me so torqued. I did a quick search. They're pretty much famous for this particular game. So, either they cancel when I call them tomorrow, or I cancel my debit card so they can't continue to play this game. Either way, I had a fit of the major ballistics on their behalf this evening.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I am the same way.  The few times I have done it I always forgot and paid more than I wanted.

Plus I am paranoid that they will ignore the cancellation.


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Exactly. So - the minute they choose not to, I cancel my card. 

I am having mad chats with myself about not swearing at them tomorrow. I'm a claims intake rep. I know this is not the fault of the person at the other end of the phone.

I will behave.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.



If you allowed people to marry animals that wouldn't change anybody else's marriage either. But I still think it wouldn't be a good idea. Do you?


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



So you

a) feel it is every bit as much their "civil right" as that of gays and it should therefore absolutely be allowed

b) feel that whether something is a "civil right" boils down to numbers?


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The discussion is not about "banning" something, but about introducing a completely new concept of marriage and tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> ...



Still ignoring the Consenting Adults thing?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



There are records of the Catholic Church having men marrying men hundreds of years ago.


from:  anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

"Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) recorded."


"These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."


"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No I'm not and if you read my earlier postings you would know that I don't. I was responding to another fallacious argument here.

As for the consenting adults, this means you favour allowing adult brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children to marry?


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...





Complete nonsense, with about the same credibility as all the other wacko theories which are posted on the internet.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



You are welcome to go to the link and contact the author.  There are also mentions of several religious icons (tapestries and other art work) depicting the marrying of two men.  

Feel free to debunk it at your leisure.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Just because two people are depicted together on an icon doesn't mean they are married. I looked at the link. It has all the hallmarks of the typical kind of historical falsehoods read into images from the past. If you knew anything about historiography, you would know that this is - sadly - a common phenomenon.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right??   My contention all along has been that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all.  But if it is going to be, it should not bestow benefits on one group and deny them to another. 

The only two semi-rational reasons I have ever seen for this are based either on religion or on an appeal to history.  Neither of which should carry any weight.

So before you go out and call someone a hypocrite, do that the time to make sure you know what you are talking about.  I have made my views quite clear.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The John E. Boswell Lecture | CLGS

That link shows that Prof. Boswell's book was lauded in high academic circles and underwent peer review.

"In 1975 Dr. Boswell joined the Yale University faculty as an assistant professor after studying at the College of William and Mary and Harvard University. In 1990 he was named the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale where he later served a two-year term as the chair of the history department."


Studied at William & Mary and at Harvard.  Became a professor at Yale.  Served 2 years as chair of the history department at Yale.  Not a bad resume.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



People with far more impressive resumes have written even greater nonsense. But I see you don't address the facts that he doesn't have any real documentaru evidence for his claim. Crancks like these can be found very easily throughout academia.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Your views clear? I think not. In any event, I see you are too cowardly to answer the question on consenting siblings and parents and children.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



It's not nice to see that you ignore one thing animals cannot give consent for anything. They are sold monthly for breeding stock. Do they give their consent then? Do they give their consent to used as food? Please enlighten us.



> As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal



Would people going to jail be enough reason to say it's illegal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



One thing animals can't give consent for anything they are used for food did we get their consent for that? They are used for breed stock do they consent to be used for that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?


----------



## tjvh (May 11, 2012)

Why not set up a Reservation where all the Gays can live in peace with their own set of Rights and Laws written as they see fit. I mean reeeeeeally. They demand special status when they become victims of a crime, they want all the benefits which are allowed Married people (those who do in fact produce offspring), which includes Employment, Medical, and Tax benefits, etc. ENOUGH ALREADY. For a group that demands EQUAL treatment... They sure do ask for A LOT. It's time to look at THE most discriminated person in America... The single male who likes girls, who do NOT enjoy those financial benefits Gay people so actively seek.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Why not set up a Reservation where all the Gays can live in peace with their own set of Rights and Laws written as they see fit. I mean reeeeeeally. They demand special status when they become victims of a crime, they want all the benefits which are allowed Married people (those who do in fact produce offspring), which includes Employment, Medical, and Tax benefits, etc. ENOUGH ALREADY. For a group that demands EQUAL treatment... They sure do ask for A LOT. It's time to look at THE most discriminated person in America... The single male who likes girls, who do NOT enjoy those financial benefits Gay people so actively seek.



Intermcamps? Thats would go over really good.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> ...



Pissing off the religious kooks, that's a pretty compelling need.  

Or at least it would be funny.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 11, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
> ...



It is not government sanctioned. 
It is equal protection under the existing laws of obtaining a marriage license.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



So you also oppose mass murderers from marrying. 
Start a thread on that. 
Sure, right.
Gay marriage is a non issue the same as mass murderers getting married.
Same as child molestors getting married.
You want to deny someone based on their sexuality yet see no problem with allowing it for someone that is a criminal.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Dumbass, Constitutional Amendments in the states all call for a BAN on gay marriage.
You vote yes you vote for the ban.
You vote no you oppose the ban.
Comprende?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


If people have the right to marry what happens when someone is jilted by a lover and the other person does not want to marry them? After all it is their right and the other person is restricting that persons right. Does the other person have the option to sue?


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No, the constitutional amendments in most cases just affirm the actual and current concept of marriage. You may hurl insults, but it would be wiser to learn to read first.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right??   .



Oh I will say it.  Even more importantly the SCOTUS has said it.  Loving v. Virginia (1967)

_



			These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.*

Click to expand...

_


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right??   .
> ...



In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right for same sex marriage.
__________________


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Why does one need new laws to "just affirm" 
That is an uneducated guess.
Existing law does ban gay marriage but constitutional amendments do much more than just affirm. Read the law on those challenges and get back to us. This effectively shuts the door on any court challenges.
Try again next time with an informed post. 
Constitutional changes never "just affirm".
They make, reinforce or change existing law. 
You are the one that needs to read the legislation. Your lack of doing so earns the hurling.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?



There is scripture in the Bible as it is written today that says homosexuality is a sin.  As it was first written?  No...sorry there's not.  I have been over this 1,000 times on USMB and I am not going to type it all out again.  Just go from here and read forward.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 11, 2012)

The leader of the legislation in NC was on TV last night.
"This strenghtens us as a nation" she said.
How does this law strengthen us as a nation?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?
> ...



OH really? OK if God intend for people too have sex with anyone he would have made Adam and Steve and made everybody asexual.

Gen 2:18	¶	And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


Gen 2:19	 	And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Gen 2:20	 	And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


Gen 2:21	 	And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


Gen 2:22	 	And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Gen 2:23	 	And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Gen 2:24	 	Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



 just how exactly do you figure that?  Whether it's illegal in all states or not is completely irrelevant.  An unconstitutional law that is universally enacted is *still *unconstitutional. 

Good Lord, I post a direct quote from the Supreme Court defining marriage as a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man", and you say no it's not.  It directly references the 14th Amendment, due process, and elsewhere in the SCOTUS opinion directly references equal access to and protection under the law in regard to marriage and yet that's irrelevant.   You are free to hold your opinion, pal, but the SCOTUS agrees with me and they carry a lot more weight.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You're not even writing coherently anymore. Learn writing too.


----------



## Artevelde (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage as you know full well. Why this need to lie?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Until that happens loving vs VA is moot.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I am not going to write all this shit out again.  1) I have done it 1000 times.  Just read what I linked to.  2)  God has nothing to do with this issue.  Religion has nothing to do with constitutional law and I am not going to derail the thread so you can quote Bible verses.  It all comes down to Loving v. Virginia and Lemon v. Kurtzman....how many damned times on this thread alone do I have to point to the Lemon Test and how many times will the anti-gay crowd conveniently pretend it doesn't exist?  Since Arte couldn't answer the question, perhaps you can: "*what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?*"

Those criteria are again:

1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2) it can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.


_Loving v. Virginia_ specifically defines marriage as a "*right*" under the 14th Amendment. Now, answer that question and explain how to deny homosexuals their *rights *and remain in compliance with the Lemon Test?


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You can verbalize it however you want, but they cannot marry the person they love, and you can. I can. Anybody who is straight, can. They cannot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



A revised version of the bible? Dude wake the fuck up the homosexual act is unnatural and not of God. It is a sin No matter how much of your perversions try's to make it not a sin.


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The Bible does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how much you want it to.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So you agree family member should be allowed to marry? A person should be allowed to marry as many people as they choose too? is this correct in your view?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I don't think I was the one who brought the Bible up I am just following the comments as they come.


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Let's discuss that after we've finished discussing this. Obviously, you don't have a leg to stand on, or you wouldn't be changing the subject.


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Lemon Law.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Same sex marriage no.  But the specific topic was whether marriage itself was a "*right*" enjoyed by United States citizens.  According to Loving v. Virginia...yes it is a "*right*". It's not a "privilege", it's not a "perk", it's a "*right*".  The SCOTUS defined it twice in that very section I quoted as a "*right*".  And not just a "right" but a "_*vital *right_".

So to deny gays marriage is denying them their "rights" according to Loving v. Virginia.  Now here we go again:  "_what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and *restricting their constitutional rights* under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts?_"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Again  I wasn't the one who brought the bible into the discussion between me and blue I'm just posting rebuttals as the discussion flows.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Translation: he can't answer the question either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


You can't use a case that was designed to rule because of race. When Loving vs VA was ruled on homosexual acts were illegal so Loving vs VA is moot for this issue.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




I actually answered the question.  I don't have a hardline opinion on the matter.  I can see the potential for birth defects in siblings or other close relatives marrying.  But I don't think too much about it.  It is not a huge issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



No it's you who can't answer. Face the facts speaking of the bible why would God create a man and a woman ?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That is because animals are owned.  They cannot legally enter into a contract.

As for polygamy, you showed that it is illegal, not the reason why it is illegal.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I did not say there was a right to marry.  I simply said we want to give the benefits to more people.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He was not addressing whether gay marriage is a right.  BigRed asked whether marriage was a right.  Blue answered that question.  And now you want to pretend a different question was asked so his answer is invalid?


----------



## BDBoop (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Yes. There is a rabbit with a pancake on its head, therefore we need to change the subject.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I clarified my statement their is no right for same sex marriage.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh yeah you *can *pal.  In fact it's been applied *already*. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010)

_



			Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  *Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.*

*The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause*.  See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (&#8220;*[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right*&#8221; and marriage is an &#8220;expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.&#8221; Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (&#8220;The *right *to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.&#8221; Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (&#8220;This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&#8221; *Loving v Virginia*, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The &#8220;freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.&#8221....
		
Click to expand...

_
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2012) points out as well that prior to Proposition 8 same sex marriage was *not *illegal in California...it had simply never been defined.  They write:



> Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Proposition 8's *elimination *of the rights of same sex couples to marry....



The word "elimination" in their decision was emphasized in italics. They make clear that prior to Prop 8 gays *had *the right to marry.  Thus the court has ruled that banning gay marriage is indeed the elimination of rights and not the establishment of new ones.  It was not until 1977 (ten years after Loving v. Virginia) that same-sex marriage was made illegal in California (see page 8).

They further write:



> ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'...
> 
> *We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We conclude that it does.*



In their opinion the 9th Circuit directly references and upholds the opinion by the 8th Circuit in Perry v. Schwartzenegger.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



In regards to legal and constitutional rights the question is totally irrelevant: Lemon v. Kurtzman is very clear that religious dogma has no validity in this regard. I linked you to my previous posts on the Bible and I am not going to allow you to derail the thread into a Biblical debate or a debate on what God intends or does not intend. Those are questions that have no bearing on the legal and constitutional question of gay marriage. 

Here we go again....can't answer so derail, deflect, and twist.  Next you will be calling me a bigot like Arte did when he couldn't answer the question.


----------



## BuddyColt (May 11, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Why would anyone care if someone else marries someone of the same sex?
> 
> What possible difference could it make to you?



I am a newbie here and a Libertarian on most issues.  But, I want to play the devil's advocate here for a moment.

According to the law, marriage is a Right.  Also, by law, marriage is defined in legal dictionaries as a union between one man and one woman.  Yet, virtually everybody that wants to be married goes to the government and obtains a marriage license in order to get married.

Why do so many people forfeit a Right and seek out a license in order to get married?  Licenses are permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do.  Look it up in a* legal *dictionary.

You don't go to the government and say you want to join the XYZ church, do you?  Why?  You have Freedom of Religion.  So, if you have a Right to marry, why ask the government's permission?

The answer to the poster's question is simple:

America was founded as a Christian nation, NOT as a theocracy, but a nation founded on Christian principles.  Any gay couple can go to the church that agrees with gay marriage; they could do a name change in court to have the same last name and the rest of us would be none the wiser.  They would be "married."

The real reason this practice threatens us is that it requires us to validate gay marriage.  People want into the arrangement, NOT because they lack a Right to get married, but for the benefits.  Aside from wanting to change the definition of marriage, the gays want benefits... benefits that most of us feel we're compelled to be a part of whether we like it or not.

For example, we *must* pay for public schools.  So, many parents use the schools and send their children there.  But, although they pay for the schools, even a majority of the parents have little say in WHO teaches their children or what they are taught.  Gay marriage means that people you wholly disagree with will teach your children.  

_To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical._ Thomas Jefferson

Maybe people simply do not want to submit to a yoke of slavery.  If the gays were not getting married primarily for the benefits of marriage that society offers to a man and a woman, gay marriage would be an easier sell.  

The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.  You'll help provide them a job; help subsidize their medical care via insurance premiums, etc.  You do not have a choice.  OTOH, they can live together, go through a ceremony, change their names and live as a "married" couple without the validation of the public.


----------



## amrchaos (May 11, 2012)

divide marriage in to religious marriage and non-religious marriage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Let's go back weren't you the one that brought up the Bible? Now you act as if the Bible is irrelevant? God created man and woman in his perfect plan now man is trying to contaminate that plan with lies and half truths


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Whether the Bible is relevant or not depends on your religious beliefs.

But what is relevant is that the US Constitution expressly forbids having any national religion.  This means we do not base our laws strictly on religious dogma.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Slow down there sparky I wasn't the one who mentioned the bible, but when it's pointed out that your idea of   the bible has holes and then turn around and act as if the Bible is irrelevant that's  bullshit in my opinion don't use it then run away


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I didn't quote the bible.  I quoted a study that showed the Catholic Church performed weddings for two men hundreds of years ago.

I did not claim anything concerning religious views, but showed the fallacy of the "Marriage has been about 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years" argument.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible. But if that's what you are going with? The church that thinks bowing to idols is a good thing so be it.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nice try but that's not what happened, cowboy. Post #613.  Arte said allowing gay marriage would be "tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard."  He's incorrect about it being "thousands" of years...maybe more like 1,500 or so in Western culture but I saw no need to split hairs about the time frame.

Winter produced documentation (however reliable that documentation is can be debated - but documentation nonetheless) that Christianity did not always endorse an anti-homosexual position.

*YOU *referred to "scripture in the Bible" to refute his documentation:



> There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.



[spelling error yours]

I said in post #625 that those scriptures are not reliable and linked to previous posts on the topic most of which which have supporting documentation as well. You responded to my rejection of modern scripture in post #627 by quoting more modern scripture....not by addressing the validity of modern scripture and whether it has been impervious to mistranslation, cultural misinterpretation, political tampering, and the dangerous effects of Midrash just to name a few. 

So sorry to burst your bubble pal but actually you *were *the one who brought the Bible into it.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

BuddyColt said:


> The answer to the poster's question is simple:
> 
> America was founded as a Christian nation, NOT as a theocracy, but a nation founded on Christian principles.  Any gay couple can go to the church that agrees with gay marriage; they could do a name change in court to have the same last name and the rest of us would be none the wiser.  They would be "married."



If you are referring to my question your argument would invalidate your response.  The Lemon Test invalidates "Christian principles" as a basis for law.  At least you tried which is more than Arte or Bigreb have done.




BuddyColt said:


> The real reason this practice threatens us is that it requires us to validate gay marriage.  People want into the arrangement, NOT because they lack a Right to get married....



So you concede that gays DO have the right to marry.  Enough said.  Your personal opinions about it or what motivates them is completely irrelevant.  If they have the right to do it, then they can do it for whatever reason they choose.  End of story.




BuddyColt said:


> The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.



Wow...with only three posts to your name you have already made one of the most asinine statements I have ever seen on these boards.  You and Koshergirl are going to get along very well.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Fruit loop this came from your fucking post



> "Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University&#8217;s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."


You brought up the subject of Christianity try again.
I must ask what is this John Boswell specialty?


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fruit loop this came from your fucking post
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Provide the link to that post.  I never wrote that or anything like it.  Go find the post.

Here I did it for you. That was post #599 by Winter, not me dumb fuck.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...





BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Fruit loop this came from your fucking post
> ...



Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599



bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599



OMG Stimpy you eeediot!  You said in post #662 that the following statement came from me:



> "Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University&#8217;s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."



*No*...that came from Winter in post 599.  Here's the fucking link to where that statement was made and who made it. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/221776-a-reasonable-solution-to-the-gay-marriage-debate-5.html#post5263398


You said in post #659:



> But Blue what ever the rest of his name is did use the bible.



No...I didn't.  *YOU *used the Bible in post #613 when you responded to what Winter write in #599 stating:



> There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin.



I didn't say anything about it until post #625


So let's summarize here:  you inaccurately assign a quote to me in post #662.  That was Winter's statement made in post #599...not mine.

In post #655 you accuse me of being the one to bring up the Bible.  *A blatant lie.* *You *did in post #613 (a response to Winter's comment about early Christian ritual, not mine) and I didn't say anything about it until post #625.

I will give you this though.  It was a damned creative effort on your part to avoid answering my question which I will post yet again: "*what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Court?*" It was also a very creative effort to attempt to weasel out of having to respond to the documentation regarding _Loving v. Virginia_ and _Perry v. Schwartzenegger_ in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am starting to notice the trend with you and Arte: "if you have no argument, just start accusing people of shit"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb ass in the post that you reply to me in reference too was 613 not post 599
> ...





> OMG Stimpy you eeediot! *You said in post #662 that the following statement came from me:


My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.



Very well. Now that we have that cleared up:

1) what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Court? 


2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?  I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh yeah you *can *pal.  In fact it's been applied *already*. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010)

_



			Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  *Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.*

*The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause*.  See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (*[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right* and marriage is an expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (The *right *to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.); *Loving v Virginia*, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.)....
		
Click to expand...

_
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2012) points out as well that prior to Proposition 8 same sex marriage was *not *illegal in California...it had simply never been defined.  They write:



> Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Proposition 8's *elimination *of the rights of same sex couples to marry....



The word "elimination" in their decision was emphasized in italics. They make clear that prior to Prop 8 gays *had *the right to marry.  Thus the court has ruled that banning gay marriage is indeed the elimination of rights and not the establishment of new ones.  It was not until 1977 (ten years after Loving v. Virginia) that same-sex marriage was made illegal in California (see page 8).

They further write:



> ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'...
> 
> *We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We conclude that it does.*



In their opinion the 9th Circuit directly references and upholds the opinion by the 8th Circuit in Perry v. Schwartzenegger.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He was the chair of the history dept at Yale.  He studied at Harvard and at William & Mary.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


The chairman of the Yale history department? And that has what authority with the Bible? and the ancient text?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 11, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > My mistake I have so many new member flying question it's hard to keep track.
> ...



Very well. Now that we have that cleared up:



> 1) what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Court?


Who has been emancipate since the slaves?



> 2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?  I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.


When you can find a case reference dealing with same sex marriages you will have something using a racial court reference is not the same.


----------



## BluePhantom (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> > 1) what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Who has been emancipate since the slaves?



Well women for one but I am not sure I see the point.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> > 2) How do you respond to the documentation regarding Loving v. Virginia and Perry v. Schwartzenegger in the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?  I will repost the argument made before the conversation was so conveniently derailed.
> 
> 
> When you can find a case reference dealing with same sex marriages you will have something using a racial court reference is not the same.



I gave you two.  8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Perry v. Schwartenegger.  In *both *cases they decided that there was no difference between race and sexual orientation when it comes to marriage and the 14th Amendment.  They used Loving v. Virginia (among others: Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safely, et al) as the basis for their determination. Sorry you lose.  Next?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He spent his career studying history and texts of old or ancient books and manuscriptures.


----------



## BuddyColt (May 12, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> BuddyColt said:
> 
> 
> > The answer to the poster's question is simple:
> ...



I guess when you're losing the academic end of the battle you can insult people and bring third parties into the discussion of whom I've not met yet.

Your argument is being destroyed right before your very eyes.  You give people a difficult chore and once they are able to do it, you begin with insults and veiled name calling.  Again, let's look at reality:

When you apply for a license, you do NOT have the Right.  Then, you are beholden to the authority that issued the license for the terms and conditions thereof.  

So, you want to claim a Right, but asked permission.  Next, using anti - discrimination laws, you will tell parents they must hire gays.  You will tell insurance companies they must include gays and all the insured becomes part of a pool that many may feel is unfair.  It doesn't matter whether they are or they are not. 

What is REALLY asinine is the fact that BluePhantom cannot differentiate between Liberty and License.  For the record, I make no admission OR denial about any Right to marry.  I'm only telling you that what the gays want is a license for it and you cannot twist someone's arm and force them to give you a license.  The principle would be like undocumented foreigners demanding a state issue them a driver's license.  (and BTW, it is a great analogy since it is not illegal to enter nor be in the U.S. without papers.  It is only a civil infraction.)


----------



## BluePhantom (May 12, 2012)

BuddyColt said:


> Your counter - arguments are a bit narcissistic, but we can work with that.  The Lemon case rests on government actions.  What's already been done has been done.  For example, we have twelve people on a jury and a judge in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper.  Our moral standards that are codified into law are Christian based as are the foundations of our system of jurisprudence.  To deny such is to deny that which is obvious.  I'm almost sure, at this stage, you can do that.




Dude, stop it.  A 12 person jury was the standard in England since Henry II in 1176 because tradition dictated that if a person could get 12 people to validate his claim he would be vindicated. When we gained our independence we simply carried that over *out of tradition* and not because there were 12 fucking disciples at the last supper.  Give me a fucking break.







BuddyColt said:


> No, the end of the story is that IF such a Right exists, it is forfeited the moment you apply for a license.  A license is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do.  When you apply for a license, it automatically says you did not have the right.  You want to have it both ways, but it don't work like that.  You are judiciously picking and choosing which points of my argument apply.



Oh so all the case law I presented is wrong.  The SCOTUS has been wrong five times at least when they defined marriage as a right. Interesting philosophy....The SCOTUS is wrong and you are right. I doubt the SCOTUS would agree with you. 





BuddyColt said:


> The gays want us to be forced into accepting their lifestyle AND be forced into participating in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't call you any name at all.  I said your statement was asinine, not necessarily you. A bit defensive are we? BTW....usually the first person to claim victory and profess how they are so devastatingly destroying the other one is in a dire position.



BuddyColt said:


> Again, let's look at reality:
> 
> When you apply for a license, you do NOT have the Right.  Then, you are beholden to the authority that issued the license for the terms and conditions thereof. [/COLOR]



Reality is that the SCOTUS says you are wrong and their legal opinion outranks your philosophical one.



BuddyColt said:


> So, you want to claim a Right, but asked permission.  Next, using anti - discrimination laws, you will tell parents they must hire gays.  You will tell insurance companies they must include gays and all the insured becomes part of a pool that many may feel is unfair.  It doesn't matter whether they are or they are not.



I never made any claim of the kind.  I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth or tell me what I will say next. I would never say that someone *must *hire gays.  Now I would argue that people should not be disqualified from consideration *because *they are gay nor should they be subject to discriminatory or harassing activities due to their sexual orientation...and the courts would seem to agree with me. Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Homosexuals were interpreted as being included in the section prohibiting discrimination based on "sex" in a unanimous SCOTUS opinion (written by Scalia) in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.  The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act prohibits "discriminat(ion) for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others" [5 USC 2302(b)].



BuddyColt said:


> What is REALLY asinine is the fact that BluePhantom cannot differentiate between Liberty and License.



Or that you apparently feel your opinion is superior to the SCOTUS


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So one man says the bible is wrong and misquoted and we leave it at that? Are you insane?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1) what is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and restricting their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Court?
> ...



The 9th circuit is the one court thew supreme court has trouble with they over turn their rulings more than any other We have already discussed this and you rehash it?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, that is not what my link said at all.

What it said was that a respected scholar found instances in which the catholic church held marriage rituals for two men.  They had departments for uniting two men.  

I did not talk about the bible at all.  I simply showed that the church allowed and sanctioned marriages between two men.  And they did so in several countries over a span or several hundred years. 

I made no claim to anything being biblical.  I simply showed that the "The definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years" claim is bogus.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 12, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It was onme mans source from the link THAT YOU USED But you did bring up christian religion. Which would bring up the bible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



One researcher found numerous pieces of documentation of the actions of the church.

It does not speak to whether or not gay marriage is acceptable accoring to Christianity.  It simply shoots down the "Marriage has always been one man and one woman" claim.

Being acceptable to Christianity or unacceptable to Christianity is irrelevant, as far as the law goes.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Also, I did not bring up religion except to discuss the actions of the catholic church.   It does not bring up the bible at all.

If I discussed the security at the Vatican, is that going to bring up the bible?  If I discussed the priests who molested young boys and the actions to protect those priests, is that bringing up the bible?


----------



## DGS49 (May 15, 2012)

The idea that the Catholic Church ever sanctioned a lifetime of homosexual sodomy is beyond preposterous.  It is conceivable that male-male friendship and companionship was blessed. but the relationship would have had to be celibate.

I've seen mention of this historian's work on a couple boards, but he is apparently dead, and I have not seen the purported original documents (or translations of them).  It would be interesting reading, to be sure.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




However you did bring up religion. You don't want the bible mention do not bring up religion


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You think Christianity is the only religion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It's the predominate Religion in America


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 15, 2012)

Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexuals fucked up their own marriages.


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You sidestepped the question.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I brought up research into the actions of the Catholic Church.  You wanted to make it about religion.  Obviously not every action of the church is sanctioned in the bible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage.
> Heterosexuals fucked up their own marriages.



Ain't that the truth!   That is why I laugh so hard at neocons claiming gay marriage will ruin marriage.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2012)

> It's the predominate Religion in America.



And? 

Religion isnt even relevant to the issue of equal access to the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No you brought up RELIGION period. Don't use it as a tool unless you want some Biblical versus introduced.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > It's the predominate Religion in America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is when it pertains to the founders.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LMAO!   You keep harping on this because the bible is your only defense for your views.  But, as far as laws are concerned, the Bible is completely irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > It's the predominate Religion in America.
> ...



You mean the ones who wrote the 1st Amendment?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Yes the exact same ones that voted too appoint Congressional Chaplains of the Christian faith. Yes those founders.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What is irrelevant is the false information and lie that early Christians support gay marriage.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And since those Founders added the 1st Amendment, it is clearly unconstitutional to have laws based solely on any religion or religious doctrines.

So, as we have said many times, you will have to come up with a secular reason for not allowing gays to marry.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Its easy to make that claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




If morals is Biblical sue me. There is no protect rights for abnormal behaviors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



King James version.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Am I typing too fast for you?   What I posted is not about the Bible.  It is about the actions of the Catholic Church.  If its not in the Bible, that is fine.  But it does not change anything in my argument.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No one said anything about your morals.  What we are discussing is whether it is constitutional to legislate morals based on your religious beliefs.

Now, if no one is harmed and it does not effect anyone else, why would you care?

Plus, no one is asking for any protected rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> No one said anything about your morals.


Nor did I.



> Now, if no one is harmed and it does not effect anyone else, why would you care?



No one is harmed when a father wants to have sex with his daughter or if they want to get married but they can't do that can they?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible.   So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > It's the predominate Religion in America.
> ...



Nonsense. It has nothing to do with the Founders nor the Constitutions mandate that all citizens enjoy equal access to the law.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I didn't judge anyone.  You do that well enough for both of us.

But since the research quoted was based on information concerning that Catholic Church, I am using that as an example to show why my link was not bringing up religion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> I didn't judge anyone



Smart ass yes you did. You're talking about what Catholics do am I to assume you are saying the Catholic church speaks for all Christian denominations? If not Why mention what Catholics do when they do not speak for Protestants?


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Rut-roh.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years.  That is all it means.  I did not bring up religion.  I did not advocate for catholics of protestants.  I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart back in the day when hed launch into the Catholics for not being real Christians.


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I know! I feel like "Dude. Next time you say something like that, give a girl some warning so I can stand way the hell over there."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Why do you think Protestants broke away from Catholicism?


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.
> 
> The proof is the term gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.
> 
> ...


 
Lol..I tried this one, years ago.

It won't wash, because the objective isn't equality. The objective is to eliminate the traditional family unit, remove all structures that have historically protected pregnant women and children, and hand over to the state the complete responsibility for raising children...as well as determining how many children will, in fact, be raised.


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



/holds up cross

I do not want to be standing here if/when the Catholics on the board see this post.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage.
> ...


 
Actually, no.

The divorce rate, the disease rate, the rate of abuse, the abortion rate, and the child murder rate, as well as the overall crime rate, have increased exponentially since the advent of the "sexual revolution" and the teachings of Kinsey were brought to our children via "sex education".

I think we can attribute all those things directly to the sexual revolution. The promotion of promiscuity, the removal of the structures meant to protect the chastity and health of women and children, the relaxing of laws that punish those who prey upon them...all products of the sexual revolution.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles?    Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke *only* of historic actions of the catholic church.  I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature.  Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

Isn't it an odd coincidence that the advent of the disease explosion, the divorce explosion, the child abuse explosion, and the de-criminalization of sexual perversion, including child sexual abuse...isn't it an amazing coincidence that all those things started to skyrocket in lock step with the Kinsey model of sex education?

Way to go!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Isn't it an odd coincidence that the advent of the disease explosion, the divorce explosion, the child abuse explosion, and the de-criminalization of sexual perversion, including child sexual abuse...isn't it an amazing coincidence that all those things started to skyrocket in lock step with the Kinsey model of sex education?
> 
> Way to go!



So what would you suggest as a cure or correction?


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Telling lies isn't an accepted debate practice. So you may anticipate when you tell lies, the response will be "You are a liar". There's no reason for anything more. The lie was proven, you're a liar, there's no debate.

See, if something is factual and true...there's no debate. Once something has been proven, that's the end of the discussion.

We don't have to "debate" your truthfulness, there's no reason to. You're a liar. Why engage in debate with a liar?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And what lie did I tell?


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

You brought up religion, then denied it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> My post spoke *only* of historic actions of the catholic church.


Historical? OK we're going historical so the Bible is the History of the Christian faith.
No what your post did give the opinion of one man who is not a biblical scholar. He's a historian, but is not a BIBLICAL scholar. And as the Catholic church goes they are not protestants and do not speak for them. Why do you think Protestants broke away from the Catholic church? 

Oh and when you lie I will call you on it and you have. When you mention any part about a Church you are in fact mentioning religion.



> Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.



There you did it again you mentioned RELIGION


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You brought up religion, then denied it.



Yes he did then said the Bible could not be used because this subject is not a religous subject


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You brought up religion, then denied it.



So any discussion of any action by the catholic church is, by defintion, a discussion of religion?  What nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Since the link mainly mentioned things that happened in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, differentiating between catholic and protestant would be rather ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You brought up religion, then denied it.
> ...



Back to the original topic:

So the two main objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or a claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Now I have given a link that offers evidence that the catholic church did, in fact, perform same gender marriages.

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Anything else??   Or will "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire" be your best debate?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

No, the first amendment doesn't forbid passing laws solely on religious dogma.

The objections aren't religious in nature or based on the claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. 

Why must you argue to points that have never been made? Is it because there is no argument against the truth?

People object to gay marriage because it undermines the one particular relationship upon which the success of our society rests...that relationship is the relationship between a man and a woman, who come together for the sake of creating a family and protecting children they have together.

It has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is arguing "gay marriage can't happen because it's a SIN!" that's true enough, but we are sinful creatures, and we sin within the confines of marriage as well. Homosexuality is no more a sin than, say, refusing to honor your father and mother, or coveting your neighbor's ass.

The marriage has been under attack since the perverts who introduced sex education in our schools started to push for a brave new world, where promiscuity, depravity, and abuse are the hallmarks of our relationships with each other, instead of chastity, honor, and devotion. Marriage has been under attack since the progressive nazis determined children are not worthy or deserving of protection, and in fact have no value whatever except as sexual objects..hence the grooming of children via programs that exalt their sexuality and propagate the lie that #1, children are without value, #2, they are sexual from birth, and #3, man has no control, nor should he be asked to control, his sexual urges.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything. If they want to participate in a family construct, nobody is preventing them from doing that. If they want to be married, they may do so. But if they don't want to participate, we are not obligated to call them "married" just because they covet the descriptive title...but have no interest in actually participating in the construct. Likewise, it is no violation of their "rights" to refuse to call men women, or nurses "Dr.", just because they want the title. 

The act of wanting something does not bestow the right to that thing upon the person who wants it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, the first amendment doesn't forbid passing laws solely on religious dogma.
> 
> The objections aren't religious in nature or based on the claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
> 
> ...



There have been numerous objections based on religious beliefs.  In this thread alone there have been several.  Be careful, you are treading close to being what you called me.   

Society gains from having married couples.  These gains are not solely the parenting and safekeeping of children.  But even at that, there are numerous gay couples who are adopting children or have children from prior relationships.  These couples deserve the same protections and benefits that other straight couples receive.  Fir example, if a gay couple adopts a child, only one of them can be the adoptive parent (since they are not married).  If something happens to that parent, the other parent has no legal connection to the child.  This is certainly not in the best interest of the child.

But marriage extends far beyond children and child raising.  And the benefits society recieves from marriage would be the same, whether the couple involved is gay or straight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Your link is a lie it's rewriting history to fit an agenda,  advocacy scholarship


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...





> And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You claim the link is a lie.  I claim it is evidence that marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.

Laws have come from numerous places.  Some from reasoned discourse.  Some from basic common sense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



A lie is not evidence.  It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So I'm factual


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws?  lol   And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.  

Look, many laws were sent out with religious dogma attached, there is no doubt of that.  This does not point to laws being based in religion as much as it points to religion being used to control the masses.

The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi.   There were laws against stealing, murder, adultery, incest, and (I think) even beastiality.  No mention in any history text I have seen has been made of them being based on any religion.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, you simply claim it.  As I claim it is evidence.   

Are you saying that the rituals discussed did not happen?  Are you saying they were for a different purpose?  Or are you saying the researcher invented the entire thing?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And like wise it's your claim that it happen,  No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Once again, I never said the bible advocated anything.  Nor did the researcher.

What he did was find writings which talked about rituals performed, discussed artwork that depicts these rituals, and named groups that were part of the church.

Your claim that they did not happen is based solely on what the bible says, not on any knowlege of the actions of the church.  The catholic church has done many things that would not fit in with the bible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A quick bit of googling shows the Code of Hammurabi to have been written around 2100 BC.  This means it predates the 10 Commandments.

So, in fact, there were laws against stealing, adultery and murder that were not based on religious doctrines.  And they were among the first laws written.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws?



Are there?



> And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.


In America? Can people who leave those place take all their wives with them  and live together as man and wife?


> The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi.



Really? So the founders mention Hammurabi as someone they may have gotten the idea from?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you are claiming that our laws against stealing are based solely on the bible?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> Once again I never said the bible advocated anything.  Nor did the researcher.



Did I say you or the researcher did? Stop twisting something I did not say into something you're saying. Fact is you don't want the Bible brought up but you want to keep mentioning some revised history of the church because it fits your agenda.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 What's your evidence to refute that claim?

 Founding Father John Jay, who openly welcomed Christian influences in government. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I am not twisting anything.  I am just being complete so you or someone else doesn't come back later with the usual "But you said..."

Bring up the bible all you want.   But it does not change anything.   The rituals performed by the catholic church are explained and listed.  

What I find amusing is that you dismiss catholics as idol worshippers, which clearly goes against the bible.  And yet, your only basis for arguing that the research is false is that it goes against the bible.

Once again, the catholic church has done plenty that goes against the bible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nice quote, but that shows someone calling for christian leaders to be elected, not that laws be written based solely on christian doctrines.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



WOW I didn't think it was possible but truth matter has company. 
1. I never said you or the researcher were making claims about the bible but you said that I did, that would be a lie

BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP LYING


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Before you go into hysterics, show me where I said what you claim I said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


NO I have already called you on two lies
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



First of all, the research showed actions by the church.  I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.

Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.  

If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


It's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?


You posted this


> Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.



Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you cannot show me that I said it would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So the church selling indulgences to rich people was religious also?

And helping priests avoid prosecution for child molesting is religious too?


If you want to call every action by the church a religious one, that is all you.   What I did was show research that documents actions by the church.  There is a difference.


But if you want to go with the lying thing, knock yourself out.  So far your debate technique relies mainly on making claims without backup and calling names.   If you have nothing more of substance to offer, then wander away to a new topic.

If you would like to continue on the bit about laws, feel free to add more nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You have continued to deny the validity of the research by trying to reference the bible.  Neither I nor the researcher mentioned the bible at all.  So I keep trying to clarify that what the bible says about homosexuality does not change the truth of whether the church actually performed the rites stated in the link.  It simply does not change anything in the research.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



In post #741 you said "*And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history." *

To which I replied  "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something else


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And I never said you did.  

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true.  That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And there you go you're twisting something I never suggested nor did I imply that you said the bible was advocating anything. You are the one who is suggesting that I did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?



As long as you lie or twist something I said into something I did not say. NO we cannot.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Claiming that you are factual in this instance is a lie.  You have no facts to back your claim.  So you lied when you say it is factual.



Now you can contemplate your own lie while you hide from the debate.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




I have not twisted a damn thing you have said.  I have responded to your ridiculous claims and kept explaining things over and over because you refuse to accept what was said.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine.  But don't try and play this as some noble refusal to discuss it because of some bogus claim that I twist your words or lie.

When you have a rational argument, come back and we can play this game again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Using your revisionist version of church history nothing I say will be factual to you. There is no arguing against rewritten history to fit a modern day gay agenda. But when you use the real facts I am very factual.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



STOP THE LYING. True story.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I quoted research.  You called it bogus, but not for any flaws in the research or facts, but because of what the bible says about homosexuality.  Then you claim you are factual.  lol

And you say I twist things?   No, you lied.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What you did was quote a historians research not a Biblical scholar's research. It is bogus when there is no evidence in the bible (the  official history ) of the church that supports gay marriage.



> And you say I twist things?



Yes you did when you wrote this


> Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.


When I did not write that you said that nor did I suggest you said that would be your attempt to twist something I said into something I did not say nor implied. 
I can keep this up if you can.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I quoted a historian's research into historical events.   A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.  The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did.  But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

You see it as twisting.  I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.  

If this is the worst that you face on these forums, you must either avoid difficult topics or ignore other posters.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> I quoted a historian's research into historical events.   A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.



You quoted a revisionist so called research work who has an agenda to rewrite church history to fit a modern day gay motivated agenda.



> The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did.  But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.



No where in the BIBLE (the history book of the Church) does it ordain homosexual marriage. Also in the history book of the Church it mentions about false doctrines within the church.



> You see it as twisting.  I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.


If you suggest that I said something when I did not you are in fact twisting what I said. So stop it don't do it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The historian published his research.  He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

If you want to use the bible as a history book, you have the disadvantage of the most recent portions of the bible being written between 70 and 150 AD.  The events the researcher wrote about happened between 900 and 1200 years later.

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines.  Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

I have never said that the events discussed in the research were proper Christian rites.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> The historian published his research.  He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.



I have The history book of Christianity (the Bible) does not ordain homosexual marriage  it condemns the homosexual lifestyle. If someone is saying other wise they are a revisionist with a modern day supported agenda. Wouldn't it be funny to find out the researcher was gay?



> Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines.  Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.



If God ordained gay marriage why would he have created male and female?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.  But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did.   The organization is different than the faith.  And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.   

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions.  Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims.  Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

Also, I guess I should remind you that the most recent parts of the bible were written 900+ years BEFORE the events in the research took place.  So using the bible as a history text means your "history" stops around 150 AD.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.



Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".  

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage.  I know it does not.  But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.


----------



## Artevelde (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So you know the article you posted was rubbish. Why post it then?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Gay marriage has never been ordained by the church


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If I were bigrebnc I would throw a hissy fit here.

I didn't say the article was rubbish.  In fact, I have seen nothing to suggest that it is rubbish.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



According to...???   The link I posted shows research suggesting that the catholic church did, in fact, ordain marriage between two men.  And that it used the same rituals and ceremony.

If you have some evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to see it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Dude I haven't thrown a hissy fit, I just haven't allowed you the chance to lie or twist what has been said. I stop the discussion to address it when it happens.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



So you saw the incredible twisting of my words too?   lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




WTF? What in the fuck is this?



> I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage.  I know it does not.  But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law



Now are you arguing that the church does ordain gay marriage?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



According to the researcher, the catholic church did ordain gay marriage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



According to the Bible the church does not ordain gay marriage


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Ok.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

So now we can get back to a discussion of debating gay marriage in the USA?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, as it's a long book with many different authors compiled over a long period of time and reflected over a wide range of languages.

Some Christian churches may interpret that the Bible allows gay marriage, others (probably great majority) do not. 

But unless you speak to God on a personal basis, you do not know for sure:

(a) whether or not he/she actually exists.
(b) what his/her true intentions, wants, or expectations are.

Everything is an interpretation, and there are no absolutes. 

.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 16, 2012)

Gay marriage affects no one. Let them marry. No problem. What is the big deal anyway?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There is only one way to interpret this

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Gay marriage affects no one. Let them marry. No problem. What is the big deal anyway?



I just think that some people are so incredibly smart and gifted that they know what's best NOT just for their own life, but everyone's life as well, and will stop at nothing to make sure that the entire United States population is living in accordance with what they personally designate as right or wrong.

Sure, it's a form of tyranny, but it's good tyranny because it saves the rest of us wretched souls from spending an eternity in hell.

.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't see anything about marriage in those passages, nor do I see anything condemning homosexuality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Where is the part about a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his husband and being one flesh??
What exactly is a wife in regards to a man? Is that not the term of being married?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I speak to God on a personal basis.

I know for sure he actually exists.
I know exactly what his true intentions are, because he outlines them in the bible.

There are absolutes.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Whoops, I stand corrected. Kudos.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Kosher, I'm not calling you a liar, but I seriously doubt you have reoccurring, out-loud conversations directly with god. 

Also, there are millions of others who claim to be absolutely sure that their non-Christian religion is "absolutely correct", so how do we reconcile that?

I say leave all religion out of public policy making, as it's simply too controversial...


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Then stop making it an issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



If we look the other way from our morals and Gods law just to make secualrists happy are we pleasing our creator ?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Then stop making it an issue.



It's not an issue. As a straight married man I see no threat to myself or others if same-sex individuals are also allowed to partake in marriage on the public level. 

As for the private institutions like churches - I believe they should be allowed sovereignty to define marriage for themselves on their own terms.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> If we look the other way from our morals and Gods law just to make secualrists happy are we pleasing our creator ?




First of all, you _must _realize that everyone in America doesn&#8217;t share the same views as yours of (a) who the creator is and (b) what he wants for us. Some *Americans* are Muslims, some *Americans* are diests, some *Americans* are athiests, some *Americans* are Hindus, some *Americans* are Buddhists, some *Americans* are just &#8220;spiritual&#8221;, some *Americans* are undecided, and some *Americans* are Christians who simply interpret the Bible in a different way than you do. What makes your view more important than anyone elses? Why do you want to make it so that EVERYONE in America conforms to you?

Secondly, isn&#8217;t this supposed to be America &#8211; home of the free? Isn&#8217;t one of the reasons our nation is SO GREAT is that we as free Americans can decide how we &#8211; as individuals &#8211; would like to live our lives (as long as it's hurting no one else)? 

If an American female walks down the street with purple spiked hair, and a T-shirt that says &#8220;Screw Obama&#8221;, she won&#8217;t have anything to fear. If the same female did that in Iran, and the T-shirt said &#8220;Screw Ahmadinejad&#8221;, her life might be seriously at risk by the government. 

First you ban Same Sex marriage because it&#8217;s against what you believe your creator wants, then what&#8217;s next? Do you ban all books that criticize the Christian faith? Do you ban music that could be interpreted as anti-Christian? Do you make Sunday Church mandatory for all US Citizens, because that&#8217;s what the creator wants? I mean, where does your big government end? 

I&#8217;m not going to tell you how to live your life. You can do whatever you want, and live it in accordance with your Christian views. You can teach your children those Christian views at home, and no one is going to stop you. _I will always_ fight to protect your right to believe what you want to believe, in peace. 

So in exchange, how about you afford everyone else that same respect, and quit telling them what to do?


.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> First of all, you _must _realize that everyone in America doesnt share the same views as yours of (a) who the creator is and (b) what he wants for us. Some people are Muslims, some are diests, some are athiests, some are Hindus, some are Buddhists, some are just spiritual, some are undecided, and some are Christians who simply interpret the Bible in a different way than you do. What makes your view more important than anyone elses? Why do you want to make it so that EVERYONE in America conforms to you?
> 
> Secondly, isnt this supposed to be America  home of the free? Isnt one of the reasons our nation is SO GREAT is that we as free Americans can decide how we  as individuals  would like to live our lives? If an American female walks down the street with purple spiked hair, and a T-shirt that says Screw Obama, she wont have anything to fear. If the same female did that in Iran, and the T-shirt said Screw Ahmadinejad, her life might be seriously at risk by the government.
> 
> ...



No time since I have been here have I ever claimed to be a Christian.

I cannot support someones right that is abnormal and illegal can you support someones right to be a Prostitution?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you _must _realize that everyone in America doesn&#8217;t share the same views as yours of (a) who the creator is and (b) what he wants for us. Some people are Muslims, some are diests, some are athiests, some are Hindus, some are Buddhists, some are just &#8220;spiritual&#8221;, some are undecided, and some are Christians who simply interpret the Bible in a different way than you do. What makes your view more important than anyone elses? Why do you want to make it so that EVERYONE in America conforms to you?
> ...



Note - I think I said "big" in this post, but meant to direct at the originator, _Youwerecreated_. Just was a typo, sorry for the confusion.

If prostitution is legalized, you won't be forced to support it or take part in it in any way. I promise. 

Also, do you consider yourself a Christian - by the way - if I might ask? 


.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



A Christian will never support anything that is a conflict with pleasing God. You can't serve two masters.

God to a Christian is bigger then our constitution and comes first even when new laws are made. If laws are made by man that conflict with Gods law which law should the Christian support ?

I am a full supporter of our constitution and our laws but there is a limit to that support,the limit is when they conflict with Gods law.

Ok I guess that made my views clear enough.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> A Christian will never support anything that is a conflict with pleasing God. You can't serve two masters.
> 
> God to a Christian is bigger then our constitution and comes first even when new laws are made. If laws are made by man that conflict with Gods law which law should the Christian support ?
> 
> ...



If prostitution is legalized, how are you going to be forced to &#8220;support&#8221; it exactly? Government mandates are unconstitutional &#8211; and I don&#8217;t think anyone is going to force you to give money, donate, volunteer, or provide assistance to the Brothels. You don&#8217;t have to support it one bit. 

In fact, you can still live your life in total opposition to prostitution, and teach your children that the practice is wrong and immoral.

Let me ask you this, is it true that under your logic, ALL things that go against the &#8220;creator&#8217;s&#8221; wishes should be made illegal, including alcohol (getting intoxicated), playing anti-Christian music, practicing a Muslim faith, reading a book about Atheism, ect, ect should be made illegal too, right? 

If no, then why do you you pick and choose?

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > A Christian will never support anything that is a conflict with pleasing God. You can't serve two masters.
> ...



Our society should be built on morals period do you agree ?

Yes many things should be changed God is clear on drunkards as well. It will never happen because there are just too many people including Christians voting that do not put Gods laws first.

This is what Jesus spoke about.

Mat 7:13  Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it. 
Mat 7:14  Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

I edited my last post.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Let me put it this way. I think we should all teach our children  privately  what is right and what is wrong based on our own personal beliefs (morals). However, I dont want our government to force upon the entire population the morals of any ONE SINGULAR group, as it is wholly unfair. 

Do you need the government to help teach your kids the difference between what you think is right and what you think is wrong?

Now Im all for the government punishing actions that infringe on the rights of others, but when it comes to actions that have no effect on anyone else but the person(s) taking part in the action, I see no reason to make it illegal. 

Its not my job  or yours  to define social morality for everyone else. We ought to have the freedom to define that ourselves. 

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



I believe our government are making immoral laws.

Jesus said you will love the master you serve and hate the one you don't. That is where a true Christian is we give unto caesars what is caesars and give unto God which belongs to God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Let me ask you a question are a Christians views and life style a threat to you ?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course not! Some of my favorite people are Christians, and I am actually a fan of Jesus's wise teachings of treating others with respect, and to live a life of charity and sacrifice for others. 

But you want to know what is a threat to me? Christians using the government (that I am governed under) to *force *their Christian lifestyle upon me. I don't want to be forced to live a Christian life, as I think people ought to be able to choose what sort of life they want to live (so long as it's not hurting anyone else). 

.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Except that's not happening. How exactly are you being forced to live a Christian lifestyle?

So I guess you must be threatened by them.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Except that's not happening. How exactly are you being forced to live a Christian lifestyle?
> 
> So I guess you must be threatened by them.




Kosher &#8211; Do you think the Bible is ever cited as a reason to lobby against same-sex marriage? If so, then isn&#8217;t that an example where Christians are legislating into law their own personal religious beliefs, and forcing everyone else in that society &#8211; Christian and Non-Christian &#8211; to adhere to those principles?

It's those sorts of things I feel threatened by. 


.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



You mean a Christian should not vote with their heart ? Or maybe a Christian should not vote at all ? All who vote are using the government to force their views on all who are governed by the government and people that vote for laws that go against Gods law are forcing their views on me as a Christian and all Christians.

The god of this world will win out for now we were warned of this.

2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. 

Rev 16:14  These evil spirits had the power to work miracles. They went to every king on earth, to bring them together for a war against God All-Powerful. But that will be the day of God's great victory.

You can clearly see by the scriptures that is what you are defending.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm just saying that it's my personal belief that actions that don't infringe on the rights of others shouldn't be put up for a vote. To do so is only restricting our personal liberties unnecessarily.

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Laws are set for governing should laws reflect morals ?


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Again, and I'm not dodging your questions, but I think the primary reason for a law is to protect one citizen from having his/her rights infringed upon by another citizen. 

The purpose of government, however is not - in my view - to micromanage our morals. That job should be the job of the individual parents. 

It's a question of Big Government vs Small Government. I tend to support the latter.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



But a persons right should not be protected if immoral.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A right is protected whether or not the right is immoral.  The question of whether or not a right should be protected is a question of legality, not morality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



The is no protection of rights when the acts are illegal.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I agree

But what about if the act is considered immoral.  Rights can still be protected under such a condition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


You're contradicting yourself in your last post you said 



> The question of whether or not a right should be protected is a question of legality, not morality


Since according to you morals is not the issue.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Just because something is illegal now, doesn't mean it _should _be illegal. 

Marijuana is one example. If you research why marijuana was originally criminalized, you will find that three of the primary drivers behind this (in the 1930's I believe) was (1) racism, (2) deception, and (3) personal gain. So just because Marijuana is illegal now, do you think it should remain illegal?


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No--I am argueing about whether a right should be protected or not if the act is considered immoral.

I said morality does not enter in determining whether or not a right should be protected.
The issue is a legal matter, not a moral matter.  

Please demonstrate the contradiction you see, don't just state there is one.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



How about Porn.

Porn can be recorded sex acts between people that may or may not be married. In many cases they are not.  Thus we have fornication which is considered a sin and hence immoral.

Yet Porn, although regulated, is allowed to be created, distributed and owned by Americans.  You have a right to own property.  Even if the ownership of said property is both immoral and promotes immorality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Again there is no protection for illegal acts You must make it legal for it to be protected.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What if that property is stolen even though you transaction was legal to do but the person who sold it too you was selling something that was stolen such as a pawn shop buy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Legalize it then we can talk not until then.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What acts are illegal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Sodomy


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That is absolute nonsense.

I support a clear separation of church and state.  And I am a Christian.

There is a huge difference between civil law and God's law.   Civil law is forced on us by society.  God's law is followed voluntarily in order to please God and to observe our faith.

Forcing someone to follow God's law is not what God intended.  He wants people to come to him of their own volition, not in shackles.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Then the issue is dealing with theft, which is both illegal and immoral.
The right to own property( a right which *could* promote immorality, but not in all cases) does not supercede a crime such as theft(illegal and immoral)


The right to own Porn(a right that is immoral) is not considered a crime, if it is of and obtained through the proper channels..


There is a difference. but in all cases, the question of legality comes up as to determining if a person has right or not.  The question of morality is not even a pertinent issue in the matter .


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sodomy is not illegal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.



I thought you were discussing the law.  Sodomy is not illegal.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> ...



In some states, you can be persecuted if it is discovered that you practiced sodomy with someone else.

In Georgia, for instance, you can be tried and sentenced.  Also, even if your girlfriend ask you to practice sodomy on her, that is not considered a defense.

Basically, sodomy is one those "Angry Girlfriend" laws that get abused by women.

It is also used in child molestation cases, but more predominately by angry girlfriends.

edit:  I don't think it should be illegal if both partners agreed to practice it.  Is not such a situation then leads an issue of consenting adults dealing with an adult situation and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the law?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The SCOTUS struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.  It invalidated the Texas law and the sodomy laws in 13 other states.

While there may be laws still on the books, they are unenforceable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



United States Sodomy Laws


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...


 
Did you share how refusing to allow the homosexual lobby to FORCE us to accept a new definition for "marriage" and FORCING us to support tax breaks we provide to traditional families be given to homosexual couples who refuse to participate in the construct for which those tax breaks were created...means we are FORCING our religion upon you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

§ 14-177. Crime against nature. (from North Carolina's Criminal Code)

North Carolina's Sodomy Law


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That shows a list updated in 1998.  In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS shot down sodomy laws.  While they may be on the books the have been ruled unconstitutional and, thereby, unenforceable.

What people do in their bedroom is no one's business but their own.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lt.shtml

"Individuals are entitled to constitutional protection, under the DP Cl, in their personal lives for sexual privacy.  *States cannot minimize or control their destiny by criminalizing private sexual conduct.*"


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


 
You are making the same tired argument that all progressives make...that if we want to support behavior that we know is beneficial to our society, and if that means we withhold that support from a certain group who refuses to participate in that behavior, and the primary behavior of that group HAPPENS to be criticized in the bible, then you assert that is a violation of the (pretend) "state/church" separation.

Bullshit. Just because a behavior that has been proven to have a negative impact upon society is rejected by society has also been rejected by God doesn't mean that the church is "forcing" morality upon you, and thereby "violating" separation of church and state. 

That's just what you yahoos like to whine about, so you don't have to deal with the fact that when a society accepts perversion as a matter of course, and sexual promiscuity and depravation becomes the norm, children suffer, people die, disease runs rampant, and eventually (and it doesn't take long....we're 50 years in and we're on the brink now) the society itself collapses.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Homosexuals want to take it out of the bedroom, into the churches, down mainstreet, into the office, on the playground, and broadcast it on television.

Preach to your own lobby and stop trying to force your morality upon a majority who doesn't want it, and who wants to continue to recognize and support the healthy construct upon which our society is built. If gays want to be married, they can find a person of the opposite sex and marry them. Nobody gives a shit what they do in their bedrooms. But don't force us to pretend families headed by homosexual couples are the most successful construct for raising children. Because that's hogwash.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I believe I was explaining the difference between civil law and God's law.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I was responding to a claim that sodomy is illegal.  My comments are correct in that.

No one is forcing any morality on you.  You are welcome to continue to dislike and disapprove of homosexuality.  But the gov't cannot do the same thing unless there is a clear reason for it.

And the advantages that society gains from straight marriage will also be gained by gay marriages.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Agree first it was what happens in the bedroom stay's in the bedroom now we are here.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Bullshit..and...bullshit.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Ah, gotcha. So youre saying youre against gays expressing themselves how they wish in a free society? Would you rather we use government force to quiet them all? 

Im sorry if you cant stand to see a gay person walking down mainstreet, or taking their children to a playground, but youre just going to have to deal with it Kosher  this is America.

One of the side effects you get from living in a free country is that youre going to see and hear some things you dont necessarily agree with. It just comes with the territory. Not everyone thinks just like you do


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What are you trying to say?   That what happens in the bedroom is anyone else's business??


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

kevinwestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > winterborn said:
> ...



this!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Oh??   What advantages does marriage give to society that gay marriage will not?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
No, I'm saying you're a hypocrite. You think that gays should be able to force their morals upon us...and we can't stop them...

But we can't force our morality upon anyone else. 

The thing is...you use the term "force" incorrectly. You claim it is "forcing" homosexuals to submit to a morality they don't approve of if we don't call them "married" when they refuse to get married.

So..if they make the choice not to get married to a member of the opposite sex, we are "forcing" them to submit to our "Christian" morality?

Really? Where's the force?


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Did not know about that--In fact, I am recollecting events from the 90s so I guess I am out of the times dealing with such laws.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I guess you missed the post about porn.

Tell us Kosher girl--do you like porn?  Is it immoral?  Then why is it legal?

RE-EDIT
By the way, I did not make that argument.  Where in the hell did I write such an argument?

You are making crap up, KG.  But then, you do believe there is only one morality--the morality espoused by your church!

Even in the myriad denominations of christianity, there are slight deviations in what is considered moral.  In some cases, that is why some churches split from other churches.  If there was only one well understood and set morality that all christians agreed upon, then there would not be a need for denominations.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

What the HELL are you talking about?

This is what I hate about extremists. They can't confine themselves to the topic, because if they did, they would be exposed as the wackos they are.

So they jump all over the place, and make shit up...what they don't realize is they're STILL exposing themselves as wackos.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> What the HELL are you talking about?
> 
> This is what I hate about extremists. They can't confine themselves to the topic, because if they did, they would be exposed as the wackos they are.
> 
> So they jump all over the place, and make shit up...what they don't realize is they're STILL exposing themselves as wackos.



Are we talking about the topic of the thread(solutions to the gay marriage debate), the topic I was first referencing to (the difference between morality and legality in terms of rights and law), the topic you created(your opinion of "liberal/progressive depiction of seperation of church and state") or the new topic I breached because you accused me of holding a viewpoint that I did not espouse(The differing definition of morality held by Christians and its effects on Christianity)

So far, there are 4 topics, two of which is creditted to your postings.


By the way, if you return to topic 2, then there is no problem.

But if you wish to continue with topic 3 and 4 then I feel compelled to create 5, 6, 7 etc because you have no compunction against creating new topics despite complaining that you do.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Did I confuse you with KW?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Porn is immoral. I don't know why it's legal. If you had a point, I missed it.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Did I confuse you with KW?



Actually, KW, Winterborn and I are generally on the issue of immorality and the law.

So, we are back to topic 2?  OK--righty O!

So, do you think that which is considered immoral is illegal?
Or do you think what is considered immoral should be illegal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Serial killers want to express themselves that's why they are  serial killers. Do  we allow them to express themselves?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

No, I know that which is considered immoral isn't illegal.

And no, I don't think that which is considered immoral should be illegal, just because it's immoral.

I will wait a little longer to see if you start making sense. I think perhaps you think you are an intellectual acrobat. But as is usually the case with posters like that, you're just dishonest.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

PS..I'm still waiting for whichever imbecile made the claim that gay marriage has the exact same strengths as hetero marriages to back up that claim,

and I'm still waiting for ac to make his point about immorality et al. So far he's just asking ridiculous questions that he thinks he knows the answers to, but making no point at all.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I know that which is considered immoral isn't illegal.
> 
> And no, I don't think that which is considered immoral should be illegal, just because it's immoral.
> 
> I will wait a little longer to see if you start making sense. I think perhaps you think you are an intellectual acrobat. But as is usually the case with posters like that, you're just dishonest.



Then why do you think gay marriage should be illegal?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

I've already stated that ad nauseum.

What's your point about immorality and the law? Do you have one?


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I've already stated that ad nauseum.
> 
> What's your point about immorality and the law? Do you have one?



First, I don't see where you posted your beliefs about gay marriage anywhere.  Maybe you can point out the post number for me?

2nd--you actually agreed with me.  What is considered immoral is not necessarily illegal.  Nor does it have to be.

edit note--I only have 5 minutes.  If I leave, I guess we have to pick up the discussion on Monday.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

I never said it did have to be.


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I never said it did have to be.



I said you agreed with me--so there is no need for a discussion on the matter in general.

But when we come to specific cases, you tend to go off the rails and accusing people about their beliefs concerning seperation of church and state and so forth.  Why are you talking seperation of church and state if the need for morality from a religion is not being the main attribute of deciding something is lawful or not?

Edit:--I only have a minute or so left.  The post number again?


----------



## amrchaos (May 16, 2012)

See you Monday


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Honestly, I don't care what you said, or what you deem there is a "need" to do, or not do. I am talking about separation of church and state because it was brought up.

"if the need for morality from a religion is not being the main attribute of deciding something is lawful or not?" does not make sense. The syntax is improper.."not being the main attribute" wtf does that mean? And the whole *sentence* is not a complete sentence. 

I don't go off the rails at all, btw. In fact, if anyone has gone off the rails, I think it's you. I'm *accusing people about their beliefs*??? Really? What am I *accusing people about their beliefs* ABOUT? 

Take an English as a second language class, because it's impossible to discuss an issue intelligently with a person who can't convey a single, coherent thought.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Thank God.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Where is the consitutional amendment to ban serial killers from marrying?
Amazing you folks want gays to be banned to marry but it is okay for child molestors, killers, forgers, insurance fraud specialists etc.
Makes no sense.
Gay marriage affects no one. Non issue. Time to move on and get to work on the nation's problems.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

There's no constitutional amendment that prevents gays from marrying.

They can get married, and receive recognition as married people...but they have to actually participate in the construct of marriage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> There's no constitutional amendment that prevents gays from marrying.
> 
> They can get married, and receive recognition as married people...but they have to actually participate in the construct of marriage.



They can not marry who they love.
The "construct of marriage" was NEVER love until the last 2 centuries.
The construct of marriage for centuries was always for convenience, treaty, politics, business and were most always ARRANGED by the family.
I am interested in promoting LOVE. If 2 folks love each other they ought to be able to marry.
Marriage ought to be about LOVE, not "the construct of marriage".
Your construct of marriage allows immoral serial killers to marry.
Makes your argument, or a lack of one, absurd.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Who cares what you think marriage should be? The truth of the matter is, marrying someone we love isn't a "right". Gays have the same right to get married as anyone else. What they "want" doesn't matter, what you "want" doesn't matter. I want a toilet seat made of gold. That doesn't mean you have to give it to me, or refer to me as "the lady with a gold toilet seat". I don't have one, you don't have to give me one, and if I don't get one, I'm never going to be "the lady with a gold toilet seat" no matter how much I want it.

I'm not GUARANTEED a gold toilet seat just because I want one. If I want to earn one, I have to accumulate MONEY. If I don't want to accumulate money, it's not your job to give me one anyway.

This is all about choices. Gay people CAN get married.

Can they marry for love? How do I know and what does that have to do with anything? But they can certainly participate in the construct along with all the rest of us plebes who do.

If they choose NOT to, we are not obligated to refer to them as married, or afford them the tax breaks that marriage offers, or pretend they are married. We recognize and support hetero marriage because it is the cornerstone upon which our society is built, and because it is the #1 best guarantee of the successful rearing of children. We don't support and recognize *marriage* because it is an expression of love...we support and recognize it because it benefits us, as a society, to do so. If people find love within the construct, good for them...but it is by no means a *requirement* or a *right* that marriage results in love...and marriage does not bestow the *right* to love upon people. They can love each other just fine without the construct of marriage. And they can still participate in the construct, if they so desire.

This BS that we must provide everybody what they *want* based on the fact that other people have that particularly coveted thing, or state, or title, and the idea that if we refuse to give people what they want on demand is just that...bs. We afford a certain privileged status to married couples because it benefits us as a society. Homosexual couples are not participating in the construct that benefits us, and thus have no *right* to the incentives we provide to those who do. If they want those incentives, they have the *right* to participate in the construct that we reward.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

If we had the *right* to marry anyone we love, people could marry more than one person, we could marry our close relatives, whatever.

But since marriage has never been about giving people the opportunity to express love except in the most peripheral way, that's not the case. Marriage is about providing a construct that is beneficial for children, and thus, our society.

I have heard it argued that it also provides a construct by which men are given a role in society that otherwise they would not be granted...women are biologically granted motherhood, but fatherhood is a social construct....


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Serial killers can express themselves in anyway they like, but the moment they start infringing on the rights of others - ie in the form of killing, perhaps - they should be sentenced and punished (severely). 

Key thing to take here:
1.) Gay person walking down the street = not infringing on anyone's rights = LEGAL
2.) Serial killer killing another person = infringing on someone's rights = ILLEGAL


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> If we had the *right* to marry anyone we love, people could marry more than one person, we could marry our close relatives, whatever.
> 
> But since marriage has never been about giving people the opportunity to express love except in the most peripheral way, that's not the case. Marriage is about providing a construct that is beneficial for children, and thus, our society.
> 
> I have heard it argued that it also provides a construct by which men are given a role in society that otherwise they would not be granted...women are biologically granted motherhood, but fatherhood is a social construct....




This is the way I view it (and I'd like to hear your thoughts):

1.)	If Same-Sex marriage is allowed, the lives of gays will drastically improve. No change on my life (I&#8217;m a straight married man).
2.)	If Same-Sex marriage is barred, gays will be worse off. No change on my life (I&#8217;m a straight married man). 

Now, if option 1 resulted in a scenario *where my life was adversely affected* (perhaps where I was forced to marry a same-sex partner), I might vote against it. But since it has no effect on my life whatsoever, I don&#8217;t see a SINGLE REASON why I should deny adult gay humans the same access to marriage as I do. 

At the end of the day, when you ban gay couples from being able to file joint taxes, share eachother&#8217;s medical records, and access one another&#8217;s SS allotment, what did you really achieve? You participated in a measure that _only _accomplishes one thing: making another group of human beings &#8211; totally separate from you &#8211; worse off overall. The total number of straight people remains the same, and the total number of gay people remains the same (key concept)....

We live such short lives, and know virtually nothing about anything (as humans), so why don't you just worry about yourself with the time that's been given to you? Why do you try so hard to make people *you don&#8217;t know or interact with unhappy*? 


.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Talk about n off the wall analogy.....


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> PS..I'm still waiting for whichever imbecile made the claim that gay marriage has the exact same strengths as hetero marriages to back up that claim,
> 
> and I'm still waiting for ac to make his point about immorality et al. So far he's just asking ridiculous questions that he thinks he knows the answers to, but making no point at all.



I believe I have already stated several points which show gay marriage offers the same advantages.  I asked you to give me benefits society gains from straight marriages that will not be gained from gay marriages.

But what the hell....

Society gains from marriages:

1) Stable relationships provide stable homes for children.  (both gay and straight do that)

2) Married couples tend to buy homes and provide economic advantages for their communities. (both gay and straight do that)


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Who cares what you think marriage should be? The truth of the matter is, marrying someone we love isn't a "right". Gays have the same right to get married as anyone else. What they "want" doesn't matter, what you "want" doesn't matter. I want a toilet seat made of gold. That doesn't mean you have to give it to me, or refer to me as "the lady with a gold toilet seat". I don't have one, you don't have to give me one, and if I don't get one, I'm never going to be "the lady with a gold toilet seat" no matter how much I want it.
> 
> I'm not GUARANTEED a gold toilet seat just because I want one. If I want to earn one, I have to accumulate MONEY. If I don't want to accumulate money, it's not your job to give me one anyway.
> 
> ...



You have the 'privilege' of marrying whoever you love. They do not.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.

I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.

I can't marry my child.

I can't marry my brother, my father, or my uncle.

I can't marry my dog, and I can't marry more than one person, no matter HOW much I love them.

And I can't marry a person of the same sex.


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.
> 
> I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.
> 
> ...



But you aren't in love with any of those people.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.
> 
> I can't marry someone who is already married, for example.
> 
> ...



Kosher - If same-sex adult, consenting American citizens are allowed to marry, how will this adversely affect your day to day existence?

Just wondering... trying to pick your brain...


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.
> ...


 
That doesn't matter....besides which, you don't know, maybe I am. How many women have you met that have fallen in love with married men? Did they want to marry? Could they?


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > PS..I'm still waiting for whichever imbecile made the claim that gay marriage has the exact same strengths as hetero marriages to back up that claim,
> ...


 

That isn't confirmation, skippy. Provide some evidence to back up what you have stated.


----------



## TrinityPower (May 16, 2012)

I want to marry a goat. That way when it ages I can tell everyone that I truly AM married some some old goat. Bahahahaha


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't have the privilege of marrying whomever I want.
> ...


 
It doesn't have to affect me, personally, day to day. The fact that there is a vibrant human trafficking industry isn't affecting my day to day existence, either. 

But we protect the institution of marriage because we build our society upon it, and because that is the primary, best construct we have to support our continued success....because it provides the very best foundation for children to grow up in. A male/female headed household is the best, safest, most comfortable environment for raising children. We, as a society, protect our interests, as a society, by protecting and rewarding that behavior that is most likely to result in our continued success and excellence.

If gays want to be married, then gays can participate. If they don't want to be married, that's fine, they can do their own thing. But we are not obligated to REWARD them with those rewards we reserve for the structure that has the best chance of producing stable, high functioning, successful members of society. 

This is along the lines of "everybody's a winner!" You have to reward excellence and positive behavior. If you reward everybody regardless of whether they participate in those activities and constructs that we recognize as good, then you have no winners at all, and nobody is motivated to participate in the spirit of excellence.

If you don't run the race, you have no chance of winning the trophy. And if you don't run the race, it's not our job to pretend you have, and call you a triathelete, anyway.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2012)

TrinityPower said:


> I want to marry a goat. That way when it ages I can tell everyone that I truly AM married some some old goat. Bahahahaha


your kids will never need sweaters! DAAAAAAADY......DAAAAAAADY.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > PS..I'm still waiting for whichever imbecile made the claim that gay marriage has the exact same strengths as hetero marriages to back up that claim,
> ...


Abnormal is not stable


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Besides which, there's no evidence they are just as stable, or the children in households with homosexual parents are just as successful.

In fact, there's evidence to the contrary..but the homosexual lobby is a powerful one, tied to PP and the Kinsey Institute, and the APA, and they scramble VERY quickly to negate any perception that being exposed to sexual deviancy is harmful to children.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Well Kosh, that's your opinion. I happen to think that marriage isn't all about just the kids, and I also happen to think that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents to effectively raise children. 

But I'm sure we could debate forever on this point and would likely never reach agreement..



.


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You already know the answer. So a free gay or lesbian cannot marry a married one. That should be the restriction.


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

Everybody should swing by this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...of-false-rape-allegations-twin-daughters.html

Which has 47 reads and no responses. Gee, I wonder why.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
No, because it isn't about what they want. It's about what we want for our society.

We want well adjusted kids who are given the best chance to be successful, and we can choose to reward, or not reward, behavior based upon our understanding of what is best for kids.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2012)

> A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate
> 
> In addition to not being reasonable, the OPs solution is un-Constitutional.
> 
> ...



Nonsense. 

All the evidence introduced at trial demonstrated children with same-sex parents were just as healthy and well adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents. Indeed, supporters of Proposition 8 were unable to find any objective, substantiated evidence in support of their claim that children of same-sex couples were in any sort of jeopardy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Everybody should swing by this thread
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...of-false-rape-allegations-twin-daughters.html
> 
> Which has 47 reads and no responses. Gee, I wonder why.



 But something is not quit right with the out come. Even before they did DNA samples there should have been some kind of sign that the girls had been assault Surely there was reason they did the test, their had to be some kind of psychical damage to the little girls that would cause them to conduct DNA tests. And if that's the case those children should be taken away from him.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate
> >
> > In addition to not being reasonable, the OPs solution is un-Constitutional.
> >
> ...


 
Wrong.


----------



## bodecea (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Besides which, there's no evidence they are just as stable, or the children in households with homosexual parents are just as successful.
> 
> *In fact, there's evidence to the contrary*..but the homosexual lobby is a powerful one, tied to PP and the Kinsey Institute, and the APA, and they scramble VERY quickly to negate any perception that being exposed to sexual deviancy is harmful to children.



Link it.


----------



## bodecea (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate
> ...



Link your evidence that it is wrong.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

I will as soon as someone links evidence that homosexual-led households are just as successful at raising well adjusted kids as hetero ones.

This is what's called affirming a negative. I don't have to affirm a negative. You prove your point, then I'll challenge it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And see? That's just wrong.

My nephew is a very productive, wonderful member of society, and he was raised by a lesbian mom in a committed relationship.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting

Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork

Conn. Gay Couple Accused of Molesting Adopted Sons
by Jason St. Amand

Conn. Gay Couple Accused of Molesting Adopted Sons :: EDGE Provincetown


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Good for him. That's anecdotal, and as such, doesn't count.

I know kids raised by lesbian couples who are perfectly normal as well. We're reaching for an ideal here...it doesn't mean that success can never occurr outside of the ideal. But you promote the ideal in order to stack the deck, anyway.


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children. 

They have to prove that children in homosexual households have the same rate of success and stablity as those in hetero households...and they can't do it because that information doesn't exist.

And don't think the homosexual lobby wouldn't lie about it if they could. They certainly would, they are not averse to making shit up and calling it a "study"...PP and the Kinsey Institute are well known for that...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children.
> 
> They have to prove that children in homosexual households have the same rate of success and stablity as those in hetero households...and they can't do it because that information doesn't exist.
> 
> And don't think the homosexual lobby wouldn't lie about it if they could. They certainly would, they are not averse to making shit up and calling it a "study"...PP and the Kinsey Institute are well known for that...


True


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

"
Patricia Morgan, noted British sociologist and researcher, makes clear in her book _Children as Trophies_, the best current evidence DOES in fact show that children raised in homosexual households suffer from more problems than children raised in traditional ones.  Even advocates of same-sex parenting like Rosie are forced to admit, when the question is asked, that having both a mother and a father is a better family form.  Love alone does not make a family &#8212; a mother and father, committed to a life-long relationship either alone or raising their adoptive or biological children, does.  Put simply, family form DOES matter. "

"We are in a situation strikingly similar to that of the no-fault divorce debates of the early 1970s.  At the time, there was very little long-term data on the effects of divorce on children.  Advocates of free and easy divorce jumped on any study &#8212; all of them inspired more by ideology than by sound social science &#8212; to prove their point.  They won the battle, and we are now suffering from the legacy of no-fault divorce.  

Thirty years later the "experts&#8221; of the 1970s have been PROVEN wrong.  We know for instance, that children of divorce, in general, suffer from more social pathologies than children from traditional families. This knowledge is of little help to the generation of children that were robbed of fathers and mothers due to the myth of divorce without consequences."

Family Institute of Connecticut​


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children.
> 
> They have to prove that children in homosexual households have the same rate of success and stablity as those in hetero households...and they can't do it because that information doesn't exist.
> 
> And don't think the homosexual lobby wouldn't lie about it if they could. They certainly would, they are not averse to making shit up and calling it a "study"...PP and the Kinsey Institute are well known for that...



You might have tried Google before you claimed the information didn't exist.

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."



Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school

Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine, Studies Show | LiveScience



Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

"The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers  whether the mother was partnered or single  scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, *they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression*"


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children.
> ...



Not quite true.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children.
> ...


Are these studies like the historian that tried to rewrite the history of the Church and gay marriage?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Nor is it inherently unstable.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You mean well written and done by competent people?

Why not research the links and argue the points instead of simply dismissing anything that disagrees with your point of view?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No I mean twisted too fit their agenda? Because when the abnormal is made to look all rosey something is not quite right.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And numerous studies show children raised by gay parents are no different than children raised by straight parents.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Abnormal is not nor has it ever been stable.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So any study that does not fit what you want it to say is, by definition, "twisted to fittheir agenda"?

When we start only accepting that which is 'normal', you have created a nasty society full of hate and lacking individuality.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You make these claims, but there are plenty of gay couples are living in a stable relationship.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I make no claim but state what is normally seen as fact abnormal is not nor has it ever been stable. Unless you are redefining what is normal and abnormal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No but when study after study shows this rosy color of abnormal I tend to shut them off. Why bother if the studies fit a modern day agenda supporting gays>?


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Let them prove the nonsense that homosexual marriage is every bit as stable and "ideal" as hetero marriage for the purpose of raising children.
> 
> They have to prove that children in homosexual households have the same rate of success and stablity as those in hetero households...and they can't do it because that information doesn't exist.
> 
> And don't think the homosexual lobby wouldn't lie about it if they could. They certainly would, they are not averse to making shit up and calling it a "study"...PP and the Kinsey Institute are well known for that...



Why don't straights have to prove that before they can get married.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The problem is that you are using "abnormal" to describe one single aspect of the person, and then making the huge leap of nonsense to try and infer that makes their entire existence abnormal.

While their sexual orientation can be called abnormal, owing to the relatively small number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, it does not address their ability to form stable relationships.

I defy you to show any evidence that it does.  (and remember, you said abnormal has never been stable)


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



In other words, you will ignore anything that disagrees with you.

Did you even look at the links?  Or are you afraid to see any evidence contrary to your small-minded beliefs?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I want to see facts not an agenda motivate study to support the gay life style.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Did you look at the studies in the links?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




In some ways you are correct.  But that does not mean they cannot be in a stable relationship.  You are attempting to make a corrolation that does not exist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I did a google search before you posted the links Thats all I will say about that.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The links I posted showed information gathered from solid studies.  Pity you decide in advance what you want to see and ignore everything else.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Solid studies with a gay agenda in mind NO SELL.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You disagree with the studies and call them agenda based.  But the only evidence you have is the results?

Nice scientific approach you have there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is agenda motivated no sell.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Is it?  I find it odd that you state this as a fact.   The links showed studies done by trained sociologists, psychologists and other trained people.  But the results are all you needed to proclaim them bogus.

Let me know when you have some evidence and not just hatred.  It will make for a more enlightened discussion.

Right now what we have is me posting evidence and you saying "That is wrong!"


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are  happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in  non-traditional environments.  
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the _Journal of Counseling and Development_, found the following:
  The generalizability of the studies is limited.  Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost  all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated.  Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on  social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological  instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale  generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
  Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the  subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these  studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about  by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from  their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in  homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

" In the next paragraph, Patterson qualifies her statement. Echoing  Cramer's concern from a decade earlier, she writes: "It should be  acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children  is still very new and relatively scarce. . . . Longitudinal studies  that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed."[4]  The years have passed since Patterson's admission of the inadequacy of  homosexual parenting studies, and we still await definitive, objective  research substantiating her claims.  In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has  presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions  have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and  other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price,  and Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly:
  Research in this area has also been  criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that  call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most  studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have  been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.[5]"


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

"
*·*  In their book _Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence_,D.  Island and P. Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic  violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual  population."[45]
*Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. *A  little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are  far more violent than are traditional married households:
*·*  The Bureau  of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married  women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence  compared with women in other types of relationships.[46]"


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk


----------



## Montrovant (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There are a lot of sexual practices that are not normal, in that they are uncommon.  Does any heterosexual who participates in a sexual practice that is not the norm automatically have an unstable relationship?  

What about outside of sex?  I imagine most people have at least SOME characteristic that is outside the norm.  Does any abnormality in a person prevent a stable relationship?

*awaits unrelated or unexplainable response*


----------



## WinterBorn (May 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."
> 
> 
> "Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are  happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in  non-traditional environments.
> ...



Now bigrednc, take note of her post.  This is how you argue against links.  She presents clear arguments, posts information that backs up her claims, and does more than just say "that is a lie".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Let's redefine what has been normal and make it abnormal and what was once abnormal and make it normal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."
> 
> 
> "Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are  happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in  non-traditional environments.
> ...



That's the point I was trying to make.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."
> ...


Well what can I say I was right. hows that?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How is that?  lol   Still wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What  koshergrl posted coincides with what I have been saying even without posting a link I must be a very smart man to have all this information and have someone post a source that agrees with what I am saying.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What is normal and what is abnormal changes with every passing generation. At one point it was abnormal to own a home computer, but did that make it a bad thing? 

Banning on a public level anything YOU deem as abnormal is a dangerous and unfair proposition.

(1) Because abnormal doesn't necessarily mean "bad".
(2) what's abnormal for you might be perfectly normal for someone else.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.



The problem with your argument, though, is that the institution will still be protected! I assure you, no one is trying to ban opposite sex couples from being able to marry and procreate. If SSM is allowed, my ability to be married to my wife and have kids will not change in the slightest. 

The number of straight people in the world, as well as gays, will remain constant.

You know what I mean?

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.



If there was no heterosexual relationships we would go extinct. I guess if we all became gay their answer would be well we can artificially inseminate to save the human race. Why is that hard to believe that lifestyle goes against nature ?


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Yeah but that's not a good argument because progressives are okay with us going extinct.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.
> ...



No one's discouraging hetero relationships in any way shape or form, by the way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2012)

What is even crazier God had to condemn the sexual practice and bestiality as well. HELLO !


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yeah it was an exaggeration to show how it goes against nature whether you believe in God or not.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah but that's not a good argument because progressives are okay with us going extinct.



Give me a break, Kosh, what a dumb comment....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but that's not a good argument because progressives are okay with us going extinct.
> ...



Move to an island every gay man and woman and see how long you last.30 years is as long as I give you.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



30 years? That's it?


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.
> ...



"If we all became gay?" Is that a possibility for you? Wouldn't there be a LOT more gays than there are now, if there were a risk? Wouldn't the population grow, rather than remain constant?

What all do you want to happen to gays? 

They cannot serve a position of leadership in most churches.

They have only recently been able to adopt, and not very often at that. Money does talk, doesn't it.

They do not have the privilege of standing before God and plighting their troth to their dearly beloved. Did I say that with enough political correctness to circumvent the wording police?

They go through damn near literal hell growing up, if they can't successfully 'pass.'

If they attempt to stay closeted, they live in denial of themselves.

If they come out of the closet, they are "flaunting their sexuality" if they so much as say "this is my boyfriend, Bob."

Is that about it? Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?

But at least we don't hate them. Take comfort in that, right?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?


I would vote "Yes" if that was an option.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?
> ...



"Yes" for what exactly?


----------



## Montrovant (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Just the kind of response I was waiting for.


----------



## Montrovant (May 17, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but that's not a good argument because progressives are okay with us going extinct.
> ...



For someone who makes a point of complaining often about other people telling lies, she makes a lot of comments that could be considered lies herself.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 17, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


The passing of laws criminalizing homosexuality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Unsurprisingly I was expecting your comment, you have nothing to add.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



That's all, how will you replace those who have died?

OH and if you somehow start liking the taste of the opposite sex any children born will have to be removed from the island because they aren't gay yet.


----------



## KevinWestern (May 17, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



And what kind of sentencing would you be in favor of?

Could one be arrested on "suspicion" of being gay? Would you mandate that government bedroom cams be installed in every home in America to monitor for unauthorized "gay sex"?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts....
.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So Sunni, you're saying they aren't going through enough.

They should be criminalized.

But you still think it's a choice, I'm assuming.

With everything I said - that's what they "sign up for" when they "make that choice."

Why would anybody make that choice? And when did you decide you weren't going to be gay? Do you remember how that transpired?

Kindly don't make me call bullshit on your ass by lying about it.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Logical fallacy, red herring.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

I agree.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Again. All those things that you are touting as "advances"...more single parent households, for example..aren't advances at all.

"So what about the end of the traditional American family? Could it be that folks in the media are exaggerating just a little bit? One of the newsweeklies offered an approving sidebar of a young woman who has had three children by three different men and has married none of them. Her kids have asked her why she doesn&#8217;t get married. She replied&#8212;and her reply was written in large, headline type&#8212;&#8220;I had the kids. Why should I marry?&#8221; (Well, ma&#8217;am, rather than talk about you, let&#8217;s talk about what&#8217;s best for your children....)


The media&#8217;s reporting of the changing American family&#8212;and make no mistake, it is changing, and sometimes for the better&#8212;is filled with the bias of false inclusion, so much so that any parent who lives with a spouse and children could hardly be blamed for thinking that he or she is a cultural anachronism. And anybody who insists, as most level-headed people would, that two parents are better than one is immediately dismissed as a right-wing fanatic, a borderline cultural fascist, who seeks to impose outdated ideas of morality and family on others."

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1428


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 bigrebnc IS rationalizing  what he believes "should" be normal, in reality there is no normal but there is average. 
to be accurate homosexuality is RARE not abnormal.
any person could be categorized as abnormal for any number of "perceived"differences.
those perceptions are based on ignorance, bigotry and the need to feel superior.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Is it normal to desire to have sex with the same sex?


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 
To be accurate, we have no idea if it's abnormal or not, as we don't know how it comes about.

And rare is abnormal, if it doesn't occur naturally, and we have no evidence that homosexuality is a natural state:

"
*1nor·mal*

_adj_ \&#712;no&#775;r-m&#601;l\




*Definition of NORMAL*

1
_a_ *:* according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle _b_ *:* conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern 

2
*:* occurring naturally and not because of disease, inoculation, or any experimental treatment <_normal_ immunity> "
Normal - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."
> 
> 
> "Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are  happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in  non-traditional environments.
> ...


FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL! FUCK ME! AND YOU ASS HATS YAMMER ABOUT AGENDAS! 
KINDA CONTRADICT IVE AIN'T IT?
almost finished reading this thread and all of "evidence" against same sex marriage is to say the least, underwhelming


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

I would think if you really are maintaining that the family is well served by homosexual marriage, you would be interested in what those who have spent a lifetime researching the family have to say about it.

You just prove that, as all of those who swallow Kinsey without barfing, you aren't really interested in truth, or science, or anything else. You're interested in promoting an anti-child agenda whose primary objective for the last 50 years has been to sexualize children and eliminate social constructs that protect them from predators like Kinsey and his Nazi friends.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for  psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and  driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In  addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an  interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The  deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an  inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of  research participants, and self-presentation bias.  The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard  research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in  virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies  in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the  "politically correct" determination within those in the social science  professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than  traditional families."
> ...



I tell you want you can do load up every gay man and woman find an island and see how long gays will last. Oh and if by chance gay start to become attracted to the opposite sex and start having baby's you must hand those children over because your island will be for gays on;t and since those new born aren't gay they can't live there. I give gay's 30 years before they die out.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Here are the sources quotes by the article:

"
1. David Cramer, "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of Research and Practical Implications," _Journal of Counseling and Development _64 (April 1986): 506. See alsoFrederick W. Bozett, "Gay Fathers: A Review of the Literature," in _Homosexuality and the Family_ (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1989), p. 152. Bozett writes: "Most studies of gay fathers are based on nonrandom small sample sizes, with subjects who are Caucasian, middle- to upper-class, well educated with occupations commensurate with their education, who come mostly from urban centers, and who are relatively accepting of their homosexuality. There is severely limited knowledge of gay fathers who vary from these demographics. Moreover, the validity and reliability of the instruments used in the studies reported are not always addressed." 
2. Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach, "Deconstructing the Essential Father," _American Psychologist_ 54 (June 1999): 397-407. 
3. Charlotte J. Patterson, "Lesbian and Gay Parenting," _American Psychological Association Public Interest Directorate _(1995): 8. "

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


if you're homosexual it is. 
gay people do not choose their sexuality just as heterosexuals do not.
some people are bisexual some are even asexual. evolution does not make those kind of distinctions.

on the other hand if you believe in the Christian god ,then you must believe that god made them just like he made you.
if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then either god fucked up or your own ignorance, and bigotry is clouding your vision.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Trying to plan your next vacation, bigreb?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well there you go homosexuals are not normal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Gays will die out without straight people to create more children for them to infect with their gay life style.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I would think if you really are maintaining that the family is well served by homosexual marriage, you would be interested in what those who have spent a lifetime researching the family have to say about it.
> 
> You just prove that, as all of those who swallow Kinsey without barfing, you aren't really interested in truth, or science, or anything else. You're interested in promoting an anti-child agenda whose primary objective for the last 50 years has been to sexualize children and eliminate social constructs that protect them from predators like Kinsey and his Nazi friends.


wrong! what I proved is you have no objective evidence just bias rambling    

"You're interested in promoting an anti-child agenda whose primary objective for the last 50 years has been to sexualize children and eliminate social constructs that protect them from predators like Kinsey and his Nazi friends "- KG

BUULLSHIT!


Allegations About Childhood Data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children's sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Judith Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud).

When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Below is a reiteration of some of the accusations against Kinsey and his research from Dr. Reisman and others, and the Institute's response:

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of "science" offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura Schlesinger's website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. It is not true. Kinsey did not carry out any experiments on children, nor did he hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and he in no way condoned any sexual abuse. 

Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, in confidence. Some of the behaviors that these people disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940's and 1950's. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

The Kinsey Institute - Response to Controversy - Childhood Data [About the Institute]


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Is this a joke?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 JUST THE ANSWER I  EXPECTED!


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

I'm sure, since it's the truth.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Is this a joke?


 your posts?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a joke?
> ...


no your's


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

You're quoting the Kinsey Institute on why we should accept Kinsey's landmark *studies* of perversion, and continue to teach Kinsey's lies in our schools.

It must be a joke.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm sure, since it's the truth.


well like always you'd be wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure, since it's the truth.
> ...



When you look in the mirror there's always a moron looking back.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

*nor·mal/&#712;nôrm&#601;l/ 
*

Adjective:Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.Noun:The usual, average, or typical state or condition.Synonyms:_adjective_.  regular - standard - ordinary - common - usual
_noun_.  normality - normalcy - perpendicular


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Which of those definitions fits "homosexual"?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


impressive for a middle schooler


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> *nor·mal/&#712;nôrm&#601;l/
> *
> 
> Adjective:Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.Noun:The usual, average, or typical state or condition.Synonyms:_adjective_.  regular - standard - ordinary - common - usual
> _noun_.  normality - normalcy - perpendicular



ab·nor·mal/ab&#712;nôrm&#601;l/
Adjective:	
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

And?


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2012)

Homosexuality is normal and desirable?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Just keep in mind that mirror you look in everyday there will always be a moron looking back.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 people who live in glass mobil homes should not throw stones .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Homosexuality is normal and desirable?



Abnormal


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Which of those definitions fits "homosexual"?


none of them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you still have your tires attached to your's?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Which of those definitions fits "homosexual"?
> ...



ab·nor·mal/ab&#712;nôrm&#601;l/
Adjective:	
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


repeat yourself much?
it was meaningless the first time, twice just proves you're  ignorant and unimaginative.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


so you do live in trailer park.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



only a moron would see it as meaningless but they still have that mirror with the moron looking back at them.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


false perception


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No I don't I asked you did you still have your tires attached?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 looks like your OCD is kicking in .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Never try to redefine a word in the middle of a discussion it just makes you look stupid.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


it's a meaningless question


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Like I said you will always have that mirror with the moron looking back at you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you do have the tries attached.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


didn't have to try because there is no redefinition,alleging that I did proves you're desperation and stupidity..


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


meaningless question[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

You are a moron when is making a statement asking a question?
This is not a question but a statement


> So you do have the tries attached



This is a question which does not apply to the post you just responded too.


> Do you still have the tires attach?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are a moron when is making a statement asking a question?
This is not a question but a statement


> So you do have the tries attached



This is a question which does not apply to the post you just responded too.


> Do you still have the tires attach?


[/QUOTE]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






btw that's "attached"  Examples of ATTACHED
Please fill out the attached application.
Please see the document attached.
The house has an attached garage.
We both became very attached to the cat.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...









btw that's "attached"  Examples of ATTACHED
Please fill out the attached application.
Please see the document attached.
The house has an attached garage.
We both became very attached to the cat.[/QUOTE]

Like your tires are still attached to the wheels of your trailer.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > You are a moron when is making a statement asking a question?
> ...



Like your tires are still attached to the wheels of your trailer.[/QUOTE]

You know, once you have nothing new to say - you CAN stop posting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You know, once you have nothing new to say - you CAN stop posting.[/QUOTE]


No since dawas brought up mobile homes I was addressing the fact that his tires were still attached to his wheels on his trailer.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

Oh, so I should go ahead and unsubscribe because y'all are having a girly-girl fight? Not a problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Oh, so I should go ahead and unsubscribe because y'all are having a girly-girl fight? Not a problem.



You just realized that this thread has come to that point?  you're about 15 pages to slow


----------



## WinterBorn (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Infect with their gay lifestyle??     You think homosexuality is contagious??    LMAO!!

You really do provide comic relief in here.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so I should go ahead and unsubscribe because y'all are having a girly-girl fight? Not a problem.
> ...



Well, I read WinterBorn's posts.


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I gotta wonder. Has he been inoculated? Was I inoculated? Were you? Apparently Bod wasn't.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 17, 2012)

Nothing wrong with the gay folk I work with in my life. And the neighbors we have that are gay are great. Same with the gay folk in my family.
If you can not stand up for the rights of those that are different and not breaking any laws then how can any of us demand that our rights be stood up for?
Let them get married and move on. An absurd argument to ban gay marriage.
Bigger fish to fry.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes infected brainwashed into thinking abnormal is normal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Well then why don't you tell him



> You know, once you have nothing new to say - you CAN stop posting.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And you claimed they would "die out without straight people to create more children for them to infect with their gay life style".  So you apparently think gays make other people gay??

See, I think that is hilariously funny.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



She did.  She posted it on an open forum that I am involved in.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



She didn't post it too him. so shut the fuck up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I think I said die out. You can't create life without the help of the opposite sex. gays don't like the opposite sex.  No children no replacing those who have died off, no gay to be around to teach gay life is acceptable. It's a win win for straights and the children. stupid much?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Oh, so I should go ahead and unsubscribe because y'all are having a girly-girl fight? Not a problem.


some posters have ocd and fail to know when to stfu...


----------



## BDBoop (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 this post is spellbinding in it's ignorance.
so you think being gay kills the prime biological imperative?    
again you're sooo wrong...ever hear artificial insemination?
some gay folks even have sex with heterosexuals for the express purpose of making babies of their own.
as to marriage it's not needed to make babies .
I do  lmao every time I read a post saying homosexuailty will drive our speices to extinction or some lame variation on the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN nonsense. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jO1EOhGkY0]Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Sir Launcelot - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so I should go ahead and unsubscribe because y'all are having a girly-girl fight? Not a problem.
> ...



Some still have that mirror with the moron in it I suggest you take a long look in your's he's waiting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes your post is.

As for making children gays can't do that they must have sex with someone of the opposite sex


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


comprehension problems? :"ever hear artificial insemination?
some gay folks even have sex with heterosexuals for the express purpose of making babies of their own."
willfully ignorant much or do you have trouble with words of more then two syllables  


you can throw in the mirror and moron thing anytime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





No I have no comprehension problems because I am not the one supporting an abnormal and illegal act, you are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 18, 2012)

What I believe he is trying to say that if all of a sudden the entire world was gay and none of them reproduced because of that then the species would die out. 
But that ain't happening. 
I posted about a year ago that I believe big reb will one day change his mind about gays and gay marriage. I have seen so many that do and I do not believe he is the hard core gay basher I saw many of growing up. 
Believe me sports fans, bigreb is not the hard core gay basher that was the norm for hundreds of years. Wait and see. Bigreb, you denied you would change but one day I see it. Seen it so many times before.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

Refusing to acknowledge that gays are being denied the same right to marriage as everybody else is not gay bashing.

Progressives think that any time a person tells a group "no, you can't have special privileges" it's "hate" or "bashing".


----------



## daws101 (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


really? since your pov on homosexuality is based on bigotry and ignorance your use of the word abnormal is by definition invalid..
so marriage is illegal .?
I am supporting equality, nothing more....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Ignorance is allowing people to spread aids through out the world Thanks gays for contributing.
No my pov on homosexuality is based on common sense


----------



## KevinWestern (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Straight people - sadly - can also get/transmit aids too (just to let you know).


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Apparently lesbian women can get married then, because they are the safest on that front.

The logic escapes me, I'm just trying to play along.


----------



## daws101 (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 the old AIDS ploy..so who you gonna blame for the hunta virus or the plague or even the common cold?
IT's always funny when the one live brain cell crowd throw out "common sense" !


----------



## KevinWestern (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Good point... so Big, running with your idea, lesbian couples are much less likely to have aids or transmit the disease than straight couples; so essentially, are they OK'ed for marriage (given the superior health record)?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes  thanks too gay junkies


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



OLD aids play? The truth some times revisit the old.


----------



## daws101 (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


  that's "sometimes" and "revisits"
and it's a non answer!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


That's a good grammar Nazi deflection when you have no answer .


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



"hanta" virus.


It isn't spread by screwing. it's spread by mice.


----------



## daws101 (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


there was no question so no need to answer!


----------



## daws101 (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


thanks for catching that typo!


----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hi all

I was thinking.  If you put all the gays on an island, they need not die out.

They could create fertilization rituals and continue to survive--even producing straight kids and gay kids in the process.

They only need men and women.  There are gay men and gay women.  So what is missing?  Is it lust for the opposite sex?  That is natures way of promoting procreation. However, we are talking about thinking people, so it is not really necessary to have "lust between the opposite sex".

Extinction might not happen.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Refusing to acknowledge that gays are being denied the same right to marriage as everybody else is not gay bashing.
> 
> Progressives think that any time a person tells a group "no, you can't have special privileges" it's "hate" or "bashing".



Bull shit everytime you say it.
Interracial marriage was once banned because "they have the same rights as whites to marry" and "no you can't have special privileges."
Wrong is wrong and wrong is always wrong.
Gays do not have the same rights. They are denied their right to marry folks they love just the same as whites and blacks were denied the right to marry the folks they love.
Equal protection under the law is not just for race.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

Bullshit every time you try to perpetuate the lie that anyone is denying gays the right to get married, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. They can get married. They choose not to.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Refusing to acknowledge that gays are being denied the same right to marriage as everybody else is not gay bashing.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

Again. They aren't being denied the right to get married JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Again. They aren't being denied the right to get married JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.



Yes they are. They absolutely are. It doesn't matter how much you cyber yell.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Again. They aren't being denied the right to get married JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.



Why did you get married?  (or why would you, if you have never been married)


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

Tell me what right they don't have that we have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Never said there was a question you just don't have any rebuttal to what I say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's only a typo when a grammar NAZI makes a mistake.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No children left behind since the Island will be for gays children will have to be removed. Die out quietly now.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Tell me what right they don't have that we have.



Why not answer my question?   If you have ever been married, why did you get married?   If you haven't, why would you marry someone?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So do gay kids only come from gay parents?  Or do gay people convert and recruit kids to be gay?

It has to be one or the other for your "they will die out" theory to work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what right they don't have that we have.
> ...



There is no right to same sex marriage illegal act's do not get specialized rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Children aren't gay most children do not sex identifier until they are up in years, So no children will be allowed to remain on the island to be infected with the ideal they are gay.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Oh, so no one is born gay and they only turn gay if they are in contact with other gays??


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Tell me what right they don't have that we have.



What - again? You already know. No matter how it's stated, you will claim the verbiage is incorrect, and therefore.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what right they don't have that we have.
> ...



KG, you have a question waiting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




No they are not. This is not saying Children are able to identify gender so don't even try it.

Youngsters actually begin developing strong gender identities long before middle childhood. A child's awareness of being a boy or a girl starts in the first year of life. It often begins by eight to ten months of age, when youngsters typ*ically discover their genitals. Then, between one and two years old, children become conscious of physical differences between boys and girls; before their third birthday they are easily able to label themselves as either a boy or a girl as they acquire a strong concept of self. By age four, children's gender identity is stable, and they know they will always be a boy or a girl.

HealthyChildren.org - Gender Identity and Gender Confusion In Children


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you think no contact with gays will prevent anyone from being gay??    lol   And you wonder why I call you comic relief?


----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




I think you  proposed putting all the gays on an island.

Removing the children produced by the gays would not make sense.  Also, if you think that putting all the gays on an island will lead to the extinction of homosexuals, then you are wrong.  Homosexuals are mostly  produced by Heterosexuals.  Their extinction will only come with the extinction of the human race.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)




----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



Quick question---Why can't gays just marry outside the church.

Mayors, judges and other city officials can grant a marriage license, and the gays can hold their own event away from any church as a wedding reception.

Given this, why can't gays have non-religious marriages??  Alot people do due to disapproval of their families.  Gays could do this because of "disapproval of their religious beliefs"


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Because there are Christian gays, maybe? Maybe they want to get married in a church?


----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



But if the church do not accept them(which is the biggest argument I see against gays getting married) why not seek some other venue?

Of course, If I was in such a situation, I would just change religion.  Especially if the religious group is making arguments about me that are just false.  How can you trust them?


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



There are gay churches.


----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Gay churches that accept Gay couple/marriages as part of their theology or Gay churches that tolerate gay couples/marriages despite it goes against their theology?


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



First. I doubt that the second exists, but I may be wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I think the same logic that prevents laws based solely on religious doctrines would (or should) prevent the gov't from forcing churches to perform weddings for gays, if the churches do not wish to do so.


----------



## amrchaos (May 18, 2012)

Wait

Are you saying there are religious groups that condone gay marriages? 

Please, find one for me.  That would end the discussion of gay marriages--and adoptions too.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> Wait
> 
> Are you saying there are religious groups that condone gay marriages?
> 
> Please, find one for me.  That would end the discussion of gay marriages--and adoptions too.



If I am not mistaken, Wicca accepts gays as just another variant of humaity.

The IRS recognizes Wicca.  The military even has Wiccan chaplains and trains the chaplains corp to help with wiccans in the military.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_minnesota.htm


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> Wait
> 
> Are you saying there are religious groups that condone gay marriages?
> 
> Please, find one for me.  That would end the discussion of gay marriages--and adoptions too.



no, it wouldn't. Because IT ISN'T A QUESTION OF RELIGION.

Cripes you guys are so fucking pig headed. YOU are the ones who insist it's a matter of religion. It isn't about religion. 

Did anybody tell me what right gays are being denied? They have the same right that I do to marry....so what right exactly is it they don't have?

PS the Episcopal Church condones homosexuality, and will be marrying them before much longer:

'
While churches are already performing same-sex marriage ceremonies in  localities where the process is legal, there is no official liturgy to  govern these actions. The Episcopal Churchs Public Affairs office addressed this issue through the following announcement on its web site last week:
The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) of  the Episcopal Church has forwarded to the House of Bishops and the House  of Deputies excerpts from its report, _I Will Bless You, and You Will Be a Blessing: Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships._
 The report, nearly three years in the making, was prepared by the  SCLM in compliance 2009-C056, Liturgies for Blessings,  a resolution   approved by the General Convention (GC) of the Episcopal Church in 2009  which directed the SCLM to collect and develop theological and  liturgical resources for the blessing of same-gender relationships  through an open process."
Episcopal Church Releases Proposed Same-Sex Marriage Rites | Gay Marriage | TheBlaze.com
​


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Wait
> ...



So are you saying Gay is a religion?

I have to agree with you there.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Wait
> ...



You mean the fact that they can marry anybody on the planet save the person they are in love with? Which you also claim doesn't matter, for some logic I've yet to believe.

KG, every straight person on the planet can marry the person who loves them, excluding the barriers you bring up when you're losing. Straight, free-to-marry singles who are not related to their partner can do so. Gays cannot.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

Or are you saying they are just fucked on having any of the legal rights, benefits and privileges that straights receive.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



What?   Please reread my post and tell me where I said anything about gay being a religion??

I mean, I'm sure its easier to debate if you get to claim someone says whatever you want, but do try to stick with what is actually said.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2012)

i thought you were making the point that the irs recognizes wicca but not gay..

carry on, lol.


----------



## Montrovant (May 18, 2012)

I don't remember who I first saw bring this up, but couldn't the gay marriage issue be put in terms of gender discrimination?

I am a man.  I am allowed to marry any woman of age who consents and isn't already married.  If a woman wants to marry the same person I do, they are prevented from doing so based solely on their gender.  Their sexual preferences are unimportant, the factor preventing them from marrying a woman, just as I can, is their gender.  Obviously the opposite holds true.

As discrimination based on gender is, as far as I am aware, illegal, is this argument enough to allow same sex marriage?


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

I believe you are correct, sir.

And it was probably me, because I have brought it up quite frequently.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Wait
> ...


The church of Satan condones gay marriage do you have a point?


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Yes. Many Christian churches do as well.

Now where did you get that information about the Church of Satan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Not much of a christian church that goes against the teaching of the bible might as well be call church of Satan because that's who they serve.


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



A church that condones same-sex marriage is not a Christian church.  That is a wolf is sheep's clothing.  Did you ever read about wolves in sheep's clothing in your bible?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



That there is a major religion that condones gay marriage?

And just as an FYI, wiccans do not believe in the satan.  Be that as it may, Wicca is a recognized religion.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Since Wicca is not a christian faith, they do not place any value on what is written in the bible.

But the question was whether there are religions that accept gays and gay marriage.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That is very nice, but irrelevant when the discussion is US law and what religions accept homosexuality.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_north_carolina.htm


----------



## Peach (May 18, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> I don't remember who I first saw bring this up, but couldn't the gay marriage issue be put in terms of gender discrimination?
> 
> I am a man.  I am allowed to marry any woman of age who consents and isn't already married.  If a woman wants to marry the same person I do, they are prevented from doing so based solely on their gender.  Their sexual preferences are unimportant, the factor preventing them from marrying a woman, just as I can, is their gender.  Obviously the opposite holds true.
> 
> As discrimination based on gender is, as far as I am aware, illegal, is this argument enough to allow same sex marriage?



It should be, but there is a need among many for a "group" that threatens the so called "American way of life". This decade it is gay Americans....


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Chrisitianity condemns homosexuality.


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_north_carolina.htm



I understand there are "gay churches".  However, they are not Christian.  They are wolves in sheep's clothing.  They are deceived because they do not follow scripture as their foundation.


----------



## BDBoop (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Which is why I don't do church anymore.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



That is fine.  Christian churches will not be forced to perform gay weddings.

But wiccan groups should be able to do so, and the federal gov't should recognize them.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_north_carolina.htm
> ...



There are many religions in the world, and most are represented in the US now.  Following biblical scripture would be important for christian faiths, but not for any others.  In fact, for any faith that is not Judeo-Christian, the bible is just an interesting piece of historical literature.


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



As long as no one is forced to recognize something against their religion, then people can do what they want.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



And the gov't should recognize those marriages and any civil ceremony weddings?


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That is true.  As long as Christians are not denied their Constitutional rights then I have no problem what anyone does.  My point is that there are real Christian churches and wolves in sheep's clothing.  That is the point I am making.


----------



## Buford (May 18, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I believe marriage laws are a state matter.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



As long as they do not violate the US Constitution.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Agree.  Marriage is a man and a woman.  That violates nothing.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



You just inserted religion into a government debate.

You lose.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



By the way. Your avatar? BIG part of why I laugh at you calling yourself by His name.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_north_carolina.htm
> ...



Your opinion only.
I belong to a church that follows the teachings of Christ.
You can believe what you want to at your church and I support that.
I can believe what I want to at my church.
What I say does not make you wrong on your religous beliefs.
What you say does not make me wrong on my religous beliefs.
THAT is what this country WAS FOUNDED ON.
Religous beliefs do not make the LAW.
You do not determine if someone else is Christian or not. 
Jesus never said anything negative about gays. "Love thy neighbor" is in the Bible more times than any other quote.
Gay folks are accepted as equals in my church. We are no less Christian than you.
You can claim it all you want but we are not deceived.
We accept everyone AS CHRIST DID.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Nope.  I inserted thousands of years of civilized culture.  You're confused, dear.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



You're wrong, sweetums. It's only been roughly 150 years that civilization got weird about 'teh gays.' 

Thanks, butterbuns.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Along with tons of other things you are ignoring.

Love they neighbor. 

Obama is a Christian. He is also the leader of your nation. Show yourself to be a Christian, rather than a joke.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Civilization has viewed marriage as a man and a woman for thousands of years, dear.  It's only recently that gays have decided to claim they are being victimized by not being able to get married.  The demand is from the homosexuals to accept homosexual marriage, cutie pie.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm not ignoring anything.  All I said was Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman.  Don't blame me.  Take it up with Jesus.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



No, Jesus never defined marriage as monogamy of any kind as the accepted way of the culture never prohibited polygamy. Complementarity, one man-one woman, is NOT God's ironclad rule for marriages as defined in the Bible because scripture makes exceptions for other situations like a. polygamy and b. divorce.
The fact that there are CLEARLY stated Biblical exceptions to Complementarity proves your absolutist view wrong. 
Please read Corinthians 7:1-9. "Everyone should have an orientation compatible partner"


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Um.....okay.  Matthew 19 states the words of Jesus very clearly:  "For this reason *a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh&#8217;? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.[/U]* Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.&#8221;

Which Corinthians are you speaking of, First Corinthians or second Corinthians?


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



roflmao!!

Because, - what. It'd kill you to pick up a bible and find out for yourself?


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
No he didn't. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman isn't a religious statement.

However marriage was initially the domain of the church; when the church actually was the government. Then the government horned in. And it's still trying to horn in, thanks to people like you.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Not my job to back up your points.  It's yours.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Yes it is. That's what he is basing it on.

He's a fundy.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



That wasn't _my_ point, liver lips. L2Read.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Jesus was a fundy and Jesus was also a bigot because Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Not only that, but millions and millions of people who lived on this planet from the very beginning of civilization were homophobic bigots because they believed marriage is a man and a women.  Astounding reasoning.  You're smart.  You should write a book.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Thanks. Because you just proved you're not a Christian, you are a troll who uses religion to play your little troll games.


----------



## Buford (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Naw.  I just expose your ignorance and double standard crap.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2012)

Buford said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



And equal access to those laws are a Constitutional matter.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



This doesnt make any sense, as usual. 

Secular marriage law is contract law, written by the states; it has nothing to do with religious rituals concerning marriage. 

In the United States church and State are held separate, per the Constitution. As private entities, religious organizations are not subject to Constitutional mandate, only law-making jurisdictions must allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws. 

Religion doesnt factor into the issue, and is consequently irrelevant. 

Anyone who makes a religious argument is either exhibiting her ignorance or attempting to deflect the issue away from the failed conservative argument.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Or. You know.

Both.


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You moron, I didn't make a religious argument. BDBoop said religion was inserted into the conversation when it wasn't. So take your brilliant retort and re-direct it towards her. You both seem to have difficulty with the language.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yes it was. And most of the people against same-sex marriage base that belief on the Bible. So just because YOU don't doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that it is happening right in this thread.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2012)

Lets review the more common arguments against allowing same-sex couples access to marriage laws and why these arguments fail. 

_Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament _

Irrelevant. 

As the Constitutional mandate applies only to public sector jurisdictions, no religious institution may be compelled to administer religious marriage rituals to same-sex couples.  

_Marriage is for Raising Children; Gay Couples are Unnatural & Unnatural Unions Cannot Be Marriage_

False.

As already established, if same-sex couples are prohibited from marriage for this reason then infertile opposite-sex couples must be excluded from marriage for the same reason. 

_Gay Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage. _

False. 

Marriage is a union between equals, gender is irrelevant; a marriage contract is an agreement between *two equal parties* to make a commitment to each other, in exchange for which they are entitled to stipulated benefits and privileges as provided by law.  

_Gay Marriage is Incompatible with Religious Liberty_

False. 

Allowing same-sex couples equal access to marriage law as required by the 14th Amendment in no way interferes with religious liberty. Obeying the Constitution in this matter infringes on no religious tenet, no person of a given faith is compelled to enter into a same-sex marriage contract against his will, and no religious institution is required to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage rites. 

_Marriage as a Cultural Symbol_

Irrelevant. 

The Supreme Court has held that because something is perceived to be historic or traditional does not justify that practice to be continued if found offensive to the Constitution. See: Bowers v. Hardwick

That marriage has always been between a man and a woman is legally immaterial. If that were a valid argument then segregation and miscegenation would still be legal, as some might well consider both traditional.


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



No, it wasn't. Please point out the reference to religion (outside your own noggin) in the statement "Marriage is between a man and a woman".  What is the religious reference?

You realize you are saying, as you always do, that the reality is something other than the facts. Just because you think there's a religious connection in someone's MIND doesn't mean they introduced religion into the conversation.


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2012)

And please link the stats that back up your statement "most of the people against same-sex marriage" feel that way because of religion. The majority of the American population is against it. It isn't about religion. It's about protecting the stable, traditional family that we know is the ideal unit for raising children. That's the beginning, middle and end...and it has nothing to do with religion. 

The extremist minority thinks if they can MAKE this a religious issue, they will scare people into supporting them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 20, 2012)

> The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271" 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, *if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.* See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).



Laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage law meet neither standard, as they manifest an undue burden to a fundamental right and lack a rational relation to some legitimate end. 

Objecting to same-sex marriage on religious grounds is neither rational nor legitimate.


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2012)

Once again, who is objecting to it on a religious basis?

Not me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lets review the more common arguments against allowing same-sex couples access to marriage laws and why these arguments fail.
> 
> _Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament _
> 
> ...



Sodomy is illegal people are arrested for doing it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Every Wednesday, Eddie and Jobo take their mics to the Cook County Courthouse to see why people are there.  This mornings stories ranged from normal to downright bizarre!  There was people looking for child support, someone busted for underage drinking and even a story about a brother and sister looking to get married!

Read more: A Brother & Sister Want To Get Married? Find Out The Whole Story On Eddie & Jobos What Are You In For? A Brother & Sister Want To Get Married? Find Out The Whole Story On Eddie & Jobo&#8217;s What Are You In For?


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And please link the stats that back up your statement "most of the people against same-sex marriage" feel that way because of religion. The majority of the American population is against it. It isn't about religion. It's about protecting the stable, traditional family that we know is the ideal unit for raising children. That's the beginning, middle and end...and it has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The extremist minority thinks if they can MAKE this a religious issue, they will scare people into supporting them.



The creation of marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:23-24: "The man said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God created man and then made woman to complement him. Marriage is Gods fix for the fact that it is not good for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18).

There are many Biblical references to man and woman being the standard, and just about any fundy in this thread can reference them for you, chapter and verse.


----------



## Montrovant (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sodomy is illegal people are arrested for doing it.



Not in the US as far as I know.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy is illegal people are arrested for doing it.
> ...



You were saying?

Man Charged With Sodomy, Child Molestation | FOX2now.com

Elmore County man charged with sodomy, child sex abuse | Crime | Wetumpka News

More details emerge after pastor charged with sodomy, child porn - KFVS12 News & Weather Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, Poplar Bluff

Guyton man charged with solicitation of sodomy, enticing a child - WTOC-TV: Savannah, Beaufort, SC, News, Weather & Sports

Jack man charged with rape, sodomy | Dothan Eagle

The Sullivan Independent News » Sullivan Man Charged In Sodomy Case

Man charged with sexual abuse and sodomy of teenager | Crime Beat

Man Arrested On Sex Offense, Sodomy | News | Upper Marlboro News


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Looks like all but one of these stories involved children.  And in that one the age of the victims was not available.

The SCOTUS has ruled (Lawrence v. Texas) that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.  

Also, I hope you realize that if you favor anti-sodomy laws you are trying to outlaw oral sex?  Do you really want blowjobs to be crimes?


----------



## Montrovant (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are correct.  I thought that the _Lawrence_ decision invalidated sodomy laws, but apparently some states either ignore that decision or feel it is narrow in scope.

I would point out, though, that every case you linked involves more than just consensual sex between adults.  They all involve minors or rape.  They weren't even all homosexual sex.  So, hopefully, there aren't many adults being charged just for having consensual sex.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sodomy is still sodomy no matter the age. Sodomy is what type of act?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sodomy is still sodomy no matter the age. Sodomy is what type of act?




Private?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Here's a teenager being charged with sodomy

Eufaula men, teen charged with sodomy | Eufaula Tribune


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy is still sodomy no matter the age. Sodomy is what type of act?
> ...



Sodomy is what type of act?

OH and brother and sister acts of love are also private do we allow that?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

In Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held:

"Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3&#8212;18."

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## Montrovant (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Here's a teenager being charged with sodomy
> 
> Eufaula men, teen charged with sodomy | Eufaula Tribune



Again, there's a minor involved.

The point I'm making has to do with the _Lawrence_ decision and the fact that some states and courts have interpreted it to be narrow in scope.  They feel that it does not invalidate sodomy laws when they involve minors, or sex acts in public, only those done in private between consenting adults.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If you would like to show me where the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of incest, I would be happy to read it.

I notice you didn't answer my question.  Are you in favor of making oral sex between consenting adults (or married couples) illegal?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a teenager being charged with sodomy
> ...



It seems as though bigrebnc wants the gov't to monitor activities in people's bedrooms.  I have no doubt he would volunteer for such duty.  lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Why do I need to answer your question since you want answer mine?

Is their any Supreme court ruling that gives gays right to marry?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you support brothers and sisters marring each other?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Here's a teenager being charged with sodomy
> 
> Eufaula men, teen charged with sodomy | Eufaula Tribune



From your link:

"The Barbour County Sheriffs Office announced the arrests late Friday morning in a press release. Deputies first learned of the alleged crimes on Feb. 28 when they received a report that a *Eufaula child had been sexually assaulted *and that there were multiple suspects involved."

Can you show us any arrests that do not involve children or rape?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Or rather, I am not answering yours because you refuse to answer mine?  Since I did pose my question first.

Also, my question is relevant to the views on sodomy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a teenager being charged with sodomy
> ...



But it's a teenager who's being charged with sodomy does it give the age of the child who was sodomized? The child could have been a teenager also.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I have asked you since this discussion of same sex marriage started. So do you drag your knuckles like you drag your feet?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I see that you are back to changing what I say into what you wish I had said.  

Unless you can show where I said anything in favor of incest, I think you are guilty of not only twisting my words, but making up what I said.  And weren't you the one refusing to continue a discussion with me because you claimed I did that?

Hypocrisy is a lousy debate technique.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Nothing has changed especially your refusal to answer a comment.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Since the article referred to one as a "teenager" and one as a "child" it is a reasonable assumption that the child was much younger.

And the word "assault" doesn't have any bearing on it?

Again, show us links to arrests made that do not include children or rape.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Fine.   I do not support brothers and sisters marrying each other.

And your answer to my question?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I didn't say anything changed in the discussion.  I called you out on a blatant lie or at least making a claim that I said something I did not.

You know, like you had a hissy fit claiming I did?


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy is still sodomy no matter the age. Sodomy is what type of act?
> ...



AND he wants to outlaw blowjobs. Must never have had a good one. Certainly explains the anger.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


So you say one group shouldn't be allowed to marry but another group should?
Fine I do not support gays marring each other, and family members.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That is not answering the question I asked, is it?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

Isn't it convenient that bigrebnc chose such an opportune time to bail.  I guess he could have had something else to do.

I'll be curious to see if he continues to avoid my question when he returns.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Isn't it convenient that bigrebnc chose such an opportune time to bail.  I guess he could have had something else to do.
> 
> I'll be curious to see if he continues to avoid my question when he returns.



Sunday brunch.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Bother and sisters should be allowed to get married if not for the government stepping in the bedroom. I suppose some peoples rights are less of value than others in your opinion?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So no answer to my question?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



That was my answer you think the government should go into some peoples bedroom but stay out of others.
I think all forms of abnormal behavior the government should stop. You're a fucking hypocrite.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you are saying yes, oral sex between consenting adults should be illegal?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 20, 2012)

> A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate



For conservatives that reasonable solution is segregation. 



> AND he wants to outlaw blowjobs.



Thats downright un-American.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Brothers and sisters are also consenting adults but you would restrict their rights to marry which if their is a right to marry would be a violation of their 14TH amendment rights.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Would a simple yes or no be too much?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I answered you already. I am not a hypocrite like you.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Certainly you are a hypocrite.  Unless you can show where I said what you claim I did.

Also, I never advocated the gov't spying into anyone's bedroom or regulating the sexual activities between consenting adults.   When I said I did not support brothers and sisters marrying, I was not talking about making any sexual relations illegal, as you want to do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Here you go hypocrite. You think brothers and sisters should not be allowed to marry but think it's fine to allow gays the right to marry.


WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

Right, that is what I said.  I do not support their marriage.

If you would care to show me where I said anything about making any sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, you will have made your point.


But as for you and your severe repression, to quote Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams):  "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history."


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Reb, this isn't like Congress where you have a defense contract, and tack on an anti-SSM bill. We're discussing gays. You can't just toss on incest because you think it will make your argument valid.


----------



## Mr Natural (May 20, 2012)

Why does there need to be  a "Reasonable Solution"?

If two guys want to get married, they should get married. What's the big fucking deal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Reb, this isn't like Congress where you have a defense contract, and tack on an anti-SSM bill. We're discussing gays. You can't just toss on incest because you think it will make your argument valid.


Since the OP it has been about the right of a person too marry whom ever they so choose. Now you're saying some people don't afford the same rights as others? Come on BD say you aren't being hypocritical?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Why does there need to be  a "Reasonable Solution"?
> 
> If two guys want to get married, they should get married. What's the big fucking deal?



Just like brothers and sisters have the same right correct?


----------



## Mr Natural (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Why does there need to be  a "Reasonable Solution"?
> ...



No skin off my nose.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Right, that is what I said.  I do not support their marriage.
> 
> If you would care to show me where I said anything about making any sexual activity between consenting adults illegal, you will have made your point.
> 
> ...



I notice how you will quote a post some times and then other times you don't? Why's that?

You said brothers and sisters do not have a right too marry each other if they choose to do that but gays have that right according too you. Isn't that hypocritical on your part?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Of course not their is no reason what so ever for you too say you oppose Brothers and sisters matting each other on a discussion board, but as soon as people start to make an issue of it and demand those rights you will object too it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Right, that is what I said.  I do not support their marriage.
> ...



I said I didn't support brothers and sisters marrying.  A few days ago I said I didn't really have a hard opinion on the matter.

What this means is that I do not care one way or the other.  If they were allowed I wouldn't care, and don't care that they are not.  

But you, insist that sexual acts between consenting adults should be regulated by the gov't.  I'm hoping you are not calling yourself a conservative, because that is about as intrusive as big gov't gets.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Now you claim to know what he will object to IF it comes about?    lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



I know some people will say anything on a discussion board to make their point. But do they truly believe it? I don't think so.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So, not only are you closed-minded, you cannot even imagine being open-minded.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am closed minded to perversion I am closed minded to dick sucking and fucking another man You bet I am closed minded.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Dude, they are doing that anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Fine they can do it but not as husband and queer, There are some institutions that should be protected and marriage is one it is the core of the family.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, you go beyond that.  Not only do you not want to do it, you want the gov't to prosecute those who do.

I think your idea that anyone having oral sex should be prosecuted is hilarious.   You are gonna have most of the population being prosecuted.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



But you also want to prosecute them for having sex!  And anyone else for having any sort of oral or anal sex, whether they are husband and queer, wife and wife, or husband and wife.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You have no say.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Gay couples with children are families too, whether the gov't recognizes them as married or not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters  from marring each other.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



So why the objection of Brothers and sisters getting married?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Why do you object too brothers and sisters getting married?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Different topic.  Allowing gaysto marry will not automatically allow brothers and sisters to marry.  There are still laws on the books against close relatives marrying.

The "slippery slope" argument has never been valid.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Already answered, answered, answered, answered, answered, answered and answered.




MaxCha said:


> The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out.
> 
> But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Already answered, answered, answered, answered, answered, answered and answered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You were saying?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I didn't say I objected to it.  I said I didn't support it.  It is not an issue I spend much time thinking about, except when people who oppose gay marriage bring it up to try and equate the two.  They are different topics.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You were saying?





MaxCha said:


> The slippery slope fallacy has long been used by everyone trying to outlaw the expansion of civil rights to new groups (Women, black people etc...). Funny thing is, the worst case scenarios never seem to pan out.
> 
> But people keep saying "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a dog, or two siblings?"
> 
> ...



You were saying you can't read?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




  The two are equal. both are dealing with your stance on right to marriage.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'll make sure to look you up when the SCOTUS passes gay marriage. I know you'll be pleasantly surprised that your ignorant hillbilly ass opinion didn't mean shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You were saying?
> ...



What exactly does this have to do with your stance on gays having a right to marriage and not giving the same right too brothers and sisters? Oh and there is no gay gene people choose to be gay.


> Well, unlike with homosexuality (of which there is mountains and mountains of evidence that it is an unchangeable, pre-determined trait (as agrees every major psychological association in North America and Europe) there is no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation that limits them to only being attracted to their family members, or to animals. There are no groups of people campaigning for the right to sleep with animals or their own family. In fact, there has never been any movement to do such. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that such people exist.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Okay. And you chose when?

See how that works? I want to know. Maybe you didn't give all your gay experiences enough of a fair chance. Obviously, it's a choice. You know you're attracted to men, or it wouldn't be a choice, right?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No they do not.  Sexual relations between a brother and sister are still illegal.  Sexual relations between two men or between two women are not illegal, regardless of what you wish.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What the fuck is this thread about the right to marry?
Both go hand in hand.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...









This is about gay marriage. You can't stay on topic? I can't be bothered to talk to you anymore. I've already given you much more attention than you deserve.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I started having sex at 5 years old me and the older girls 8 to 16 in the neighborhood would get together, I've been fucking ever since. I was a big kid at age five and the girls wanted to have me around.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You idiot. You were molested, and you don't even know it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Brothers and sisters await your approval


----------



## Montrovant (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





It's hard to believe you actually typed that, you utter lunatic.  

So who in government will be deciding just what behavior is abnormal?  Is the government going to levy fines or sentence people to jail for things like practicing small religions, being superstitious, speaking with an unusual accent, being too perky, the list almost literally never ends.  Let's have the government stop all these behaviors!


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I started having sex at 5 years old me and the older girls 8 to 16 in the neighborhood would get together, I've been fucking ever since. I was a big kid at age five and the girls wanted to have me around.


You say about the sickest thing I've ever seen anybody say on the board, and then you point the finger at LGBT who are in love and want to get married, and call THEM sick!?

You're the sick one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I wasn't molested by an 8 year old how do you equate that I was?. I knew what I was doing after the 3rd time and loved it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What the fuck this thread is about is gays being able to marry.  Your side-stepping and attempts to show a "slippery slope" argument concerning incest is no more valid than the ones about beastility or whatever.

Incest is illegal.  So incestual marriage is, by definition, illegal.

Gays are not illegal, in either sex or relationships.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If I believed that, and I am not sure I do, I would say you were molested.  If you wantto deny that the 8 year old molested you that is your choice.  But the 16 year old certainly did.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What about the 16 year old?  Besides, what 8 year old girl knows about how to have sex unless she was molested?

This is one of the sickest things I have ever seen anyone brag about.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

Ok, bigrebnc, I am trying not to see your post as bragging or whatever.

I certainly hope that you agree that you having sex at that age is sick and shouldn't have happened?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



children cannot molest children. Have you ever grown up on a farm? The stories about the farmers daughter are true .


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If a 16 year old has sex with a 5 year old, it is molestation.  You make it sound like fun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Ok, bigrebnc, I am trying not to see your post as bragging or whatever.
> 
> I certainly hope that you agree that you having sex at that age is sick and shouldn't have happened?



I don't agree I loved it. I would not suggest it for others but as for me I loved it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes, I dated the farmer's daughter back in the day.  The difference is that we were both 16 and 17 years old.  Not 16 and 5.

I cannot believe you think what happened to you is acceptable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



As I grew older so did they  Don't be jealous.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, bigrebnc, I am trying not to see your post as bragging or whatever.
> ...



So you loved having sex when you were 5 years old, but you think the gov't should prosecute married people who engage in oral sex???

WTF?

Your views are so skewed as to be unbelieveable.    Nevermind worrying about gays, you need to get professional help as soon as possible.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Actually, it explains a lot.   Typically, molestation victims either become very promiscuous or the become very sexually repressed.  I think your background explains your issues quite clearly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes I loved it.

OH by the way I said I started at 5 I wasn't 5 fucking 16 year old I was 10 when I got my first 16 year old.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And that is a textbook response as well.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Right Farm boys start earlier than other kids.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Here allow me to finish up my comment.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yeah, nice change to the story.  Not buying it.

If you were having sex at the age of 5 something is seriously wrong.   That you claim to have had sex at age 5, and claim that it was great for you, and still want our gov't to prosecute couples for oral sex, shows you are sick.

You need help.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

You said: *"I started having sex at 5 years old me and the older girls 8 to 16 in the neighborhood would get together, I've been fucking ever since."*

Now you want to claim that you started at 5 years old and it was 5 years later that you had the 16 year old?

I call *BULLSHIT*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> You said: *"I started having sex at 5 years old me and the older girls 8 to 16 in the neighborhood would get together, I've been fucking ever since."*
> 
> Now you want to claim that you started at 5 years old and it was 5 years later that you had the 16 year old?
> 
> I call *BULLSHIT*


You can call all you want. It doesn't matter there slick


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Maybe something is wrong with you?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



With me?   I am not the one who claims to have started having sex as a preschooler.  I am also not the one wanting to punish adults for consentual sex acts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Dude grow up farm boys matured faster than you city boys did.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LMAO!!!  That is the best you have when you claim you started having sex at 5 years old??

Dude, I spent half my life on a farm.  If you matured faster than other boys it might be by 6 months or even a year.  But starting at 5?  That is sick.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Five. You were barely potty trained. That is not normal, I don't care if you were from the country. It is not normal. You were molested, and so what if your body thought it was grand. 

Did your parents know?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And why weren't his parents watching him more?  He was 5!

I agree that he was molested.  It is possible that he has blocked out the molestation and substituted the 16 year old girl.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'm thinking that the 16 y/o was molested, and put the 8 and 5 y/o together as a result.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Yeah, that sounds reasonable.  I think someone other than the 8 and 5 year olds were involved.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2012)

I think the more likely explanation is that bigreb is so full of shit he squeaks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Dumbass Remember Farm boy? I was driving a tractor at age five. I went where I wanted


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The sixties was a different time I had my first beer at 9 and first cigar at 7


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Or the sixteen year old might have been married.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You say you were a farm boy like it justifies it.  I spent half my life on farms and never knew anyone who started having sex at 5 who wasn't molested.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



So a married 16 year old molested a 5 year old?   Yeah, that changes everything.  NOT!


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Dumbass, the sixties was NOT a different time. I was born in '58. At age seven, I remember being Very Upset because my sister outgrew Barbies.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 
Good lord! TMI!


----------



## Mr Natural (May 21, 2012)

The only "reasonable solution" is to mind your own business and not care if two guys want to tie the knot.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Wrong.
Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.

The same idiots who are telling us today that homosexual marriages are just as beneficial to children as hetero ones are the ones who told us in the 70s that a one parent household was just as beneficial as a two parent household. They're gibbering nutjobs who hate the traditional family because it DOES protect children, whom they view as sexual creatures. They are lunatics who WANT the state to control the churches, and hope to achieve that end by using the government to force the churches to accomodate extremists and depraved clots of people.

Our society recognizes that the ideal environment for raising children is a family headed by a married hetero couple, the parents of the children in the household. We reward that ideal with a certain amount of status and privilege, because it's in our best interests to do so.

Anyone can participate in that construct, including gays. If they choose not to, that is their choice, and we are not obligated to pretend they are participating, when if fact, they are not.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wrong.
> Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wrong.
> Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.
> 
> The same idiots who are telling us today that homosexual marriages are just as beneficial to children as hetero ones are the ones who told us in the 70s that a one parent household was just as beneficial as a two parent household. They're gibbering nutjobs who hate the traditional family because it DOES protect children, whom they view as sexual creatures. They are lunatics who WANT the state to control the churches, and hope to achieve that end by using the government to force the churches to accomodate extremists and depraved clots of people.
> ...



Marriage, as it stands, does not exist just to protect children.  That may be where it originated, but we have to deal with the reality today.

I'm still not sure why you think homosexual marriage will somehow have a negative effect on the ability of heterosexuals to provide safety and security for children.

Your continuing attempts to label those who support gay marriage as people who want children viewed as sexual objects is ridiculous and insulting.  If you must use strawmen, perhaps you could come up with some more reasonable ones?

I also don't think I've seen a response from you to the gender discrimination argument, and I'm curious what you think of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



What do you think we farm boys did on the farm?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



oh but yes the sixties were a different time children did shit back in those days which is unheard of today. Try and allow a 7 year old to operate a farm tractor and see how the government handles it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



nope not in your wildest dream/


----------



## amrchaos (May 21, 2012)

I always thought that protecting children existed before marriage came into being.

Protecting children is more of a intuitive reaction in humans.

Marriage is more of a ritualistic practice.  Marriage is not needed to protect children.  Marriage is more like a declaration of an existing bond between individuals provided to the community. That can aid in the protection of future children, but protecting children  is not the purpose of marriage.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Sorry, wrong. It is absolutely about protecting children...by combining assets, by attaching a strong male to the children to protect them and the mother (while she's caring for the children or pregnant, and vulnerable) in order to give that family a better chance of survival.

I've never heard anyone argue that until now. It's not a fairy tale, this is an accepted fact, one touted by anthropologists. 

And marriage has existed as long as man has, in one form or another.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Sorry, wrong. It is absolutely about protecting children...by combining assets, by attaching a strong male to the children to protect them and the mother (while she's caring for the children or pregnant, and vulnerable) in order to give that family a better chance of survival.
> 
> I've never heard anyone argue that until now. It's not a fairy tale, this is an accepted fact, one touted by anthropologists.
> 
> And marriage has existed as long as man has, in one form or another.



Well, I had a hysterectomy two years before I got married, so I'm just gonna go with 'no' again.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Another logical fallacy. Has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Another logical fallacy. Has nothing to do with anything.



You just got done saying it does.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


right! oops! that's a rebuttal!


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Another logical fallacy. Has nothing to do with anything.
> ...


 
Uh, no, I didn't say anything about your hysterectomy.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



the part bigrebnc  conveniently left out :Sexual Orientation
A child's sexual orientation is a related area that may be of concern for some parents. A youngster's interests and behavior during middle childhood may cause mothers and fathers to worry that their offspring might be homosexual. They may inappropriately discipline the child or seek professional help to ensure that he becomes heterosexual.

However, this is a time when acceptance and support for your child should be paramount. An individual's physical and emotional attraction to a member of the same or the opposite sex appears to be a biological phenomenon. Some recent research has shown that the brains of homosexual menspecifically, the amount of tissue in parts of their hypothalamusdiffer from those of heterosexual men. Only rarely, if ever, is sexual orientation caused by personal ex*periences and environment.

Your own child's sexual orientation is actually established quite firmly by the middle years. But since there is little opportunity to test and act out this orientation, it may not be evident to the family until adolescence or even later. Meanwhile, keep in mind that many children try out different ways of relating to their peers, and these can be confused with heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

The greatest difficulty for children and adolescents who are homosexual is the social pressure they feel to behave heterosexually, and the discrimination they may experience because of their sexual orientation. This may isolate them from their peers and even their family, and their self-esteem and self-confidence can suffer terribly in the process. A large proportion of teenage suicide attempts is linked to issues of gender confusion and to perceived re*jection of an adolescent with a homosexual orientation.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. A child's heterosexuality or homo*sexuality is deeply ingrained as part of them. As a parent, your most important role is to offer understanding, respect, and support to your child. A non-judge-mental approach will gain your child's trust and put you in a better position to help him or her through these difficult times. You need to be supportive and helpful, no matter what your youngster's sexual orientation may be.

NO WHERE IN THAT ARTICLE DOES IT STATE OR INFER THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL OR WRONG!


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bdboop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > winterborn said:
> ...


out of his ass ! Where else!


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Sorry, wrong. It is absolutely about protecting children...by combining assets, by attaching a strong male to the children to protect them and the mother (while she's caring for the children or pregnant, and vulnerable) in order to give that family a better chance of survival.
> 
> I've never heard anyone argue that until now. It's not a fairy tale, this is an accepted fact, one touted by anthropologists.
> 
> And marriage has existed as long as man has, in one form or another.



You were saying?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wrong.
> *Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.*
> 
> The same idiots who are telling us today that homosexual marriages are just as beneficial to children as hetero ones are the ones who told us in the 70s that a one parent household was just as beneficial as a two parent household. They're gibbering nutjobs who hate the traditional family because it DOES protect children, whom they view as sexual creatures. They are lunatics who WANT the state to control the churches, and hope to achieve that end by using the government to force the churches to accomodate extremists and depraved clots of people.
> ...





BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...





koshergrl said:


> *Sorry, wrong. It is absolutely about protecting children...by combining assets, by attaching a strong male to the children to protect them and the mother (while she's caring for the children or pregnant, and vulnerable) in order to give that family a better chance of survival.*
> 
> I've never heard anyone argue that until now. It's not a fairy tale, this is an accepted fact, one touted by anthropologists.
> 
> And marriage has existed as long as man has, in one form or another.





BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, wrong. It is absolutely about protecting children...by combining assets, by attaching a strong male to the children to protect them and the mother (while she's caring for the children or pregnant, and vulnerable) in order to give that family a better chance of survival.
> ...





koshergrl said:


> Another logical fallacy. Has nothing to do with anything.





BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Another logical fallacy. Has nothing to do with anything.
> ...





koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



There. Now can you follow along?

You were saying.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

Buford said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...


Same-sex Marriage
There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



A man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...


 
No, I can't follow, you aren't making any sense whatever. You haven't proven anything. Are you drunk?

Anyway, I never said anything about your stupid hysterectomy. It was a logical fallacy, introduced by you. And this nonsense is just nonsense.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


WRONG! you have no credible evidence for anything even what Jesus supposedly said.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Sorry, the posts are right there, in chronological order. You're beginning to sound a titch frantic.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

That's because I find vapid idiocy frustrating.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> That's because I find vapid idiocy frustrating.



Change of subject, and all better.  Next time, don't claim that marriage is all about the kidlets, mmkay?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

That's not a change of subject. We were talking about your idiocy, and why I find it frustrating.

Both topics that you introduced, just as you introduced your completely irrelevant (and subsequently confusing) hysterectomy.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> That's not a change of subject. We were talking about your idiocy, and why I find it frustrating.
> 
> Both topics that you introduced, just as you introduced your completely irrelevant (and subsequently confusing) hysterectomy.



See? That which you claimed is boring, you are doing right here. You're not getting anywhere, and you can't shut up.

It's tragic, really.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



See you don't have one.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...


 nice job of cherry picking 
to infer where there is no inference!
here's the whole passage geneis 2:24 -For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 unless your attempting to intentionally mis interpret the passage  and YOU ARE .
the passage means : thou shall not fuck around on your wife!
it does not in any way infer or mention homosexuality or same sex marriage.
if you wanna gay bash try Leviticus......asshat!


----------



## garyganu (May 21, 2012)

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament, Mohler explains. That code was to set Israel, Gods covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, The voice spoke to him a second time, Do not call anything impure that God has made clean. This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bibles commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bibles teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


you are as tragically stupid as you seem!


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

garyganu said:


> I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:
> 
> 
> The central question posed is: If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?
> ...


kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:
> ...



Not  even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Blather much? Stupid is saying Paul  was gay


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Phfft. You don't even go to church, how the fuck would you know.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2012)

Undisputed: 
1. Gay marriage is a non issue as it affects no heterosexual marriage in any way.
2. Gay marriage is 537th or maybe 538th on the priority list for American politicians. Too many other issues more important to focus on.
3. Gay marriage is no one's business other than the folks getting married.
4. Gay marriage should be encouraged as they will most likely have more success than straight marriages.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



These aren't my dreams you are posting online.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.
> 
> Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.



You make the claim that marriage is all about children.  You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant.  Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?


----------



## garyganu (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.
> ...



Sarah had been a barren woman when she had her first child at 90 years of age.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I read the Bible that's why.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.
> ...


 
I didn't say you had to be fertile to get married. I didn't say people only marry to have children.

My God. I forgot I have to dumb it down to 2nd grade level.

I SAID that marriage, as in the institution of marriage, the world over, exists to protect children.

That isn't the same as saying "only people who can have children can get married and that's what marriage is all about". 

Muddy thinking loons.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The odds are pretty good that she hadn't had a hystorectomy, wouldn't you say?

I get what you are saying, that couples may still concieve when they thought they were infertile.  But in many cases, child birth is a physical impossibility.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It must be since you weren't there.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2012)

> Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.



Nonsense: 



> Proponents [ of Proposition 8] failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.
> 
> _Perry v. Brown_





> Your continuing attempts to label those who support gay marriage as people who want children viewed as sexual objects is ridiculous and insulting. If you must use strawmen, perhaps you could come up with some more reasonable ones?



Not likely. This poster, along with others opposed to equal access rights for same-sex couples, realizes shes lost the argument long ago, and can resort only to this failed tactic. 



> Well, I had a hysterectomy two years before I got married, so I'm just gonna go with 'no' again.



And per the reasoning of the right, you should not have been allowed to marry. 



> I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view.



Interesting, perhaps, but Constitutionally and legally irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So there are other reasons for marriage?   What a great concept!

BTW, you never did answer why you got married.  (or why you would, if you aren't)


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Just going by what you originally said.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

?

Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.

Homosexuals are in no way prevented from participating in these unions. They each have the same right as any hetero to get married. If they don't want to, that's fine, nobody cares if they do or they don't, that's their choice. But it is their choice. It's nonsense to force us to pretend that homosexual families are the premier baby-raising construct that we should all aspire to participate in...that's nonsense.

Like I said, it's the exact same thing that was done in the 70s, when the same people lied about how much happier children would be if their parents were able to fuck around with  no consequences, and buy stock in "no fault divorce". The same people continue to tell us the other side of this fairy tale..."Abortions save lives!" What a crock of shit. 

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families.

Sorry, you aren't the ideal, and nobody is going to pretend you are. You can change the laws, you can lie all you want, but you are not the norm, you are not the preferred and most reliable construct we have for raising kids, and you never will be. If you want to enjoy the advantages of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex, then you have to actually do that.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ?
> 
> Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.
> 
> ...



So what? So the fuck what. 

We never aspired to do, or be, perfect.

Marriage isn't all about having or raising children, or who would be best suited to doing so. 

And I cannot believe after all this time, you're still claiming that gays absolutely can get married - as long as they're willing to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Why won't you answer WinterBorn's question about why you wed. Or why you would.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

I did. I'm sorry you're an idiot, but you are.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I did. I'm sorry you're an idiot, but you are.



Okay, memory refresh then.

And I'm sorry you're a fucked-up bitch who makes dry ice look inviting.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ?
> 
> Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.
> 
> ...



Which would be important or relevant, if marriages were only provided to those who lived up to being the 'premier baby-raising construct'.  Since that is obviously not the case, your argument falls pretty far short of being at all compelling.

Further, considering homosexuals are already completely capable of adopting children or having their own through various means, the idea that allowing them to marry their partners will somehow create substandard places for child rearing that do not currently exist seems foolish.  

So, again, how exactly does your argument about marriage being about the best environment to raise children make sense in relation to gay marriage?

Allowing same sex marriage doesn't make that the ideal, but it does perhaps put them on an equal level with a drunken Vegas wedding.  Is that still too much for you?  

And again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the argument that not allowing same sex marriage is gender discrimination.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Wrong.

The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family  members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter. 

In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family  members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter.
> 
> In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.



Your opinion is meaningless.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

My opinion is backed up by anthropologists, historians, biologists the world over.

Your opinion is the meaningless one. Though honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense in the first place. So don't feel bad..it's meaningless, but nobody misses it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> My opinion is backed up by anthropologists, historians, biologists the world over.
> 
> Your opinion is the meaningless one. Though honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense in the first place. So don't feel bad..it's meaningless, but nobody misses it.



You really do remind me of the Wizard of Oz.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

I completely believe that is true.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


more proof you are tragically stupid in a closed minded way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...



True. Just as meaningless as the opinion that blacks should be held separate but equal.

The purpose of the doctrine of the rule of law is to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate exhibited by our friends from the right. 



> I completely believe that is true.



What you believe is irrelevant.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


   read?  you must mean look at the pictures.!!!


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ?
> 
> Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.
> 
> ...


"Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families."  is it just me or does that remind anyone of separate but equal?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.

See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.
> 
> See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...



Nope, not choosing a different path.

You lose.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.
> 
> See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...


so race creed color and sexual orientation is bullshit?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Do you really want to go there? Do you want to debate me on the Bible and it's content?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Paul wasn't gay dumb ass.

Paul wrote the book of Romans

Romans 1:24-28
King James Version (KJV)
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


do you ?everything you've quoted from the bible has been out of context, cherry picked or intentionally mis interpreted. ( If I'm wrong about that ,then you're a shit for brains loud mouth that holds up the line at home depot)
you've all ready proven how little you actually know by refusing to read anything that refutes your pov.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nothing I quote from the Bible is out of context. Unlike you I have more respect for the word of God than to use those words out of context.
So let's rock bitch

Paul was not gay.

Paul wrote the book of Romans



> Romans 1:24-28
> King James Version (KJV)
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> ...



He's condemning the life style.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.
> 
> See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...



I can understand why you never answered my question.  For all your talk about marriage being about children, and the links to whomever, you never quite found the time to answer a fundamental question concerning marriage.

Why do people marry?   I am sure there are a few gold-diggers out there marrying for money.  And, while not as common, there are still people marrying because of a pregnancy.  But the overwhelming majority of people marry because they are in love with their partner.  And gays are certainly being denied that.

As for the children thing, since artificial insemination and adoption is available as an option, the excuse of marriage being solely for raising children is completely bogus.  Especially since straights without a possibility of children get the benefits, and gay couples actually raising children do not.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Plenty of homosexuals have condemned the lifestyle and railed against homosexuality.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 your point? lot's of in the closet gays claim they're not..paul is one of them.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 that would be the suspected word of god .since we only have the so called Prophets words on what god is alleged to have said.
also it's OT...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





What in the hell are you blathering about? the Apostle Paul wrote the New Testament book of Romans. the verses I quoted from the NEW TESTAMENT book of Romans is condemning the lifestyle words such as uncleanness, dishonour, change the natural use, reprobate mind, men with men and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, and  women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 

That should be a dead give away that Paul is condemning the act of homosexuality


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family  members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter.
> 
> In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.



As I made clear, it doesn't matter if same sex marriage isn't the ideal for raising children.  Many marriages aren't the ideal for raising children.  I said nothing about what you've said here, but at least this is better than claiming I just want to make children into sex objects. 

If same sex couples get to marry, guess what?  They will still have the same rights as everyone else!  They won't get extras because they are gay, by your reasoning; after all, straights will have the same right to marry someone of the same gender as gays! 

You continue to not make strong points, and continue to avoid commenting on the idea that denying men the opportunity to marry men and women the opportunity to marry women is a matter of gender discrimination.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

They do have the same rights as everybody else.

That's the beginning and end of it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> They do have the same rights as everybody else.
> 
> That's the beginning and end of it.



Oh good. So my sister and her partner of 20 years, and their best friend and his partner can get married. Right? Or will my sister have to marry Brian, and her partner have to marry Noel?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They do have the same rights as everybody else.
> ...



They can if they move to a state that allows it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



If they loved them enough and wanted to marry them they would move. I guess they don't love each other to move to more gay friendly states.

Some straights have went out of state to marry because of some of their states marriage laws.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Bull.

Shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



How was what I wrote bull shit? If making your argument weak is bull shit guess that's the point of you saying bullshit.


----------



## BDBoop (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You know why. Unless you are really as stupid as you act on this board - no clue why I have thought otherwise. I have GOT to stop giving people with IQ's in the lower 60's the benefit of the doubt.

Lord knows how you find your way online every day.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I had to go down to South Carolina to get married the second time I know plenty of people who had to go to south carolina to get married.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2012)

> Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.



They dont have to move, thats one of the fundamental tenets codified by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.
> 
> 
> 
> They dont have to move, thats one of the fundamental tenets codified by the 14th Amendment.


 the 14th amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives right to illegal acts.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yeah, they should move, lose their good jobs, leave their family & friends behind, and go someplace else.   Just to show that they love each other enough.  And especially since jobs are so easy to find these days.   

Stick with your stories of pre-school sex.   It shows you are sick, not just an asshole.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why was that?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Why should they move? No straights have to move so they can get married.
> ...



Again with the baseless claim of "illegal acts".


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

They can't get married. If they want to get married, do what the rest of us do...settle in with a person of the opposite sex.

Should single people who don't want to be married be afforded the title of "married" as well, if they want it? Just because? Cuz after all, if they want it and can't have it..isn't that "discrimination"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



We been here before, but your stupid to keep posting it

Sodomy is an illegal act.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Don't be bitter, or be bitter I just don't care.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


None of you're god damn business that's why.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> They can't get married. If they want to get married, do what the rest of us do...settle in with a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Should single people who don't want to be married be afforded the title of "married" as well, if they want it? Just because? Cuz after all, if they want it and can't have it..isn't that "discrimination"?



Serious strawman you built there.  Can I offer you a match?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes we have been here before.  And you posted some links to crimes about rape and child molestation.  (which does make more sense now)

But you are conveniently ignoring the ruling by the highest court in the nation.  And that ruling made all those laws against consenting adults engaging in acts of their choosing completely null and void.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then its bullshit and you got married somewhere else on a whim.

But the difference is, when you went back home your marriage, to the person you love, was recognized.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Here's the thing with choices...we all have to make them. And we all have to live with the consequences.

Say a person wants to work at a certain job...but they can't do it from where they live. They have the choice of moving to the jobsite, or staying put. It's their choice...now if they decide to stay, should somebody still pay them as if they took the job in the other locale? Should a job be CREATED so they can work at the job they want, earn the money they want...but not have to actually go to where the work is?

Homosexual people can marry just the same as we all do. They choose not to, and that's a valid choice...not everybody wants to be married. 

But if they make the choice the consequence is that THEY AREN'T MARRIED. They aren't half of a married couple. Because they chose a different path.

And they shouldn't be penalized for making that choice. And they aren't.

But they shouldn't reap the benefits of making the choice...when they didn't choose it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It what ever but more so none of your fucking business.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They can't get married. If they want to get married, do what the rest of us do...settle in with a person of the opposite sex.
> ...



Not a straw man at all. The strawman is the repeated lie that homosexuals are being "denied" the right to marry.

They aren't. They have the exact same right to marry as we all do.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nah, I'm not bitter.   I'll just keep fighting for change in the laws.  And one day, hopefully soon, gays will be able to marry.  And a decade or so after that, people will look back and be amazed that people fought against it.  Like we do when we look back at the days before and just after Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



loving vs Virginia was about what? Race or the illegal act of homosexuality?


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The relevant point is that queers want to be issued a LEGAL marriage license.

Obviously, they can "play house" like any normal couple.

All deviants hope, quite in vain, that if their behavior can be legally defined as normal, then social acceptance will follow. 

One is not surprised to find that this erroneous belief would prevail among the defective: There is no example of it ever being the case.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I married the person I love.  My brothers did the same.  But my sister is not allowed to do so.

That certainly sounds like denial to me.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I think you overestimate the value of social acceptance to gays.  If that was so important they would have stayed in the closet.

What most want is the 1,400 benefits allowed by federal, state and local laws.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Actually..there is.

Divorce....praised to the skies in the 60s and 70s, into the 80s, as the salvation of happy marriages and joyful children....no fault divorce was made the norm, and people flocked and still flock to get divorced.

And homosexuality itself. Once considered a crime...in the 60s, 70s and 80s a lot of people worked very hard (including using very bad studies a la Kinsey) to promote the idea that homosexuality was "normal". Law was changed to allow it.

And now, years later, we are learning...no fault divorce creates easy divorce, and leads to broken families..and broken families lead to dysfunctional children, who in turn are lame and halt, productively speaking, as adults. 

Homosexuality was touted as 100 percent inherited, natural, perfectly acceptable. We were told fully 10 percent of the population was born gay...

All lies of course. But people believe it still, and homosexuals are accepted and encouraged to test it out from a very young age.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I didn't equate homosexuality and racism.  I equated the view of that racism now with the view people will have of this fight we are having now.

I asked you to post arrests and prosecutions of sodomy that didn't involve rape, sexual assault, public sex, or children.  Ever find any?

Sex between consenting gay adults has not been illegal since the US Supreme Court made their ruling.  That is kinda how the system works.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Single people would like those benefits, too.

Shall we call them married as well?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





> I didn't equate homosexuality and racism.


Why are you referencing a court case specifically about race in a same sex marriage discussion?


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I see.

Then anyone that wants their cat to receive 1,400 benefits allowed by federal, state and local laws should marry Sylvester.

Frankly, as one of the payees into the benefits alowed by government, I'm not convinced that Sylvester is really worthy of my funding just because their owner says they love him.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



You must have quite a supply of straw.

Since most of teh benefits involve something between the partners, offering them to singles would be rather silly.   Should a single person be able to make decisions for his own healthcare in the event he is unable to make his own decisions?   Should a single person adopt, and later die, should the single person be able to maintain his parental status?    See?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Actually..there is.
> 
> Divorce....praised to the skies in the 60s and 70s, into the 80s, as the salvation of happy marriages and joyful children....no fault divorce was made the norm, and people flocked and still flock to get divorced.
> 
> ...



What she said


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Are you incapable of reading?   I stated it quite clearly.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



I think he's saying that if we reward married people with benefits meant  to encourage stable two-parent hetero families (the ideal for raising  children) then we MUST provide those benefits to everyone alive,  regardless of whether or not they participate in the ideal relationship.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I want to address this directly and separately. You have used loving vs Virginia numerous times and expect me to think it's not your intent to equate mixed marriages with gay marriages? I call bullshit.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Actually..there is.
> 
> Divorce....praised to the skies in the 60s and 70s, into the 80s, as the salvation of happy marriages and joyful children....no fault divorce was made the norm, and people flocked and still flock to get divorced.
> 
> ...



I disagree.

Ask any queer, and they will tell you that despite 60 years of psychobabble exposure, a significant portion of the population continues to believe homosexual behaviour is abnormal, and this is causing them to commit suicide at a higher rate.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So why do we have the 1,400 benefits given to married couples?

Can you offer me a reason for those benefits?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Actually..there is.
> ...



Causing who to commit suicide? How?

I'd love to see a study on "causes of suicide". Ultimately, that, too, is just a choice.

The homosexual lobby is big on avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Kittens do not count?

I would like to know precisely what is the most important benefit queers imagine they will receive from being legally married.

Off the top of my head, I might only receive one benefit, and I'm really not even sure it saves me any money: I file a federal tax return: "Married, Filing Jointly," and I have NEVER been asked to prove it.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



They don't want anything from it. They want to undermine the traditional family, remove any safety nets we provide for children, and normalize depravity. That's what it's about, that's what it has always been about.

The rest is just window dressing.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Well, the story goes something like this: Once upon a time Brucy Twinkletoes was Outed. He was then Bullied. To escape the unbearableness of being called a fudgepacker, Brucy blew his brains out.

Somewhere in the story the possibility that Brucy was a nutcase and this caused him to be a fudgepacker, and eventually made him blow his brains out, is lost.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What I posted was: *"Nah, I'm not bitter. I'll just keep fighting for change in the laws. And one day, hopefully soon, gays will be able to marry. And a decade or so after that, people will look back and be amazed that people fought against it. Like we do when we look back at the days before and just after Loving v. Virginia. "*

Now, since you seem incapable of comprehending, I will break it down for you.

*"Nah, I'm not bitter"*  I have no emotional investment in your opinion or your issues.  I am a happy, well adjusted man.  I am not bitter.

*"I'll just keep fighting for change in the laws."*  I think gays should be able to marry and have their marriages (or civil unions if semantics is the real issue) be recognized like straight marriages are.  I will continue to put whatever pressure I can on law makers to change the laws.

*"And one day, hopefully soon, gays will be able to marry."*  My wish that my work will be successful, and that it will happen sooner rather than later.

*"And a decade or so after that, people will look back and be amazed that people fought against it."*  I think after a while people will no longer see it as an issue and will wonder why people fought against it so hard.

*" Like we do when we look back at the days before and just after Loving v. Virginia."*  The key part is is "*Like we do when we look back*".   In other words, the way we look at the issue of interracial marriage today will be the way we look at gay marriage in the future.   I am not comparing the two issues.  I am comparing the way people view issues that were once controversial and are now commonplace.


Did that help?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



And the bullying, name-calling, and hostility had no bearing on it at all?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Yeah, as I thought...there's no evidence. It's all fairy tales.

Whoops, said fairy.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Well, I disagree.

The intention is not evil, or to "undermine the traditional family." Queers don't qive a second thought to traditional families: They are completely egocentric, hedonistic behaviorial deviants who could give a flip about anything except their own obscene desires.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



And if you are unable to respond, your spouse can make medical decisions for you.

And if you and your wife adopt, and one of you dies, there is no risk of the surviving spouse losing the child.

And you can make decisions on the final resting place of your spouse.

And, even without a will, you are the assumed beneficiary if your spouse dies.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And many gay couples are parents.  Allowing gay marriage means BOTH of them are legally the parents.  In other words, gay marriage would also protect the family.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Kind of a wild generalization, isn't it?  There are plenty of gay couple who have been in stable, monogamous relationships for years, even decades.  But you want to prevent them from marrying because of what you saw in a gay bar or gay pride parade?   lol


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Queers are not the only people being bullied.

What about Fat Kids? Skinny Kids? Redhaired Kids? Kids that wear Glasses? Etc., etc., etc.

These groups do not claim they are committing suicide at a higher rate because they are bullied.

...yet, I'm supposed to believe that bullied queers commit suicide more because they are bullied?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



But you have used loving vs Virginia as a reference for gay marriage true or false?


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Why would I need to see a "gay pride parade?"

I don't consider it a wild generalization to define heterosexual behaviour as normal, and homosexual behaviour as deviant.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



They aren't?   Do a quick Google search on teen suicide.   You will see article after article on teens who committed suicide because they were being bullied.

from: Bullying and teen suicide: Q&A with crisis interventionalist Gregory Cooper, BSN, RN : Christiana Care News

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 20 percent of high school kids are being bullied, but that number is probably quite low, because bullying primarily happens in middle school. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death in 10- to-24-year-olds, and several studies show a correlation between bullying and adolescent suicide."


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



False


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There's a correlation between being gay and suicide, as well.

Gayness causes suicide!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Have you ever used Loving vs. Virginia in any of these discussions regarding gay marriage?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



When you make statements like, "They are completely egocentric, hedonistic behaviorial deviants who could give a flip about anything except their own obscene desires", you are not addressing a sexual deviancy.  You are addressing an entire lifestyle that does not apply to many, many homosexuals.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Boy, you are still building with straw, huh?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No you have used up all straw there is no more.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are really fishing hard here, aren't you?

I used Loving v. Virginia to show that the higher courts have ruled that marriage is a right.

I used Loving v. Virginia as a point in time to compare the views on topics that were once considered controversial and are no longer seen that way.

I did not, have not, and will not compare homosexuality and race.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So you think her statement is accurate?

How about cancer?  Many terminal cancer patients commit suicide.  Does cancer cause suicide?  No is the answer to both strawmen.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Perfect example of Queers' Egocentricity: You take an article about bullying, and insist that is is about Queer Teen Suicide.

Here is what your article REALLY says:



> Q: Is there a typical victim?
> 
> Cooper: In general, what puts you more at risk for bullying is being an outlier. That is, being someone who is quiet or passive, someone of a different sexual orientation, somebody who has friendship difficulties or low self-esteem.



OK so Passive people are bullied: Do Passive People commit suicide more?

Do people with LOW SELF ESTEEM commit suicide because they are bullied OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOW SELF ESTEEM????


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



In a nut shell you are comparing race to gay marriage.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No, people with cancer commit suicide because society won't accept people with cancer.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Even if marriage is a right, homosexuals have the right to get married.

They aren't banned from marriage because they're gay. Nobody gives a shit about who they poke (despite their frantic insistence otherwise). Gay people get married all the time. Look at these guys who got married:
















See, gay people get married all the time. There's your evidence that they're not being prevented from getting married.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



The link I posted was not aimed at anything said about gays.  It was a response to your claim "Queers are not the only people being bullied.

What about Fat Kids? Skinny Kids? Redhaired Kids? Kids that wear Glasses? Etc., etc., etc.

*These groups do not claim they are committing suicide at a higher rate because they are bullied*."


That is why I posted "They aren't?".  Which wouldn't have made sense unless I was referring to your claim that those groups weren't claiming bullying wasn't a factor in suicides.

So I corrected your misconception.  You are quite welcome for the education.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why ask me the question if you are going to decide what my answer is regardless of what I say?

I am sorry that your reading comprehension skills are so bad that the mere presence of the words "Loving v. Virginia" only mean that I am comparing them to gay marriage.

But your inability to understand what I wrote, rewrote with an explanation, and finally explained yet again.

No, I did not compare race to gay marriage.   But since yuo are the one who threw such a hissy fit about lying and twisting words, show me where I made a comparison between race and gay marriage.  Time to put up or shut up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Even if marriage is a right, homosexuals have the right to get married.
> 
> They aren't banned from marriage because they're gay. Nobody gives a shit about who they poke (despite their frantic insistence otherwise). Gay people get married all the time. Look at these guys who got married:
> 
> ...



obama biden the first true gay administration


>  I promise you, the President has a big stick. I promise you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




I wanted to see how far you would carry that lie.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Nobody gives a shit about who they poke (despite their frantic insistence otherwise).



Quite the contrary.  People do seem inordinately interested in who they poke.

In fact, one of those on your side in this thread has insisted that all sodomy should be illegal.  And has also insisted, despite being repeatedly shown the SCOTUS ruling, that it is currently illegal in many states.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Oh, I don't want to leave out the wimmins, who are also free to marry regardless of their sexual preference:


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Good, then we are agreed: Queers are not being bullied more than other groups, but they are commiting suicide at a higher rate.

Therefore the Queer suicide rate is a fuction of their Queerness, not of being bullied.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I see you are quick to call names and make claims, but cannot backup your statements.

Typical.

If I am lying, show me where I compared race and gay marriage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Did I call you a liar?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



If you could show me where I said that, I would be happy to agree.  But just because you decide to lie about what I said does not mean we agree.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

He did back it up.

Here's another homosexual who obviously wasn't prevented from getting married:







And who then chose to become hetero.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2012)

Gay marriage: NON ISSUE.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You said you wanted to see how far I would carry that lie.  Is that not saying that I lied?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> He did back it up.



If you are referring to what bigrebnc claimed, he most certainly did not back it up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




But did I call you a liar? No I did not but I did point out you lied and you showed that you lied.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > He did back it up.
> ...



He most certainly did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > He did back it up.
> ...



It's a done deal and the truck is pulling out.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?



Just the top two?


Top One?


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Not that he needed to..I know you're a liar. You tried to pretend you never claimed to be confused...unfortunately, you did it in a post that contained your original comment about being confused.

You socks are dumb that way.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

So neither of you passed reading comprehension?

I never compared race and homosexual marriage.  I defy any of you to post my quote or give the post # to show where I did.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Ummm, that is pretty much calling me a liar.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> So neither of you passed reading comprehension?
> 
> I never compared race and homosexual marriage.  I defy any of you to post my quote or give the post # to show where I did.



Who brought up separate but equal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No not really but you are in the gray zone right now. If you continue defending your stance that you were not comparing bi-racial marriages too gay marriages then yes you are a liar. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you were mistaken when you said you did not do it. For me doing that show just how civil I can be.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Not that he needed to..I know you're a liar. You tried to pretend you never claimed to be confused...unfortunately, you did it in a post that contained your original comment about being confused.
> 
> You socks are dumb that way.



I'm afraid I don't have a clue about what posts you are referring to.

Perhaps you can direct me to them by quoting them or by post #?


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still nothing huh?

I suspect there really is no specific benefit, and that my original premise was correct: Queers just want legal marriage in a vain hope their deviant behaviour will be socially acceptable.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yeah, how kind of you.  I guess that means you won't be showing me where I made the comparison of race to gay marriage?

Isn't that convenient.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?
> ...



That's it.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

And since they're playing by the Kinsey playbook....

the next step, according to kinsites is to remove the stigma of pedophilia.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?
> ...



I believe I listed 4 or 5 benefits.  

But here is a link that lists more.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And since they're playing by the Kinsey playbook....
> 
> the next step, according to kinsites is to remove the stigma of pedophilia.



Still going the straw route?   I think the words "consenting adults" have been used repeatedly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



When you use it as a reference you are comparing it to gay marriage loving vs. Virginia is not about gay marriage There are no supreme court rulings on gay marriage. The 14TH amendment is not an umbrella amendment that gives rights to illegal acts.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Link?

Just ONE, m'k?

Jeeze why is this so difficult


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



It wasn't.  I typed "Benefits for Married Couples" in Google.  You might have tried it.  It would certainly have been easier than harping on me to do your research for you.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



1400 Benefits and you cannot just recall the ONE MOST VALUABLE?



Game:Set: Match.

Thanks for Playing.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I did not use it to show any gay marriage.  Someone claimed there was no "right to marry".  Loving v. Virginia ruled that there was.

When I use it as a reference, it is simply a reference.

Let me see if I can dumb this down enough.   If you try and tell young people today that there were laws against interracial marriages, many of them think it was 100 years ago.  They do not comprehend that the gov't would punish someone for marrying someone of another race.  And they are amazed that people would work so hard to keep those laws in place.

Now, someday when gay marriage is commonplace, I think people will look back and be amazed that these gay marraiges were not recognized by state and federal law.  I also think they will be amazed that people fought so hard to keep gay marriages from happening.

Can you grasp it now?  I am not comparing gay marriage to race or to interracial marriage.  I am comparing the way people currently view the old laws with the way I think people in the future will view our current laws.  The comparison is about people views.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



You want me to call one the most valuable, without anything else being stated?

If my wife were terminally ill or in a coma, the ability to make decisions for her would be the most important.

If we had adopted a child, the ability to have us both on the adoption papers would be the most important.


Which benefit is the most important depends on the couple and their situation.

Unlike you, I make no claim to know what others feel is important.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> I am still interested to hear exactly what government benefits queers expect to receive once they are legally married?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your question was concerning what benefits they expect to receive.  I gave you that.

The rest, I thought, was posted to show you thought I had no answer.  Obviously I did, so I ignored the rest.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Stop with the double talk. loving vs. Virginia has no place here, it's irrelevant.. so stop using it as a reference.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




That's it?

Power of Attourney would solve both issues.

Next?

As I suspected, these "benefits" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda: Social Acceptability for Deviant Behaviour.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Double talk?   I'm sorry you cannot comprehend.  Let me try once more.

Its a shame that so many people today look at gays like the puritans looked at witches.

Now, am I calling gays witches?  Am I calling them puritans?  

Now, I am comparing *the way people view gays with the way people (the puritans) viewed witches.*



And if someone makes the claim that there is no right to marry, then Loving v. Virginia certainly has a place in the discussion.  Someone did.  So it does.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



You asked what benefits they expected to get and I gave you a link to a nice list of benefits.

And a power of attorney would not help in the event of the adoption.  And should teh parent listed on the adoption die, the other parent would have absolutely no legal standing as a parent.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Obviously you don't know much about Family Contract Law

The adoption agency can define parenthood however their attourney wishes; if anyone, including queers want to adopt, they can.

However, just because queers are married, doesn't mean they will be qualified to be adopting parent.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.



Queers want to adopt children because it makes them fel like normal people instead of the deviant freaks that they really are.


----------



## jillian (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.
> ...



weren't you the person bemoaning not getting intelligent responses to your posts?

let's see ... "queer", not exactly a word i'd use for my gay friends.

they ARE normal people. and they aren't deviant freaks... notwithstanding the homophobic assertions of the uber right.

the thing is, the way people see gays is really generational at this point... but for the radical religious right. so i'm kind of wondering why you feel so threatened by gays.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



That is not what I said.  

In most states, if a gay couple wants to adopt, they will have to pick one or the other to be the legal parent/guardian of the child.   This is because they are unmarried.  An unmarried straight couple would have to do the same thing.

If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights.  Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.



It is not about removing protections around children.

It is about couples wanting to raise a child.  And what they are asking would certainly make it much more difficult to move out of a relationship with a child.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > See, it's all about removing the protection around children..to make it easier to move in and out of relationships, with children.
> ...



They want to adopt children for the same reason straight couples want to adopt children.  What they do in their bedroom is irrelevant.

None of my kids were ever effected by my sex life (other than their conception).  And my step-daughter has never been effected by it at all.


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It sounds like perhaps you should change adoption law, then.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



I think that would be a good idea too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.


----------



## MaxCha (May 22, 2012)

[/QUOTE]
No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

You have said multiple, multiple times that being gay is not a gene, it's a choice. You say it so emphatically. Yet you are not a scientist nor a researcher and I highly doubt you've spent a second of time reading studies that deal with exactly that issue using nothing but facts. 

As I keep saying, almost every single psychological association and medical group (and 100% of the largest and most widely renowned) have conducted years worth of research and (the largest group, the APA) came to the following conclusion: 

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality."

Saying it's so does not change the facts. Especially when people like you have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions.


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

You have said multiple, multiple times that being gay is not a gene, it's a choice. You say it so emphatically. Yet you are not a scientist nor a researcher and I highly doubt you've spent a second of time reading studies that deal with exactly that issue using nothing but facts. 

As I keep saying, almost every single psychological association and medical group (and 100% of the largest and most widely renowned) have conducted years worth of research and (the largest group, the APA) came to the following conclusion: 

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality."

Saying it's so does not change the facts. Especially when people like you have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions.[/QUOTE]

Personally I believe the question as to whether gays choose to be gay or are born that way is completely moot. That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

For the rest I would point out that 
a) nothing in the quote you post indicates that being gay is of the same thing as belonging to a cetain ethnic or racial group
b) the assertion that certain behavior is "normal" is not a scientific judgement but a value judgement.


----------



## Samson (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights.  Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.



Huh?

What a lot of clap trap. If a Queer couple want to pretend they are normal, and need a child as a prop to gain social acceptance, then all they need to do is find a sympathetic adoption agency.

The problem is not that anyone must be married to adopt: The problem is that even if queers were married, there are few adoption agencies that would recognize them as ideal adoptive parents (Queers have notoriously high rates of mental disease).

If the Queer Community really wanted children, then they could easily accomplish the task: Set up their own adoption agency, call it, "Queers for Kids!" and simply issue legal documents defining who the adoptive parents are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > If the parent listed in the adoption paper dies, the surviving parent has no legal rights.  Also, if the family moves out of the state in which the joint adoption is recognized, they may have the same difficulties.
> ...



With so many "queers" in the closet still how would anyone know how many of them have any disease?
How did you become an expert on "queers"?


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 Closet gay? Is that like a closet pedophile. A closet pedophile is someone who has always had an attraction to children but restrains his abnormal and unhealthy desires and leads a normal life. Closet pedophiles are to be commended as long as they don't act on their abnormal and unhealthy attractions. Closet gays should should also be commended as long as they don't act on their abnormal and unhealthy desires..


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They do have the same rights as everybody else.
> ...



BDBoop, Why shouldn't all 4 of them marry each other? Shouldn't group marriages be legal if all 4 people are in love? Acording to your logic, the only requirement for marriage is love and legal age.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



People DO have to move if they want to have sex with their goat, horse or dog. In certain states bestiality is legal and in certain states bestiality is illegal.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I am glad you have posted your opinion here. Please keep doing so.
It makes me know I am right when I fight for the rights of gays and lesbians. 
Thanks.


----------



## jillian (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



well,, yes... and no...

they can apply their criteria equally and not in a discriminatory fashion.


----------



## jillian (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



does power of attorney allow them to inherit without being taxed?

does power of attorney confer ownership as tenants by the entirety?

does power of attorney allow them to share in each others' social security benefits if the relationship dissolves.

does power of attorney provide that their right of inheritance can't be abridged at least to a certain degree?

didn't think so.


----------



## jillian (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



is that misogynist freak still here?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Kindly point out where I have compared race with homosexuality and I would be happy to stop any "double talk".


----------



## jillian (May 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.



that  would be incorrect. the pertinent part of Loving isn't necessarily the issue of race... it's the fact that marriage is a fundamental right that can't be denied to someone for discriminatory reasons.

so please stop ignoring what the court said when you know full well that Loving applies to the issue of gay rights.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The largest group of people who commit suicide do have mental disorders. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Anyone who blows his brains out is a nutcase. the sin of suicide is MUCH WORSE than the sin of bullying.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The sin of suicide is MUCH WORSE than the sin of bullying.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Not true, Most homosexuals have a deep resentment that they have been cheated out of the chance of leading a normal life. This is why they act out with "in your face" behavior.


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.
> ...



You know full well that it doesn't. The issue here is what is a marriage. And that is what you want to pervert.


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And you know this how exactly?


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



While suicide is certainly a sin, I have no particular use for ranking sins.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Samson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Gays commit suicide because they have a mental disorder. People with mental disorders commit suicide at a higher rate than normal people.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The highest suicide rate is Men in their 50s. Are men in their 50s bullied?


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Most gays I know are pretty normal and balanced people. Some are a bit weird, but so are some heterosexual people I know.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I keep hearing people say gays want to pervert marriage.   How, exactly, will allowing gays to marry have any effect on my marriage or your marriage?

50% of marriages end in divorce.  Domestic violence is rampant.  What will gays do that is worse?


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Suicide is a much worse sin than bullying. Children should be taught not to commit suicide.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



First of all, whether it is a sin or not is irrelevant to the discussion of making gay marriages legal.

Second, the only reason suicide is seen as such a bad sin is because the sinner has no opportunity to repent.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Even if marriage is a right, homosexuals have the right to get married.
> 
> They aren't banned from marriage because they're gay. Nobody gives a shit about who they poke (despite their frantic insistence otherwise). Gay people get married all the time. Look at these guys who got married:
> 
> ...



John Travolta got married and had children.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Why, in your opinion, do they act with "in your face behavior"?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Because they jave been told so many time that its ok to be gay as long as they hide it?


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Then in your mind the sin of murder is equivalent to the sin of steeling candy?  If you don't rank sins, then they are all the same.

IMO, the sin of taking a human life is the worst sin, even if it is your own life.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



The balanced ones do not commit suicide. Do you agree???


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



IMO, the sin of taking a human life is the worst sin, even if it is your own life.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for the relevancy of this argument on the ranking of sins.  In fact, I am still waiting for you to explain why a "sin" is relevant in a discussion of federal law.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Most all of our laws are based on Judea-Christian ethics. Can you think of any crimes that are not sins?


----------



## Artevelde (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I can actually think of worse sins. But that is besides the point.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And most all of our laws call things crimes that are crimes in most religions.

Theft and murder were crimes before Moses got the 10 Commandments.  

Also, you are looking at it backwards.  Whether any crimes are not sins is not the point.  Plenty of sins are not crimes.  Homosexuality is one of those.  To make it a crime based on religious doctrines would violate the 1st Amendment.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The point that I am making is that suicide is a worse crime (sin) than bullying.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Ok, suppose for a second that you are right.  And??    Since suicide is the worse sin we should ignore bullying?

The difference is that once someone commits suicide there is nothing we can do.  But we can try and do something about bullying.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



We need to teach children that suicide is not the answer. This topic is being totally ignored. They are making suicide victims into martyrs rather than weak people who make the wrong choice. Suicide is more shameful than bullying. We shame bullies, yet we say that people who commit suicide are victims. . They are NOT victims, they are perpetrators.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So create a thread about suicide.

In some respects suicides are the perpetrators.  But you cannot ignore the other factors in the situation.   The fact that there is a connection between bullying and teen suicide is very relevant.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

*Suicide Among Homosexuals* 

Lesbians are two times more likely to attempt suicide than straight women.
Attempts by gay and lesbian youth account for up to 30% of all completed suicides.
Gay teens are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.
Gay youth are 4 times more likely to make a suicide attempt requiring medical attention.
Gay men are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.
From The Trevor Project - Preventing Suicide Among LGBTQ Youth | The Trevor Project


Fierce Goodbye​


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Looks to me like there's a connection between suicide and homosexuality.

Maybe it's because being openly homosexual and embracing one's homosexuality doesn't make people happy?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Looks to me like there's a connection between suicide and homosexuality.
> 
> Maybe it's because being openly homosexual and embracing one's homosexuality doesn't make people happy?



I guess you could make that assumption.  That is, if you ignore the other factors in the suicides.  Like bullying, peer pressures, and the like.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like there's a connection between suicide and homosexuality.
> ...



In any case, I believe the best way to reduce teen suicides is to teach kids that suicide is WRONG.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Well straight people get bullied and commit suicide too.  

You don't see anyone running around saying we need "special rights" for heteros that get bullied.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I agree with you here.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> *Suicide Among Homosexuals*
> 
> Lesbians are two times more likely to attempt suicide than straight women.
> Attempts by gay and lesbian youth account for up to 30% of all completed suicides.
> ...


 
And as usual, it will NEVER occur to liberals that maybe that's because the gay lifestyle isn't as fulfilling as they would have us believe.  They will blame everyone and everything thing beside that possibility.

(Psst!  There's a reason the Bible banned homosexuality and it isn't because it's all fun and giggles.  Maybe God banned it because HE LOVES YOU, and knows homosexuality isn't all it's cracked up to be)

When you have all these people running around screaming homosexuality is normal and shouting down anyone who suggests otherwise, then you have a case of protesting too much, and it shows.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You don't see anyone running around saying we need "special rights" for gays either.

What you see if people working to prevent these suicide, whatever the cause.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > *Suicide Among Homosexuals*
> ...



Because a small percentage of gays commit suicide, you make a blanket statement that this shows it is wrong?

And just as an FYI, your claims about why God banned something is really not relevant to a discussion on legal issues in the USA.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Looks to me like there's a connection between suicide and homosexuality.
> 
> Maybe it's because being openly homosexual and embracing one's homosexuality doesn't make people happy?


 
And now you will see the absolute RAGE of the gay left for suggesting that.  

They will scream, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, I'M HAPPY!  


  SEE HOW HAPPY I AM!

Rage, RAGE RAGE!  

People all the time screaming for more special rights aren't happy.  They are miserable, and it shows.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 

Look Dude you can't have it both ways. Those suicides are how gay advocacy justifies all their gay outreach into the schools. YET, you are going to tell us the same suicides aren't pause to consider maybe it ISN'T everyone else's fault all the time?

And SINCE our laws ARE based on the Bible (and if you are going to argue otherwise, you better retake the history of this country and explain such things as the 10 Commandments on the USSC building) I think I can discuss such from that context.

The libs have done a hard job of trying to wipe out that history since the 1960s, but there is too much history for them to succeed. 

So try again.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Even if marriage is a right, homosexuals have the right to get married.
> ...


 
Good cover!


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


 
And it never occurs to the advocates that they are leaving these children who question their sexuality in for a life of depression, and possibly early death from AIDS by leaving them in such a disorder. 

The politics of this situation is more important to them, than these children.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.
> ...


 
Well number one, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT!  Show me in the Constitution where ANYONE is accorded the right of marriage?

You're not.  

And you can be blocked from marrying.  

If you are already married.

If your intended isn't willing to marry YOU

If you can't afford to marry.

Hey!  My oldest and her beau have wanted to get married for two years.  THEY CAN'T!  They can't find good jobs (THANKS TO OBAMA) to afford moving out from under Mommy and Daddy (and no they are not living together, I would never allow that under my roof) Each is living under their own Mommy and Daddy's roof.  

Marriage has never been a right.

And Homosexuality is not a race.  It's a choice.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



I am not having it both ways.  I am saying that you cannot ignore all the relevant factors in the number of suicides.

I can explain the 10 Commandments on the US Supreme Court building quite easily.  The frieze to which you refer is one of 18 on the walls of the US Supreme Court building.  They represent the law givers throughout history.  Moses and teh 10 Commandments are displayed no more prominantly than Hammurabi, Mohammid, Justinian, Menes or the others.

This is why the 2 ton monument of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Courthouse lobby had to be removed and the friezes in the US Supreme Courthouse stay.  The monument in Alabama was the only display allowed, while the one in Washington is one of 18. (I think it is 18, but I could be wrong)


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
Failing marriages is no more a reason to change the definition of marriage, than the fact we don't stop all murders is a reason to change the laws on murder.

The fact is, there has NEVER been gay marriage EVER, going as far back as Ancient Greece where homosexuality was not only touted but considered a sign of intellectualism and artistic talent.  Poetry sang about homosexuality in Greece.

Yet, NEVER was there marriage.  It's never existed.

But suddenly gays have to get married.  Then it's obvious there is a political motivation and an attack on traditional marriage.  Gays know they will never be accepted as normal as long as traditional marriage and morality exist.  

This is a coordinated attack to get rid of that by completely changing the idea of what marriage is.

And people know this.  That is why every time the idea has been put up on the ballot it FAILS.  Even in liberal California, IT FAILS BIG TIME.

In Ohio it failed by 70%!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Because all homosexuals get AIDs and suffer from depression?   

It occurs to the advocates that these children's struggle will not go away by making them hide who they are.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Actually, you might want to read the Us Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia.  In part, the court said: *"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."*  Now before some farmboy comes in screaming about comparing race and homosexuality, the ruling of the court mentions neither race nor sexual orientation.  It makes the blanket statement for all people of this nation.

Whether homosexuality is an innate part of the person's makeup or a choice has not been proven.  Your contention to the contrary is nonsense.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
They had to be removed because of the Unconstitutional "interpretation" of Separation of Church and State (words that are NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION)

As I said, liberals are trying hard to rewrite history and get rid of the Christian origins of this country.  That doesn't change the history of this country.

Our Founding Fathers didn't cite Hammurabi.  They cited the Bible in their speeches.



> John Adams:
> 
> The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.<A href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN1">[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE]
> 
> ...


 


> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.<A href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN64">[SIZE=-2]64[/SIZE]
> 
> ...


 
Many more quotes here:  WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

Liberals want to deny this, because it's evidence their agenda is wrong.  But the our laws and our country was based on the Bible and Christianity.  There is too much evidence to deny this.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



The 1st Amendment clearly states that there will be no state religion.  What Roy Moore did (as chief justice) was clearly against that amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Having that monument as the only display in the courthouse lobby is totally advocating one religion over all others.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


 
That's like saying because a child has pneumonia or asthma, they should just "accept who they are" and go on without EVER finding help!

I'm not talking about hiding.  I'm talking about HELPING.  Just because a child is confused about their sexuality does not mean we just say "oh, you're gay!"  and leave it at that!

We help children for other things from depression to autism.  But in the case of homsexuality we should just leave them confused, because they are a good banner for the gay cause?

That's saying they are better political tools left as they are.  That's hardly caring.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I don't disagree with the right to marry. I disagree with redefining marriage.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
The Supreme Court once said Blacks were not Citizens (see Dredd Scott) and that segregation was okay as long as everything was "separate but equal."

The Supreme Court saying it, does NOT put it in the Constitution.  Separation of Church and State is not on the Constitution.  It doesn't stop legislating from the bench.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



I am a conservative Republican and a Christian.
True conservatives want NO part of religion in government.
We are a nation OF LAW, not of men and their various and changing like the wind religous beliefs. Our nation was not Founded on Christianity or the Bible.
This great nation was founded on THE LAW and that law, the Constitution is based on keeping religous influences OUT OF GOVERNMENT.
I do not want to deny you your religion. No one does. 
But when you attempt to use the power of government to force your religous beliefs on me I will see you in court.
And I will win every time.
Something about The United States Constitution.
An interesting document. I suggest you read it.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
What the 1st Amendment clearly states is Congress will establish no religion.  The FACT is many of the States DID have State Churches at the beginning of this country.



> Most states in early America had established churches
> Established Church: a church officially supported (and paid for) by the government
> Dissenters from established churches were tolerated but not always treated equally
> First Amendment originally limited only federal government, not state governments
> ...


 
Religion in Early America


You want to interpret "no establishment of religion" to mean "but we CAN establish the religion of atheism by suppressing all other religions."

That is NOT in the Constitution.  Nor was it EVER established by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

That only changed when justices started forcing their OPINIONS on the country instead of the actual Constitution.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Religion has nothing to do with redefining marriage. Most people who are opposed to gay marriage are not religious, although some are.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



You are comparing homosexuality to asthma?   lol   That is too ridiculous for a response.

The fact is that the APA and the AMA have not classified homosexuality as a disease.

Plus, there is not a single "treatment" for homosexuality that does anything except make the person hide who they are.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



And not one attempt to overturn the rulings of the SCOTUS concerning the separation of church & state has ever been successful.  Not even close.

The fact that the 1st Amendment forbids creating a state religion helps create the separation.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

Discuss more later.  I have to get to work!


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

What I find amazing is the ignorance of those that believe the Founders had the backing of the church in their revolution.
Fact is the majority of churches DID NOT want to leave being a colony of England. MOST of the colonists, especially in the south, were against the revolution.
The Church of England, the Anglican church was the predominant denomination in the colonies and most of them WERE TORRIES, they supported the crown.
We kicked their ass and over 100,000 of them fled to Canada and back to England after the revolution.
This great nation was founded on the law. 
We defeated the religous influences of divine right which the monarchs used to oppress for a thousand years. "We have the blessings of God to rule" was the monarchs creed. 
We defeated divine right and the monarchs claims that the Christian religion and The Bible gave them the power they had.
Something about the Constitution. A document that does not mention God.
But of course there was support for a national religion and government support and funding for churches at the convention before the Constitution was ratified.
They lost. Sorry about that.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Well said.   The idea that the only true conservatives are the social conservatives has done more harm to conservatism than any other factor.

True conservatives do not want the US gov't legislating religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...


Everyone I know opposed is because of their religous beliefs.
Why would anyone oppose it otherwise?
How does it affect anyone?
Where did you get your "they are immoral" BS if not from religous beliefs?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



No one is establishing a religon of atheism (which is a misnomer at best).   No one is banning any religion.  What is done is to protect those who are not Judeo-Christian from being a victim of laws based solely on that religion.  For our gov't, no religion is greater than any other, and nonbelief is as protected as belief.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Most everyone I know opposes redefining marriage because it celebrates and embraces something that is abnormal, unhealthy and most of all, it mocks the institution of marriage. These are not religious beliefs, these are commonsense reasons.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Being normal is not a criteria for being married.  

As for unhealthy, lesbians have a lower rate of AIDS than gay men, straight men, and straight women.   Also, since plenty of straight couples engage in the same sexual act AND are allowed to get married, it is not a factor.

Lastly, it does not mock the institution of marriage.  Gays want to JOIN in that institution, not destroy it.  (we straights have done quite well at destroying it without their help)


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I think we have to agree to disagree on your last point. "_Lastly, it does not mock the institution of marriage.  Gays want to JOIN in that institution, not destroy it._"

The LIBERAL agenda is destroying the institution of marriage. The liberal agenda includes the gay agenda, the black agenda, the women's agenda, the entitlement mentality, abortion, welfare, atheism, etc.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



How is being a homosexual unhealthy if they are living a committed and loving honest life?
Common sense is to not to smoke.
Respectfully, the reasons you are giving are making you look very foolish.
You oppose it because you believe gays and lesbians to be 2nd class citizens.
Go ahead and admit it. Quit the bull shitting. You are not used car salesman material.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No, the me first pop culture has destroyed the institution of marriage. All heterosexual.
Gay marriage HAS NOTHING to with that whatsoever.
Amazing you lump gay agenda with welfare!
Most all the gays I know are wealthy professionals. Very disciplined citizens.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Gays can join the institution. Nobody is preventing them from participating.

People who promote family-killing lifestyles are the ones who have killed the institution of marriage, not those who promote traditional family values. The people who brought you "sex without consequences" (a lie), "homosexuality is normal" (a lie), "abortion will save lives" (a lie), "children are sexual creatures so we must cater to that" (a lie), "we cannot control our sexual urges" (a lie), "no fault divorce will save families" (a lie), "promiscuity is healthy" (a lie), "single parent families are as successful as two parent families" (a lie) are killing off the family. And these are the same people who now are telling us that broadening the definition of marriage will somehow add to the richness of that institution...and they're lying now, too.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What I find amazing is the ignorance of those that believe the Founders had the backing of the church in their revolution.
> Fact is the majority of churches DID NOT want to leave being a colony of England. MOST of the colonists, especially in the south, were against the revolution.
> The Church of England, the Anglican church was the predominant denomination in the colonies and most of them WERE TORRIES, they supported the crown.
> We kicked their ass and over 100,000 of them fled to Canada and back to England after the revolution.
> ...


 
I think you are forgetting that MOST of those who came to this country came for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

You act like they came here to practice atheism. 

Most of the social reforms this country has had STARTED AS RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS including abolition and civil rights.

The Divine Right of Kings was argued against ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

What you are saying is just what you want to be true.  History is FAR different from your fantasy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


Yep they can move to a state that allows gay marriage.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What I find amazing is the ignorance of those that believe the Founders had the backing of the church in their revolution.
> ...



And our founding fathers (many of whom were deists) wrote a constitution, and ratified the first 10 amendments, to make sure this nation was ruled by law, not by dictators, kings or religions.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...


 
You guys crack me up.  You always act as IF conservatives will "start a theocracy" but what really happens is the only theocracy that is being established is by zealot atheists determined that only their religion will be honored by the Constitution.

We each have a system of faith, whether we are too arrogant to admit it or not.

The idea that there was no God to create this Earth is a system of Faith.  There is no scientific fact to back that up.  Only theories.

There is more evidence God created this Earth than evidence it all happened as an accident.  

Whatever you believe is a matter of faith and thus forcing that view on others is forcing one's religion on others.

Thus forcing the REMOVAL of articles of faith from buildings is simply forcing another faith on those buildings.

That's not backed up by the Constitution or the words of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THE AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

There you have it people! Just what I said.

THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE GAY AGENDA IS THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!

That is WHY gays want to force Gay marriage, something that has NEVER EXISTED BEFORE IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY, on the US.

It is an attack on traditional marriage and TRADITIONAL MORALITY/RELIGION.

Give someone with an agenda enough time, and they will let slip what they really want!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



When articles of faith are posted in public buildings, and no other articles from any other religion is allowed, you have a state sponsored religion.

Which was the case in the Alabama Supreme Court building.



Your contention is that atheism is a faith is false.  And atheism is not the state religion.  There is no state religion.  

If anyone thinks that social conservatives (you are not followers of classic conservatism) will create a theocracy it is because people like you spout nonsense about all our laws being based on the Bible or trying to use your religious beliefs to shape the nation.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Nice strawman argument.   He didn't say gays are threatened by religion.  He said that those who oppose gay marriage typically use their religion as the basis.

They are not the same things.  There are plenty of gays with very strong faith.  It may not be the same as yours, but it is no less valid.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Okay, that was a load of double speak and crap.  How is any Christian "protected" when the ACLU comes and tells a community they have to take down a Cross over their courthouse that has been there for 150+ years in Vinton County, Ohio?

That's not protection.  That's federal interference and religious persection of private community minding it's own business.

That IS enforcing atheism, by fiat.  And as I said, atheism IS a matter of faith, unless you have the stone cold evidence there is no God.

Lack of evidence is what you will cite, but BASING A BELIEF SYSTEM ON LACK OF EVIDENCE IS STILL BASING IT IN FAITH.

Example:  (a sighted man) I believe the sky is blue, because I can see it and the sky is blue.

(the blind man) I believe the sky is blue, despite the fact I can't see it, but I have no evidence to tell me one way or another way the color of the sky.

Example two is what atheists base their faith on.  They are the blind man.  They can't see God, they don't believe he exists, but they have no hard evidence to prove one way or another.  That is a sytem of faith.

Atheists are too arrogant to admit this, which is why atheism is a minority.  Too many other people recognize this simple truth.


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## teapartysamurai (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Who is forcing what?

Christians are not forcing a change to the definition of marriage, gays are doing that!

All Christians are doing is VOTING AS THEY SEE FIT.

What you are suggesting is Christians not be allowed to vote, because they won't vote to agree with gay marriage.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 


People are allowed to follow their religious beliefs, yay, even to the shaping of the nation, lol. That's what religious freedom is.

I haven't heard anyone say all our laws are based on the bible. Can you provide a quote and link?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I am sure gay folk want to get married to attack religion.
Nothing at all about they love and are committed to each other.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...




You brought up religion so you must be for the "gay agenda" and are anti religion as the poster above stated. 
How about a vote on ending the wars, taxes, whatever?
How come us Christians do not get to vote on any and ALL issues?
How come you are suggesting Christians are not allowed to vote on every issue there is?
Constitutional Amendments to deny rights to folks?
When was the last time that was ever done?
Never.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

The Tea Party here in Georgia treats the gay marriage as a NON ISSUE.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

teapartysamurai said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Taking a cross down from a courthouse is not promting atheism.  It is preventing the gov't from promoting a single religion.  The fact that the cross had been there for 150 years is irrelevant.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

The constitution says the government cannot ESTABLISH a religion.

Having a cross on a courthouse does not ESTABLISH a state religion.

It's English. Learn it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The constitution says the government cannot ESTABLISH a religion.
> 
> Having a cross on a courthouse does not ESTABLISH a state religion.
> 
> It's English. Learn it.



Marking the gov't building as a christian building is not acceptable.  At least according to the the federal courts who have heard these cases.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

And what about all the people in Vinton county, or who came to the Alabama Supreme Court, who are not Christians?  Why should they be told, by the symbology, that it is not their courthouse or not their supreme court?


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Bullshit. "Acceptable" is a LONG ways from "promoting", now, isn't it? And "promoting" is a long ways from "establishing".  

So we have your argument falling to pieces.

Now let's talk about "acceptable". What the hell does "acceptable" have to do with anything? Acceptable to whom? Where in the constitution does it define "acceptable"?
I find it perfectly acceptable, as did the people who lived in the community for a century and a half. 

What federal courts heard what cases?

You make a shit argument. This is getting old. Be specific, and provide examples, and links. Or go to the corner and put on a dunce cap.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Bullshit. "Acceptable" is a LONG ways from "promoting", now, isn't it? And "promoting" is a long ways from "establishing".
> 
> So we have your argument falling to pieces.
> 
> ...



The 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court Lobby went to federal court.  And the ruling was that the monument was to be removed.  When Judge Roy Moore refused, the monument was still removed and so was he - from the bench.

The incident mentioned concerning the cross on the courthouse, to my knowlege did not go to court.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

So what? You're sloppy and vague. Link it, and make your point. You said "federal courts that have heard these cases". That implies multiples.


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

Atheism is a belief system. It is a belief system that precludes the existence of a higher power. 

Atheism is a STRONG belief system that preaches that there is no God. Members of the belief of atheism publicly Proselytize more than Christians do in today's America. 

The religion of atheism has successfully removed all mention of God in schools and public places. Belief in God is not a religion, it is a belief system just like atheism.

God is mentioned in our founding documents, in all 50 state constitutions and on our money. However atheists have successively removed the mention of God from our public schools. Atheists are brainwashing students to accept the belief system of atheism by removing all mention of God in our public schools. This propaganda must stop.


----------



## Buford (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Then why not take the other religious symbols off the US Supreme Court House, The Washington Monument, etc?


----------



## syrenn (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Atheism is a belief system. It is a belief system that precludes the existence of a higher power.
> 
> Atheism is a STRONG belief system that preaches that there is no God. Members of the belief of atheism publicly Proselytize more than Christians do in today's America.
> 
> ...



 


Do tell.... and where do the  atheists gather such? Are they tax exempt?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So what? You're sloppy and vague. Link it, and make your point. You said "federal courts that have heard these cases". That implies multiples.



Oh, so you refuse to answer when asked for proof, but now everyone else has to?

If you don't know that there have been court cases removing religious symbols from public places?


----------



## garyganu (May 22, 2012)

syrenn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is a belief system. It is a belief system that precludes the existence of a higher power.
> ...



Here is an example of an atheist group, I believe that they are tax exempt: Freedom From Religion Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This group and others buy billboards, and advertise on buses about their message of "freedom from religion". They also go to court to remove God from schools and the public square.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So what? You're sloppy and vague. Link it, and make your point. You said "federal courts that have heard these cases". That implies multiples.
> ...


 
More sloppy vagueness.
When was I asked for proof? About what?

If you are aware of court cases removing religious symbols from public cases, and you have a point to make, make your stupid point, and reference them.

Otherwise, you're wasting bandwidth with your unsourced pedantry.

Also known as "gas".


----------



## Buford (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Clever deceptive phrasing...."Freedom from religion".  Translation.....Removing your right to religious freedom.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2012)

> Then why not take the other religious symbols off the US Supreme Court House, The Washington Monument, etc?



Because they have a fundamental secular purpose, they neither promote nor inhibit religious expression, and they dont constitute an excessive governmental entanglement. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Dirty Dozen: 12 Biggest Christian Evangelist Sex Scandals of 21st Century
Dirty Dozen: 12 Biggest Christian Evangelist Sex Scandals of 21st Century | Just Prove It!
paul if alive today would have been on this list.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You mean like the claims you have occasionally made and then not offered backup for, or your refusal to answer simple questions?

Sorry, but your hostility and bullshit don't bother me.   I made a claim that there had been court cases in which the high courts ruled that religious symbols on public buildings were in violation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Omg, please for the love of mike...BE MORE SPECIFIC.

"The claims you have occasionally made and then not offered backup for, or your refusal to answer simple questions?"

Seriously...and for the second, third or fourth time...

WHAT claims, WHEN were they made, and WHAT simple questions????

You get an "F". 

And I'm cutting and pasting your posts and sending them to a copy editor so we can laugh our asses off.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Meanwhile, start here:

"
Declarative Sentences are used to form statements. Declarative sentences consist of a subject and a predicate. The subject may be a simple subject or a compound subject. A simple subject consists of a noun phrase or a nominative personal pronoun. Compound subjects are formed by combining several simple subjects with conjunctions. All the sentences in this paragraph are declarative sentences."

Basic English Sentence Structures - Declarative Sentences


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Then here:

"
You&#8217;ll find most of your writing contains declarative sentences, too.  Practically all of your essays and reports can be made almost entirely of this sentence type.  If the purpose of your work is to give information with statements of facts, or to state an idea, or to argue a point, declarative sentences will do the job. And let&#8217;s face it; that&#8217;s exactly what information seekers are looking for.  Just remember declarative sentences aren&#8217;t designed to elicit a response with a command or question.  They simply relay information.
*Tip* &#8211; If you ever have writer&#8217;s block, you can jumpstart your writing by simply typing a declarative sentence at the top of your document.  For example, if your report is on marine life, you could get your thought processes going by typing:  &#8220;Plankton is the most abundant food source in the ocean.&#8221;  Then follow through with what, when, where, and how to flesh out your work."

Declarative Sentences Are the Most Common Type


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

And finally:
"This handout will define what an argument is and explain why you need one in most of your academic essays."
Argument


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2012)

No, my comprehension is very good, I understood exactly what you posted, that's why I said stop with the double talk.


I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

You have said multiple, multiple times that being gay is not a gene, it's a choice. You say it so emphatically. Yet you are not a scientist nor a researcher and I highly doubt you've spent a second of time reading studies that deal with exactly that issue using nothing but facts. 

As I keep saying, almost every single psychological association and medical group (and 100% of the largest and most widely renowned) have conducted years worth of research and (the largest group, the APA) came to the following conclusion: 

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality."

Saying it's so does not change the facts. Especially when people like you have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up their assertions.[/QUOTE] not to worry, the more he post the more everyone can see he's ignorant.


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

Who are you talking to?


----------



## koshergrl (May 22, 2012)

The APA got it's information about homosexuality from the Kinsey studies..you know, the crap studies of criminals, sexual deviants (as in child molesters and rapists, pimps, prostitutes and other lovely people that he presented as a representative cross section of the population) that were packaged up and sold to our educators as "sex education". This led directly to the de-criminalization of sex crimes (including those against children) and to the idiot APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.

The APA subsequently decided to define homosexuality as a sexuality that was innate...and when Kinsey was exposed for the child abusing fraud he was, they actually had to revamp their statement to more accurately reflect reality. It was quite embarassing for them.

But they are plagued by embarassments, and they are an embarassment to real educators and real researchers and real scientists everywhere. 

Anybody who cites the APA and "Psychologists" as pertinent, upstanding information sources has a screw loose. Literally. They are the real life model of the lunatics running the asylum.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


off topic, off your meds ,bigoted and ignorant is no way to go through life...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





Ever heard the term wolves in sheep's clothing? I think it's also referenced in the bible. If a "Christian" is doing something contrary to what the Bible says then they are wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 I have. your point? if any.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you must ask what my point is then you no longer deserve an answer. I made my point in my last post. Fucking stupid son of a bitch.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

One of my best clients is married to her partner. They have 3 adopted kids.
They have a multi million dollar law practice. One of them is the stay at home parent and the other runs the law firm. And they are as professional as anyone I have ever worked for. She is a former prosecutor with the Fulton county DA's office and tried over 400 cases. She had a string of over 100 cases in a row she won before a defense verdict at one point.
Georgia bans gay marriage so what did they do? Went to another state and got married. They also own a residence there.
Gay marriage bans are like banning internet sales sites without a license in your state. The state of Georgia and most all other states ban all detective agencies from other states from putting their internet sites on the web! They send out cease and desist orders to each and everyone of them in the bordering states. Absurd but true.
Same with gay marriage bans.
The millions of wasted tax payer dollars banning gay marriage and all of the wasted time in the legislatures drawing up that legislation when we have 537 other more important issues that take a back seat to gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a non issue. Undisputed here.
No one opposing gay marriage to date here has named ONE THING that gay marriage harms in equity.
There is nothing that gay marriage harms other than feelings. 
We have become a nation of milk weak thin skinned wimp ass "conservatives".
GEEKS ARE NOT WANTED Grow some stones gentleman. The gay boogeyman does not harm anyone.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The APA got it's information about homosexuality from the Kinsey studies..you know, the crap studies of criminals, sexual deviants (as in child molesters and rapists, pimps, prostitutes and other lovely people that he presented as a representative cross section of the population) that were packaged up and sold to our educators as "sex education". This led directly to the de-criminalization of sex crimes (including those against children) and to the idiot APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.
> 
> The APA subsequently decided to define homosexuality as a sexuality that was innate...and when Kinsey was exposed for the child abusing fraud he was, they actually had to revamp their statement to more accurately reflect reality. It was quite embarassing for them.
> 
> ...



Your stance that heterosexuals with mental problems should be banned from marrying is duly noted.
Very strange but noted.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The APA got it's information about homosexuality from the Kinsey studies..you know, the crap studies of criminals, sexual deviants (as in child molesters and rapists, pimps, prostitutes and other lovely people that he presented as a representative cross section of the population) that were packaged up and sold to our educators as "sex education". This led directly to the de-criminalization of sex crimes (including those against children) and to the idiot APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.
> ...



Many of the reasons listed against gay marriage apply quite well to many straights.


----------



## koshergrl (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Look another post that's too vague to respond to! That's great, you're on a roll!


----------



## koshergrl (May 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The APA got it's information about homosexuality from the Kinsey studies..you know, the crap studies of criminals, sexual deviants (as in child molesters and rapists, pimps, prostitutes and other lovely people that he presented as a representative cross section of the population) that were packaged up and sold to our educators as "sex education". This led directly to the de-criminalization of sex crimes (including those against children) and to the idiot APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.
> ...



Huh?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What is vague about that?  I have seen claims that gays are sexual perverts, abnormal, hedontistic, self-centered, mentally ill, and  much more.

Any of those could apply to straights.  In fact, there are plenty of straight people who would qualify for any or all of those attributes.  And yet they can marry who they love.


So why did you get married, Koshergirl?  Or why would you, if you haven't?  What is the reason you would marry someone?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2012)

> I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay



It is with regard to equal access/equal protection of the law, where both classes of persons were illegally excluded for no other reason than who they are. 


> so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.



_Loving_ is on point because it demonstrates a states willful violation of its citizens civil liberties absent any compelling rationale, which is the same case for same-sex couples.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Illegal acts do not have protected rights.


----------



## koshergrl (May 23, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay
> 
> 
> It is with regard to equal access/equal protection of the law, where both classes of persons were illegally excluded for no other reason than who they are.
> ...



Nope, that's a lie. Gays are not prevented from marrying. You people just ignore that. They want to change the definition of marriage because, specifically, they don't WANT to be married...they want something else, but they want to force the rest of the world to CALL it "married".

But they have the right to be married already, and they can be married, regardless of their sexual orientation. They just choose not to.


----------



## garyganu (May 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay
> ...



You summed up my OP in 4 sentences.


----------



## koshergrl (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



"Many of the reasons" is vague. Really vague. 

"I have seen claims"....is vague. You need to specify.

You don't, because you're lying. Liars are necessarily vague; if they are specific, it's too obvious they're lying.


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Pot, meet kettle.

I've pointed out multiple lies of yours recently kg, so your continuous attacks on people's supposed lies and how it reflects on their character is either hypocritical or just funny.


----------



## koshergrl (May 23, 2012)

"multiple, recently, continuous"

without one actual reference or quote.

This is how liars work.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


a meaningless point..


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Still you're stupid that's not going to change.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay
> ...


still beating that dead horse?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




It's only a dead horse in your mind


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


lol ! (insert irony here)


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


no it's law .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



you're right illegal acts are not protected rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That iron you hold just fell on your foot.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


yes I am right...sodomy or any other sex act between adults is not illegal..
you're trying and failing to infer that ALL gay people will ass fuck kids.
and you're wrong.
beside if you haven't actually done it, you've thought about doing it with your wife girlfriend (if any) or with a paid professional.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


ignorant and illiterate wow you're the whole package!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Talking to that mirror you look in everyday, I see


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


can you say dodge ?I knew you could! 
cowardly asshat!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sure I'm dodging your stupidity


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


dodge #2.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



stupidity dodge #3


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay
> ...



Still on this?  SCOTUS ruled, deal with it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I notice two things about your postings on these forums.

1) You are as interested in attacking people personally as you are in discussing the issues.

2) You berate others for not answering questions, but you seem to think its fine not answering questions asked of you.

No, my answer was not vague.  You have been in this thread since the beginning.  You have seen the people call gays sexual perverts, abnormal, hedontistic, self-centered, mentally ill, and  much more.  I am not scrolling back through 106 pages of posts to provide post #s for what you have already seen.

But then, when bigrebnc made his claims, and you claimed he provided backup for his argument, I challenged you to provide any links or quotes to show where he did.   You chose not to do so (what a surprise).  So I guess, by your own standards, this makes you a liar?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "multiple, recently, continuous"
> 
> without one actual reference or quote.
> 
> This is how liars work.



You have been in this thread and seen the posts.  That you choose to pretend otherwise only proves our point.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It is only in your mind that sodomy, on its own, is illegal.  The highest court in the nation ruled.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Is sodomy illegal? Have people been charged with it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorders Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, sodomy on its own is not illegal.  People have been charged with it in addition to charges of rape, sexual assault and child molesting.

You have been shown the SCOTUS ruling.  That means all anti-sodomy laws were struck down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



A Columbus man arrested Tuesday faces felony accusations he took pictures on his cell phone while sexually assaulting another man, reports state.

Kontaye Rashaun Williams, 22, is held without bond on charges of aggravated sodomy and unlawful eavesdropping pending his Thursday Columbus Recorders Court hearing, Muscogee County Jail records state.

Read more here: Man charged with aggravated sodomy | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



from: 16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy. (from Georgia Criminal Code)

"A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A *person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will or the other person*."

So someone was arrest for forcing sodomy on them?  Sounds like you are proving my point.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.

When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 23, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Sodomy is still sodomy


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Indeed it is.  And the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot be prosecuted for it.

All of the stories you have posted are about something different than what happens between consenting adults, whether they are gay or straight.

I find it hilarious that you want to see sodomy made illegal again.  Who in their right mind would want it to be illegal to get a blowjob or to go down on his partner?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sodomy is still sodomy.  But what sodomy is not is illegal between consenting adults.  The sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner we can get back to an actual discussion of relevance to the topic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2012)

> It boils down to this, since the SCOTUS ruled, if anyone gets arrested and convicted of sodomy (without it being aggravated, involving minors, or involving rape) their conviction will be tossed out and a huge lawsuit will follow.
> 
> When the SCOTUS says it ain't illegal, it ain't illegal.


Correct. Many states likely still have their sodomy laws on the books, un-enforced; prosecution and conviction pointless.   



> Sodomy is still sodomy. But what sodomy is not is illegal between consenting adults. The sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner we can get back to an actual discussion of relevance to the topic.



Unlikely. For a conservative to acknowledge the facts of settled law is to acknowledge defeat.


----------



## daws101 (May 24, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


just for expediency, so we don't have to go through this in the future, could you please tell us  how many times do you need to be bitch slapped with the facts before you admit you're wrong?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 24, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > just for expediency, so we don't have to go through this in the future, could you please tell us  how many times do you need to be bitch slapped with the facts before you admit you're wrong?
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 24, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (May 25, 2012)

I have a solution.

How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?

Everyone who gets married, gays and straights, without a religious ritual, gets the standard civil union licence.  This gets them all the benefits.

Everyone wanting a religious ceremony can have one.  If you want the 1,400 benefits given by the gov't, you get a civil union licence too.

How about that?  And we will even let the religious ceremony be called a "marriage" and the civil union will find another name.


----------



## garyganu (May 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> I have a solution.
> 
> How about we separate the religious ceremony/institution from the civil one?
> 
> ...



Winterborn, That is what my OP is about. If you call gay unions anything else besides marriage, there will be very little opposition to it. I suggest that we call it "garriage".

Even the ancient Greeks didn't call gay unions, Marriage.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 25, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I have a solution.
> ...



Except mine did not differentiate between gay and straight.  It provides the gov't benefits for a gov't licenced union.  And marriage will be reserved for religious based marriages, without any of the gov't benefits.

If you want both a religious ceremony and the gov't benefits, you get the gov't licence and find a religious organization that will marry you.


----------



## garyganu (May 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Just don't change anything about traditional marriage and call gay marriage something else and nobody will mind besides the radical gay activists who are never satisfied.. 

The local governments can offer Marriage Licenses and Garriage Licenses. Everything will be the same except the name. Just as we have a different word for man and woman, husband and wife, we should have a different word for same sex unions and opposite sex unions. Maybe we should have a separate words for gay unions and lesbian unions. Perhaps Garriage, Larriage and Marriage. What's unfair about that?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 25, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Separate but equal?   You are wanting to offer something to homosexuals to preserve what you have.

I am separating the religious from the civil.  With the civil there is no need to have a separation for gays and straights.


----------



## garyganu (May 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am only suggesting a separate word. If we can have a separate word for man and woman, for straight and gay, for husband and wife; Why cant we have separate words for gay and straight unions? After all, the license will have to change the wording  for "husband and wife" for the gay unions. Why can't the straight unions retain the word marriage and the words "husband and wife"? The garriage or larriage can use the words "life-partner", "life-mate", wife and wife, or husband and husband.


----------



## koshergrl (May 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Please stop with the false allegory "separate but equal". This issue is not the same as a race issue. Gays are NOT being prevented from participating in marriage. They have CHOSEN not to participate in marriage, but still want to be called *married*...without actually being married.

They want to change the meaning of the word, both to marginalize/trivialize  traditional marriage and to afford themselves the status our society affords to hetero married couples. 

But they are NOT excluded from it as blacks were excluded. They want to create something new and force it upon us as *marriage*. Blacks were not about creating a new society, they only wanted to be able to participate in the society that already existed.


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2012)

A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate? Please. We ALL have the same rights, NOW. Anyone feeling shortchanged? Pervs witha 'tude doesn't exactly equate to someone  being deprived of their rights, does it? Gays don't need to be married. Until they can have kids on their own, they don't have a darned thing to complain about. They are whiny  perverts with a pretty big bunch of hetro supporters...How did THAT happen? How did that happen? I will tell you: YOU kids are idiots. You will believe anything. Except the truth, that isn't so pretty.


----------



## koshergrl (May 25, 2012)

You're right, Maryl. They do have the exact same rights as we do, right now.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 26, 2012)

MaryL said:


> A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate? Please. We ALL have the same rights, NOW. Anyone feeling shortchanged? Pervs witha 'tude doesn't exactly equate to someone  being deprived of their rights, does it? Gays don't need to be married.* Until they can have kids on their own, they don't have a darned thing to complain about.* They are whiny  perverts with a pretty big bunch of hetro supporters...How did THAT happen? How did that happen? I will tell you: YOU kids are idiots. You will believe anything. Except the truth, that isn't so pretty.



So we can apply that same standard to straights?


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate? Please. We ALL have the same rights, NOW. Anyone feeling shortchanged? Pervs witha 'tude doesn't exactly equate to someone  being deprived of their rights, does it? Gays don't need to be married.* Until they can have kids on their own, they don't have a darned thing to complain about.* They are whiny  perverts with a pretty big bunch of hetro supporters...How did THAT happen? How did that happen? I will tell you: YOU kids are idiots. You will believe anything. Except the truth, that isn't so pretty.
> ...



Winterborn, please respond to this comment: 

"I am only suggesting a separate word. If we can have a separate word for man and woman, for straight and gay, for husband and wife; Why cant we have separate words for gay and straight unions? After all, the license will have to change the wording for "husband and wife" for the gay unions. Why can't the straight unions retain the word "marriage" and the words "husband and wife"? The garriage or larriage can use the words "life-partner", "life-mate", wife and wife, or husband and husband."


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

MaryL said:


> A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate? Please. We ALL have the same rights, NOW. Anyone feeling shortchanged? Pervs witha 'tude doesn't exactly equate to someone  being deprived of their rights, does it? Gays don't need to be married. Until they can have kids on their own, they don't have a darned thing to complain about. They are whiny  perverts with a pretty big bunch of hetro supporters...How did THAT happen? How did that happen? I will tell you: YOU kids are idiots. You will believe anything. Except the truth, that isn't so pretty.



So we have you deciding who can and who can not get married.
And you call us kids and idiots.


----------



## koshergrl (May 26, 2012)

Yeah, the people who can get married are all men and all women. Any man can marry any woman, with a few restrictions (no immediate family and no bigamy).

That includes gays. They're in no way excluded.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, the people who can get married are all men and all women. Any man can marry any woman, with a few restrictions (no immediate family and no bigamy).
> 
> That includes gays. They're in no way excluded.



This as nothing to do with "gay rights". Gays already have the same rights as everyone else.They want to destroy the institution of marriage by redefining it to include deviate behavior. Next they will legitimize polygamy, next they will legitimize pedophilia by lowering the age of consent, then the will legalize prostitution. This is very predictable.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



The reason I posted what I did was to answer the claim that marriage is a religious institution.  So I propose we separate the religious from the civil.

But if we call it garriage or larriage, would you be ok with them getting all the +/- 1,400 benefits of a standard marriage?


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes, same-sex unions will have the same legal benefits as traditional marriage. Under my plan, we don't have to re-define marriage to accommodate gays. Most people will find this acceptable. Only the gay activists and the religious zealots will oppose. If put on the ballot, I predict that it will pass in most all states.

Even the ancient Greeks did not call same-sex unions marriage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




You have it backwards. Religous zealots are for bans on gay marriage. 
Again, how does gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage.
Gay marriage is legal in some states.
Please show me ONE PERSON it has affected.
Just one. I will pay a thousand bucks a piece to every citizen that has been affected by gays getting married.
Gay marriage: undisputed NON ISSUE.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The decline of our society is the cost of celebrating and embracing homosexual behavior.

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and deception, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, humble and brazen, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded, etc."


----------



## WinterBorn (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So its all about semantics?   As long as we don't use the WORD "marriage", its ok to give them all the benefits?


----------



## BDBoop (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I'd like to think so, but I'm sure you are just asking for another 17 rounds of why being gay is a choice and they can already get married, derp.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Total BS. Homosexuals have not caused any decline in society.
As a whole they are more productive than the average citizen.
Quit labeling others as 2nd class citizens. You have no evidence of it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



WE already celebrate lying and stealing, by voting the same politicians in office over and over.  It has become acceptable for politicians to lie to us.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

Gary makes the religous argument against gays and then denies doing so.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. The main thing is not to debase the meaning of marriage. Everyone believes that gays have the same rights as the rest of us.


----------



## BDBoop (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Geezus, dude. You have GOT to stop lying. Not even close to everyone believes that. In fact, y'all are in the minority.


----------



## BDBoop (May 26, 2012)

Sig: Common sense is two words.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Everyone believes that gays should have equal rights. Most people are only opposed to changing the meaning of marriage.


----------



## BDBoop (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



See bolded? That's you contradicting yourself.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I didn't say that homosexuals are causing a decline in our society. I said that celebrating and embracing something that is abnormal and unhealthy is confusing our youth.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Exactly, most people can not tell truth from deception, etc.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Gary makes the religous argument against gays and then denies doing so.



I never made a religious argument. What do you think I wrote?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Those of us with gay and lesbian family members resent the hell out of you and anyone else condeming our family members for being who they are.
Accordingly we are going to encourage them to be who they are and will never accept your BS that they are less than human because they happen to fall in love with those of the same sex.
And we are lining up along with a growing # of other fine citizens to fight you.
Get used to it and we are those with long histories of productive and honest citizens.


----------



## koshergrl (May 26, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Nope, he didn't. What you fail to comprehend is gays already have equal rights. They just want to reap the reward of behavior they refuse to engage in. Too bad.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I have never heard one person who denies gays the same basic civil rights under the constitution.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I don't get it. What do you mean. Is it the phrase" the rest of us"? I mean heterosexuals.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Horseshit.  They can tell the difference.  They just don't care.  And that is because it has become so accepted that we actualy expect it.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What are you fighting me about. I'm not fighting anyone. Why are you picking a fight? 

Smoking cigarettes is also unhealthy; Do you start fights with smokers? 

Why don't you "live and let live" like I do.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Not really, Yesterday there was an article in the Washington Post that said that the Obama administration spends very little money compared to other administrations. Many people believe lies like that. They don't know what to believe. they have no compass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Now you are comparing gay folk with smokers.


----------



## BDBoop (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Your eyes are brown, aren't they.

Would that the whole forum was as dim as you perceive us to be, your 'non-fight' would go a lot more smoothly.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Being a gay man and being a smoker are both unhealthy lifestyles. The life expectancy of the average gay male is actually less than the life expectancy of a cigarette smoker.

It's funny how smokers are condemned and gays are celebrated.  IMO, we should not judge either of these lifestyles. Live and let live.


----------



## Vidi (May 26, 2012)

I realize I'm showing up late in this thread but here's the reasonable solution as I see it.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"


Marriage is both a religious rite and a government recognized contract.

Therefore, gays should be able to legally marry and be recognized legally, but the churches should be able to refuse to perform the ceremonies.


----------



## garyganu (May 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> I realize I'm showing up late in this thread but here's the reasonable solution as I see it.
> 
> "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"
> 
> ...



Gays CAN already legally marry in every state in the union. The gay activists are trying to redefine the word marriage to include same-sex couples. Most people object to altering the institution of marriage. However, I have no objection to unions between same sex couples under a different name. Garriage for example. This way the institution of marriage does not need to be altered to accommodate gays.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > I realize I'm showing up late in this thread but here's the reasonable solution as I see it.
> ...




Two people of the same sex are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most states.

The structure of that logic "gays can marry, just not each other" was tried during the Loving v. Virginia case "coloreds can marry, just not white people" - it failed.



>>>>


----------



## logical4u (May 26, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
> ...



Appropriate!


----------



## koshergrl (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



This is true. Likewise, heteros cannot marry a person of the same sex. 

They have the exact same rights as we do already.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

The best way to stop gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much less gays wanting to get married.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And since my sister wants to marry her partner of 20 years, and their best friends are men who have been together even longer,  - and they cannot wed? 

No. They DON'T 'have the same rights.' They cannot marry the person who is free to marry them, simply because they are "the wrong gender."


----------



## Buford (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



How come I don't have the "right" to be the quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings?  They refused to even give me a tryout.  My rights were violated.  Right?


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

We don't have a *right* to marry anyone we wish. Sorry. Nobody has that right.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How come I don't have the right to marry Mel Gibson????


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Gays can not wed without legally changing the definition of the institution of marriage. 

Most people do not want to change the definition of the institution of marriage.

A good compromise would be to leave the institution of marriage alone and create a new institution for same sex couples. I propose that we call it garriage.

We already have separate words for husband and wife, man and woman, bride groom, etc. Why should we eliminate these words from traditional marriage licences. Why not issue "same-sex' licences that can used phrases like wife and wife, husband and husband, life-partner, life-mate, etc. 

Different names for different types of unions makes perfect sense.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



If you want to marry the quarterback, and he loves you too, then yes.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You two would be PERFECT together.

Except you'd have to drop the handle. He feels about Jews like you feel about women.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Legally speaking, marriage has nothing to do with love. Marriage is a legal agreement.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



That only people in love engage in. Nice try moving the goalposts, especially since we WERE talking about the quarterback you love.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



How I feel about women?


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I can see it comes as a surprise to you that  you hate them.

Glad I could help.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



There is no constitutionally supported *right* to marry the person you love.

Your sister has the exact same rights as everybody else. Sometimes, people fall in love with people they can't marry. You don't get to change the law to accomodate them. They have the same rights. They want something different. That's great..but it's different and we don't have to pretend it's the same. They can pretend anything they want. And when/if they decide to participate in the union we call marriage, they're free to do so.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



BDBoop, I believe you are projecting your own feelings onto koshergrl.

Liberals despise all women who disagree with the feminist agenda. They are a very intolerant bunch. Their hatred for Sarah Palin is a prime example.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You can make the goalposts horizontal if you like, paint them red, white & blue and march a band around them. Gays STILL are being denied the right to contract with their chosen, free-to-contract significant other.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



No, I'm really not. But thanks for trying to run interference for the poor old sod.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

I haven't moved the goal posts, that's your M.O.

And they are. Unless you are stating that a person who is an admitted homosexual can't marry a person of the opposite sex, just like I can?


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



If one objects to abortion, according to the left wing extremist whackos, one is anti-female.

Pro-female must be pro-abortion, pro-uterine scraping, anti-marriage, anti-male, anti-child.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I haven't moved the goal posts, that's your M.O.
> 
> And they are. Unless you are stating that a person who is an admitted homosexual can't marry a person of the opposite sex, just like I can?



Well, we've already established that you're just that stupid so I won't act out my whiskey-tango-foxtrot, how the FUCK does she find the keyboard every day.

They cannot make a contract with the person who wants to make a contract with them. They want to make this contract because they love each other. Now, you may very well be one of those women who think any fuck is a good fuck, but that is not the case for them. They want to have a marriage contract with their actual life partner.

And it's not up to your skanky ass to tell them they are second class citizens by virtue of being born gay.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Not true. Gays are free to contract with other gays for inheritance rights, beneficiary rights, shared property rights, etc.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

garyganu said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



See the post above yours.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



This is exactly why we should institute the garriage contract for gays instead of changing the wording of the existing traditional marriage contracts.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.



Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear. 

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 27, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.
> ...



I would think it would be hard to type that with a straight face.

Surely you have not missed the demonizing by the conservatives?  Or the lies?


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

If you have them, why don't you point them out?

Here's the way this works:

Progressive nutjob is caught in a lie, which is quoted and linked.

Progressive nutjob says "all conservatives lie" by way of diverting attention from their own lie.

Right winger asks progressive nutjob to provide an example.

Progressive nutjob brings in two or three trolls who post two or three lies about the right winger...but no quotes or links.

Right winger asks progressive nutjob to provide an example.

Progressive nutjob jeers and calls right winger stupid.

That's the way whackos do business. Count yourself lucky you never entered into a contract with them, because the way they lie and cheat on this board is exactly the way they lie and cheat in real life.


----------



## BDBoop (May 27, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



She's on the rag.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And you think I hate women?
More pro-feminine rhetoric from the illiterate. Pray continue.


----------



## garyganu (May 27, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm new on this board and I haven't seen too many conservatives. If they are lying and demonizing, I would not classify them as conservatives.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2012)

I love the irony of kg constantly harping on other people telling lies. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/222313-gays-comprise-6-of-the-population-yer-they-commit-25-of-all-sexual-perversions-34.html#post5248907

Just in case you needed an example and link! 

Progressives are all extremist liars, but kg is a pillar of honesty who says it is illegal to be a homophobe or racist.


----------



## koshergrl (May 27, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> I love the irony of kg constantly harping on other people telling lies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...of-all-sexual-perversions-34.html#post5248907
> 
> ...



If that is all you have on me, and you're hanging onto it for dear life, then I feel pretty good about my record.

I could have worded it better. Meh.


----------



## clevergirl (May 27, 2012)

But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony?  How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses?  In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer.  Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.  

It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children.  According to the research center Child Trends, "[r]esearch confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."  Even the best-intentioned gay couples raising children shortchange their wards.  But the most militant gay leaders are not well-meaning.  Just as the radical leftists started out on their Great March through the Institutions with schools and colleges as their primary targets ("We'll get you through your children," the radical leftist and gay poet Allen Ginsberg warned his erstwhile friend Norman Podhoretz), gay militants have children in their cross-hairs.  A nationwide organization, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, openly acknowledges that its objective is to promote a positive view of homosexuality among pre-teen and teenage students.

Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children, by offering an alternative to a bedrock institution, gay marriage calls into question all traditional values.  There is a strong correlation between the rise of homosexual marriage and the weakening of traditional matrimony.  David Blankenhorn observes, "The deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."  

Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist.  And once the family is gone, society will fall apart.  Knock out the cornerstone, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement.

Read more:


----------



## Vidi (May 27, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > I realize I'm showing up late in this thread but here's the reasonable solution as I see it.
> ...




Marriage is a LEGAL contract with the state. 

What you're advocating is a "seperate but equal" legal status for same sex marriage. All laws regarding the rights and privileges of married status would then have to be rewritten , reargued, revoted into law. 

What you're advocating in a big government bureaucratic nightmare that wastes time and taxpayer money implementing something that could be done with a single piece of legislation that simply defines marriage as two consenting adults. 

Why?


----------



## Vidi (May 27, 2012)

clevergirl said:


> But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony?  How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses?  In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer.  Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.
> 
> It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children.  According to the research center Child Trends, "[r]esearch confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."  Even the best-intentioned gay couples raising children shortchange their wards.  But the most militant gay leaders are not well-meaning.  Just as the radical leftists started out on their Great March through the Institutions with schools and colleges as their primary targets ("We'll get you through your children," the radical leftist and gay poet Allen Ginsberg warned his erstwhile friend Norman Podhoretz), gay militants have children in their cross-hairs.  A nationwide organization, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, openly acknowledges that its objective is to promote a positive view of homosexuality among pre-teen and teenage students.
> 
> ...




Nonsense.

With a 40-50% divorce rate ( depending on who puts out the numbers ) arguing the "sanctity" of marriage is a strawman argument.


----------



## clevergirl (May 27, 2012)

Vidi said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony?  How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses?  In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer.  Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.
> ...



Only because divorce has been made easy and marriage cheapened. Still that does not take away that studies done, with regards to marriage and their being the mainstay of a healthy society, as being factually correct.

By America&#8217;s #1 Love and Marriage Experts.

Let&#8217;s face it; the oft-quoted statistic that 50% of marriages in America end in divorce discourages a lot of couples who are contemplating marriage. Who could blame them? Who wants to get into relationships where there is the expectation of failure half the time! But the truth is, the suggestion that there is a 50% divorce rate in American is simply wrong, wrong, wrong! We would like to de-bunk that myth, that fiction, that urban legend!

Our motivation for writing this article has many origins including this recent quote we came across while perusing some articles on the subject: &#8220;Divorce rates are at an all-time high, and a successful marriage seems hard to come by these days.&#8221;

Where did such a notion come from? What could be the motivation of groups and individuals that promulgate such a falsehood? Do they want to discourage traditional marriage? Do they have a political agenda? Have they simply offered a conclusion based on their faulty analysis of the available data? Or worse yet, have they intentionally misrepresented what we know about marriage and divorce in America in order to undermine this great social institution?

The answer we guess is probably all of the above to some extent. Clearly, it is hard to get into the hearts and minds of human beings. Without a doubt, it is difficult to determine the motivations of others. So, we will resist the motives of folks and simply deal with the facts about divorce in America. And here are the facts.

First of all, the divorce rate is not nearly as high it is often reported in the popular media. We need to change that perception because it can be a discouraging message to those contemplating marriage.

The divorce rate in America is not 50% for first-time marriages, period! For example, most experts we have talked to believe the rate is closer to 40%. We ourselves have estimated the rate in previous writings at somewhere between 35% and 40%. A 2001 survey by researcher George Barna estimated that 34% of American&#8217;s who have ever been married have ever been divorced. Several studies we have reviewed actually estimated the divorce rate to be less than 20%. It is our considered opinion that the 20% and fewer figures are too low, but one thing is clear &#8211; more than 60% of marriages are successful!

Pinning down the exact divorce rate in America is certainly complicated. Many studies have been done, many numbers crunched, and many conclusions drawn. But the truth of the matters is, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The fact that the per capita divorce has declined should be cause for celebration.

Secondly, there are a number of factors that can reduce the divorce rate and rather than dwelling on the perceived chances of failure of a marriage, we should be looking for reasons why most marriages do not fail &#8211; do not end in divorce.

Over the years we have seen a positive trend developing and it is highly encouraging to us. It is clear to us that more and more couples are working harder and harder to make their marriage work. They are investing solid efforts at strengthening their marriage. They read books like ours on the subject (Golden Anniversaries: The Seven Secrets of Successful Marriage), they participate in marriage enrichment programs, they seek counseling from a qualified professional counselor or psychologist, and they learn to do the simple things that make marriage work each and every day of their lives together.

The good news &#8211; more and more couples are committed to making their marriage work! In a society that is often characterized as &#8220;a disposable society,&#8221; marriage should not be one of those things we routinely dispose of! As we have said many times before, not all marriages are worth saving, but most are and can be saved!

And thirdly, we need to debunk the many myths about how to ensure a successful relationship. And here&#8217;s one to begin with. Despite the belief of many, living together while not married does not necessarily promote a happy and successful relationship. For example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that there is only a 20% chance that first marriages will end in divorce in the first five years. On the other hand, the separation rate in the first five years for those co-habiting is a whopping 49%! These data seem to fly in the face of those who suggest that giving a marriage a trial run or just co-habiting instead of marrying at all, is the way to go. It seems these advice givers need to check their facts about what works.

There is a corollary to the aforementioned notion about living together. Some researchers have reported that the highest risk factor for divorce is moving in together prior to marriage! Couples who do this have a far greater risk of divorce. In fact, couples who co-habitat before marriage &#8211; who give their &#8220;marriage&#8221; a trial run &#8211; have a divorce rate reported as high as 85%. Talk about the destruction of a myth!

We know that second and third marriages have high failure rates. Most studies report that second marriages have about a two out of three chance of failure &#8211; third marriages about a 75% chance. These second and third marriages (as well as those married four or more times) get lumped into divorce equations that are often reported. The simple truth is, the &#8220;impact rate&#8221; of divorce &#8211; those individuals that divorce actually impacts &#8211; is clearly much lower than the oft-reported rate of 50%. Those married for the first time just need to learn to get it right the first time!

So what are the factors that have major implications for the risk of divorce? Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe in their book entitled The State of Our Unions (2004) reported the following:

1. Couples with annual incomes over $50,000 (vs. under $25,000) have a reduced risk of divorce of 30%. The message here is that couples contemplating marriage would be well advised to have income-producing jobs with stability before they get married.

2. Couples who have a baby seven months or more after marriage (vs. before marriage) have a reduced risk of divorce of 24%. The message here should be clear &#8211; bring children into the world when your marriage is ready.

3. Couples who are 25 years of age (vs. under 18) have a 24% less risk of divorce. The American divorce rate has been going down since 1981 because people in love are waiting longer to get married. Gaining education, experience, and the wisdom that comes with age will certainly contribute to the success of a marriage.

4. Couples that consider themselves religious or spiritual (vs. not) are 14% less likely to get divorced. Faith and spirituality contribute to the sense of oneness felt by successfully married couples.

5. Couples who have some college (vs. high-school dropout) have a 13% less chance of divorce. Education almost always leads to enlightenment and understanding, and more tolerance for the views of others. So critically important in successful marriages.

In summary, reasonably well-educated couples with a decent income, who are religious or spiritual, who wait awhile to have children, who come from intact families, and who marry later in life (25 and beyond), have a greatly reduced chance of divorce.

The American divorce rate is much lower than often reported. And considering that the average American has a 90% chance of being married at least once in their lifetime, it is nice to know that there is much we can do as individuals and as couples in love to make marriage work &#8211; to make marriage successful.

And one final note &#8211; we have spent over 25 years interviewing successfully married couples that have been married from 30-77 years. In the article we quoted earlier we also noted this statement: &#8220;Rare is the occasion when we stumble upon a couple who has been married for more than 30 years, and when we do, some people think of it as weird.&#8221; Again, we would say, where does such inaccurate information come from? The thousands of happily married couples we have interviewed over more than two decades of research attest to the fact that being married for more than 30 years is not only NOT weird, it is routine!

Simple things matter in love and marriage. Love well!

By Dr. Charles D. Schmitz and Dr. Elizabeth A. Schmitz
"the marriage doctors"


----------



## Vidi (May 27, 2012)

You know what I love about the article you posted



> Those married for the first time just need to learn to get it right the first time!



That is just funny as hell.


----------



## logical4u (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That is life.  Just because you "WANT" to marry someone does not make it right.  Children "want" to marry their parents when they are young.  It does not make it right.


----------



## logical4u (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You can "contract" using legal documents and lawyers.  You cannot do something that is outside the definition and call it the same thing.


----------



## logical4u (May 27, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't moved the goal posts, that's your M.O.
> ...



Try an "adoption" contract.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 27, 2012)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And in most states, an unmarried couple cannot both adopt a child.  The child must be adopted by one or the other.  And if that person dies, the other member of the couple has no legal rights.

There are benefits to being married that cannot be gained by legal contracts.  Also, the fact that every couple who gets a marriage licence and goes to the courthouse gets these benefits.  You want gay couples to go to an expensive lawyer to be able to get most of them?


----------



## logical4u (May 27, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The "gay couples" want to live their lives differently?  Yes, I believe there should be more expenses involved.  If the adoptive parent sets the other person as guardian, they would have legal rights.
There are benefits to marriage that cannot be gained by having a false marriage.  If you want to have that, you choose the right person of the opposite sex, and you too, can have all the benefits of marriage.  Because you do not want a person of the opposite sex does not mean there is anything wrong with the institution of marriage.  It means that you choose to go against societal norms, and want a pity party because things aren't going your way. 


"I fought the law, and the law won".... the same with the world, if you fight the world, you are going to get bruises.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



The idea of gay marriage is not taking anything away from marriage, but adding to it.

But I see what you are saying.  We'll change the laws and get back to you.  Its coming.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



"The idea of gay marriage is not taking anything away from marriage, but adding to it."...  Is this like having a great drink, and "adding" water... to make it "more"?  Homosexual marriage will do nothing to make heterosexual marriage better.  It will make marriage less.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



How will it make it less?  And please be specific.


----------



## BDBoop (May 28, 2012)




----------



## Vidi (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...




Both are nonsense. Gay marriage will neither take away or add anything to marriage.

It will however put our money were our mouths are in terms of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law.


----------



## Vidi (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




So your determination of what is right and wrong is the gauge for all the rest of us?

Why do you hate freedom and liberty?


----------



## BDBoop (May 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Also, SHE wanted to marry her parents when she was young.

Eww.


----------



## koshergrl (May 28, 2012)

It will make marriage less the same way that no-fault divorce has made it less. By marginalizing it, by changing the status and the meaning of the one construct we KNOW is the best one for raising children.

We were told that no-fault divorce would make marriage *stronger* somehow, by making it easier to get out of, by lessening the bond, by making promiscuity less of a stigma and by making it easier to be promiscuous and jump from partner to partner.

Homosexual marriage is just more of the same...forcing us to accept and condone promiscuity and depravity by forcing us to grant it the exact same status as we grant hetero marriage, which is proven to be the ideal.


----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Gay's are different from straights just as men are different from women. Therefore, men and women are not equal and gays and straights are not equal. We are different. Different things are not equal by definition.

Here is a good article about why gay marriage is detrimental to our society: Articles: Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda


----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony?  How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses?  In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer.  Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.
> ...



There are many "fronts" attacking the institution of marriage. The gay agenda is definately one of them.


----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Winterborn, Here is a good article that explains the societal dangers of gay marriage: Articles: Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda


----------



## BDBoop (May 28, 2012)




----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



Gay and liberal activists are INTOLERANT BIGOTS. People opposed to gay marriage don't hate anyone.


----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It will make marriage less the same way that no-fault divorce has made it less. By marginalizing it, by changing the status and the meaning of the one construct we KNOW is the best one for raising children.
> 
> We were told that no-fault divorce would make marriage *stronger* somehow, by making it easier to get out of, by lessening the bond, by making promiscuity less of a stigma and by making it easier to be promiscuous and jump from partner to partner.
> 
> Homosexual marriage is just more of the same...forcing us to accept and condone promiscuity and depravity by forcing us to grant it the exact same status as we grant hetero marriage, which is proven to be the ideal.


 
Great comment koshergrl. Did I inspire the part about no-fault divorce with my other posts?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Ok, I found a few lines in the article that are obviously BS.

*"Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage."*  No one is substituting gay relationships for marriage.  

*"Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task.  Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy.  They know not what they are doing.  But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America.  Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction."*

So its all a plot to destroy America?  And even most of the gays involved are unaware of the plot?   lol     How does that tinfoil hat fit?



The entire article continues the "Marriage has always been..." and "it will destroy the institution of marriage" arguments.  Still vague answers and nonsense.

As for the nonsense, "Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children..."

from: Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

"Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships."



from: Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

"Sometimes people are concerned that children being raised by a gay parent will need extra emotional support or face unique social stressors.Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parents sexual orientation that has an effect on a childs development.


Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school

Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com



So the arguments that it is tremendously damaging to the well-being and normal development of children are bunk.  That leaves the same old "It will destroy marriage" and "They are out to destroy America" arguments.

Just one anecdotal piece of evidence.  My 3 kids from my first marriage lived with my ex and her partner for about half of their lives.  I was very involved, but my work requires travel.  All three exhibit some similar characteristics.  None of them were ever disciplinary problems (2 were never sent to the principal's office).  All 3 graduated with honors from high school, one of them with a GPA of 4.28.  All three graduated from a major university, one of them with more honors than I can list.  All 3 have had serious relationships with the opposite gender (one is engaged, one is in a long-term relationship).     In short, they are as close to perfect kids as you can ask for.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It will make marriage less the same way that no-fault divorce has made it less. By marginalizing it, by changing the status and the meaning of the one construct we KNOW is the best one for raising children.
> 
> We were told that no-fault divorce would make marriage *stronger* somehow, by making it easier to get out of, by lessening the bond, by making promiscuity less of a stigma and by making it easier to be promiscuous and jump from partner to partner.
> 
> Homosexual marriage is just more of the same...forcing us to accept and condone promiscuity and depravity by forcing us to grant it the exact same status as we grant hetero marriage, which is proven to be the ideal.



The No-Fault Divorce law didn't do anything.  It is the couples involved, and their lack of committment that did any damage.

BTW, gay marriage certainly doesn't force anyone to accept and condone promiscuity.  In fact, it does quite the opposite.


----------



## garyganu (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It will make marriage less the same way that no-fault divorce has made it less. By marginalizing it, by changing the status and the meaning of the one construct we KNOW is the best one for raising children.
> ...



Most gay men DO accept infidelity as a "normal" part of their relationship.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



If both partners in the relationship accept it, why is it any of our business?

There are straight swingers who also practice non-monogamous marriages.  In fact, there are estimates of as many as 1.5 million people who are swingers.  If both partners know about it and are ok with it, why should anyone else worry about it?  Its none of our business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2012)

> Winterborn, Here is a good article that explains the societal dangers of gay marriage: Articles: Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda



A subjective opinion piece from a rightist blog does not constitute objective, substantiated evidence.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Marriage (in this country) is a legal, binding contract that goes beyond a piece of paper to family and community.  Marriage builds families, communities, cities, states, and countries.  Homosexual marriage is about two people that do not care about their families, communities, cities, states or countries until after they get what they want.  Them forcing the change of definition is to LEGALLY state that what they are doing is not wrong.  According to the major religions, it is wrong.  This way, they force their beliefs onto others and marriage becomes two people with a contract, a legal agreement, nothing more.  It is no longer about building families and communities.  It is a tool to take from gov't programs.  Their children are taken from others (adoption) or the opposite sex (that they cannot stand) is USED to get the part it takes to make a child.
All children go thru stages of wondering about how they came to be, can you imagine the mental damage: Yeah my parent is homosexual. They hate the opposite sex.  I was mastrubated into a cup and put in a turkey baster so the opposite sex did not have to be "touched".  I wonder how long that cup or turkey baster was sitting out, and if I would have been different if two people that loved each other had wanted to have a child and so had sex.  My parent says they love me, but all they talk about is how their sexual preference comes before everything and everybody...
It is really easy to close your eyes and imagine everything will be okay when you go against long held traditions.  Recent history is full of events where people put their "faith" in men: nazis, Lenin, Mao, Pol pot, Fidel, Chavez, etc, etc, etc.  Before you destroy the society we live in, consider the history of going against traditional marriage.  All those mentioned and more, first worked to break the traditional family.  People without family and without a moral compass (their faith) are much easier to manipulate (homosexuals included).  Saying that marriage will not be affected is ignorant.  Once you start down that path, history has shown where it leads (to a total stain).  Fraud (homosexual marriage) only corrupts.  It corrupts those involved and they spread the corruption throughout their community, city, state, country.  If you want to embrace corruption, there are plenty of places where it is rampant, why don't you go live there for a while and make sure that is how you want this country to be, before you start destroying the moral foundation of society.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



What about the "freedom and liberty" of the families that are destroyed by homosexual behavior?  What about the people that are given diseases that financially ruin families because of homosexual activities.  Freedom and liberty imply RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions.  You want to make the choice of going against traditional marriage, fine.  There is a price to pay for taking your own path.  Most of us know that, and bear our burden in silence.  For some reason (could it be when people have sex at a young age, their emotional development is stunted), homosexuals want everyone to feel sorry for them and give them more "rights" than everyone else has.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



In the places many of your homosexual activists friends visit, girls are "sold" for much less.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



*"Homosexual marriage is about two people that do not care about their families, communities, cities, states or countries until after they get what they want."*

How in the hell can you claim to know that?  How do you know what all gay couples want or care about?  

Who told you homosexuals cannot stand the opposite sex?  I am sure there are those who can't, just like there are straights that can't stand one or the other.  But to make this blanket accusation (which is bullshit) and then try to use this lie as an argument is just pitiful.




logical4u said:


> All children go thru stages of wondering about how they came to be, can you imagine the mental damage: Yeah my parent is homosexual. They hate the opposite sex.  I was mastrubated into a cup and put in a turkey baster so the opposite sex did not have to be "touched".  I wonder how long that cup or turkey baster was sitting out, and if I would have been different if two people that loved each other had wanted to have a child and so had sex.  My parent says they love me, but all they talk about is how their sexual preference comes before everything and everybody...



How would it have been different if two people loved each other and had sex to create a child than if two people love each other and go thru the process of artificial insemination to create a child?   I guess the big difference that comes to my mind is that no child of gay parents would ever wonder if they were an accident.

Please look at a previous post of mine with several links showing studies that found children being raised by gay parents are not at a disadvantage.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



First of all, no one is asking for more rights for gays than for others.  

Second of all, whatever "destruction" happens due to straights cheating on their spouses with same-sex partners has nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says | Fox News  Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says 

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk  Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Welcome to ForTheChildrenInc.  Homosexuality: Bad For Children

Just some links presenting the opposite view.

Yes, homosexual marriage is "substituting" homosexual marriage for traditional marriage.  That is why they claim they are the "same" as a married heterosexual couple.

A plot to destroy the country?  Check history, destroying the traditional family is the first step of MANIPULATION.  After that, it gets worse.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is sad when presented with facts that you said weren't factual, your response is: they did it too!  
Yes, there are deviants in heterosexual marriage (they are the exception, not the norm).  On the other hand... in homosexual relationships, it is "normal".
Why should anyone else worry about it: police have to deal with the mess after violence breaks out as a result of infidelity/ gov't agencies have to deal with the children from broken homes/ the health care system has additional burdens from the obvious health problems that occur/ communities are torn and corrupted when people find out (and they ALWAYS find out).  Again, sad that so many people think it is their duty to point out all the dangers of smoking/drinking/eating unhealthy to perfect strangers think that having the community support the bad decisions of unhealthy sexual relations is a GOOD thing.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



The Timothy J. Dailey article is laughable.   First he dismisses the findings of other researchers because of flawed methodology.  Then he presents his own findings with the same flawed methodology.  lol   Yeah, that would convince me.

Also, the FRC is not exactly an unbiased source for research.  But its funny that Timothy J. Dailey cites it as a flaw that research is done by openly gay lesbians, but when the research is done by a groups who's stated purpose is to fight homosexuality, we should just accept it.   Nice double standard.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is obvious.

Artificial insemination is similar to the turkey baster, not real thrilled with that one, either.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Will homosexuals be limited to marriage to the same sex?  If not, they are asking for "additional" rights, not the same rights.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



It is sad that you decide to make up facts when you have none.

Can you show me any facts that infidelity is the "norm" in gay relationships?  Bear in mind, this is only concerning committed relationships, not single gay men.

Unhealthy sexual relations?  Really?  Because all of the sexual relations you mentioned are present in straight marriages too.  I didn't mention that as a "they do it too" reply.  I mentioned it because youwantto use that as a reason to deny gays a marriage, but straights do it with impunity.

Also, when we are talking about consentual open relationships, it is not a huge sources of violence in the household, broken homes or diseases.  You are confusing the effects of infidelity with couples being totally aware of outside sexual contacts.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Since straights will not be limited to marriage to the opposite sex, there will be equal rights for all.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So what?   A couple wants to have a child.  They are, for whatever reason, unable to concieve on their own.  Who cares what the instruments look like?   This is simply a nonsense aside that has no bearing on the topic.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I was just pointing out that articles/opinions can be posted for both sides of the conversation.  I find your selective dismissals amusing, speaking of double standards.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Glad you are amused.  Do you have an issue with the basis for my dismissals?


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Moving the goal posts?
No, most "straight" marriages are not full of infidelity.  There is evidence that the majority of traditional marriage has faithful partners.
Swingers and those that "cheat" are not the norm for "straight" marriages.  They are not accepted outside of their "corrupt" circles.  That is why they are not coming forward to legalize their behavior.  When their community finds out, they are "disgraced".
No, there are problems with swingers.  I did not say it was a "huge" problem.  How many childrens' lives have to be ruined before it is a bad thing?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.

And no, I did not move the goalposts.  I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.

Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So, you don't think that children should be conceived by loving couples?  You think it is a good thing to reject the opposite sex for a relationship, but use them to make a child?  You think it is good for children to have one sex removed from their upbringing?  Why is it, when you bring up why it is great to have homosexual marriage, and reasons to support it, that you want to dismiss the obvious problems with your reasons?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Incorrect, as usual. 

Marriage law is gender-neutral, a contract between two equal partners. Consequently marriage laws are not being changed, and no additional rights requested, simply an acknowledgement of existing equal access rights as mandated by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is your opinion.  I do not have the authority to change your opinion.  I did notice that "bias" was not a word used to support your opinion, though.  Just sayin'....


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?


----------



## logical4u (May 28, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Marriage is not gender neutral.  Redefining marriage means that you are more interested in deceit than having a lawful binding contract.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I absolutely think children should be concieved by loving couples.  Whether outside assistance is needed does nt change that.

I reject men for relationships, but if I were sterile I would welcome their assistance in my wife and I having a child.

I think your assumptions are that each gender brings specific things to the relationship that cannot be brought by the opposite gender.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Did you notice I didn't seem to care what social groups accept what other groups?  We are not discussing popularity.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Who is being deceived?  The gay couples are open and honest about their relationships.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2012)

With the doctrine of coverture no longer in effect in marriage law: 



> The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a womans legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husbands upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as anion of equals. FF 26-27, 32.* As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouses role within a marriage.* FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, *individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.*
> 
> The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender* rather than a change in marriage.*
> _
> ...



Since state-mandated gender roles are no longer in play with regard to marriage law, there is no logical, legal, or Constitutional reason to exclude same-sex couples from those laws. Nothing is being changed, no new rights requested.


----------



## koshergrl (May 28, 2012)

Bullshit. New rights are being demanded, and they're changing the law to accomodate it.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


talk about piling the shit high and deep!
"THEY" said that when women got the right to vote and it was bullshit!
" THEY"said that during the civil right era and it was bullshit .
"THEY said that about rock &roll and that was bullshit!
etc...


----------



## Newby (May 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It's not an assumption, it's a fact.  Fathers and mothers absolutely bring elements to their relationships with their children that the other cannot.


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

And still, that has nothing do with gays being denied their rights under the 14th amendment.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

logical4u said:


> winterborn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


ever here the term objective evidence? Those links are the farthest thing from it!


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
I thought no-fault divorce and legalized abortion was supposed to strengthen the family, reduce crime, result in fewer teen pregnancies.

When are you going to address the fact that none of those things came to pass, and in fact we have had a huge surge in broken homes, single parent families, crime, and teen pregnancies (as well as STDs)?


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


 
I don't understand why you think that your *right* to fuck at will trumps the right of a child to not be butchered.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


 neither do I.
It is ironic that "they" would dictate you behavior but to even question the validity of their's is to bring out the talking points, like agenda. hater etc..


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


bullshit! and ot!


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 
Again, what makes you think you have the right to dictate whether another person gets to live or not?


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

You guys will ignore that.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


once again OT.
in reality more children get butchered after they are born then all the abortions ever done.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


define a person?
a wad of parasitic cells in by defintion not a person.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

A living human, at any stage of development.

"
*per·son*

_noun_ \&#712;p&#601;r-s&#601;n\




*Definition of PERSON*

1
*:* human, individual &#8212;sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid _man_ in compounds applicable to both sexes <chair_person_> <spokes_person_> "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> A living human, at any stage of development.
> 
> "
> *per·son*
> ...


 here's the whole definition efinition of PERSON
1: human, individual sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson> 
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise 
3a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 
4a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person> 
5: the personality of a human being : self 
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
there are 5 count um 5 different definitions of person NONE OF THEM USED THIS PHRASE: " A living human, at any stage of development." you purposely mis represented the definition to serve you own agenda ,so much for honesty..


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

So? Do you have a point?


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So? Do you have a point?


yes, you're a lying pile of shit . 
delusional, bi polar and never get invited to parties, and I'm being kind!


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

No point, huh...

That's okay, I didn't expect one.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No point, huh...
> 
> That's okay, I didn't expect one.


dodge! 
already made my point !


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

No, you didn't make a point.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, you didn't make a point.


ok! right!
caught  you lying (not for the first time) deny all you want....


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 29, 2012)

Against gay marriage?
Do not marry someone of the same sex.
Problem solved.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, you didn't make a point.
> ...


No you didn't, nitwit.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


caught you lying (not for the first time) deny all you want....


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 
I defined a person. With my definition, supported by the definition of Merriam-Webster.

You are the liar, I'm afraid.
And a troll.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Against gay marriage?
> Do not marry someone of the same sex.
> Problem solved.


are you kidding! much to logical ,besides it would stop them from using the what about the children ploy!


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


no you did not...you modified a definition for your own agenda!

here's the proof :efinition of PERSON
1: human, individual &#8212;sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson> 
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise 
3a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 
4a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person> 
5: the personality of a human being : self 
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
there are 5 count um 5 different definitions of person NONE OF THEM USED THIS PHRASE: " A living human, at any stage of development." you purposely mis represented the definition to serve you own agenda ,so much for honesty..

 NOW, LIKE ALL LIARS WITH THEIR ASS IN A CRACK,  YOU TRY THE OLD "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I " PLOY...
AND AS AN EXTRA ADDED BONUS YOU THROW IN  YOU'RE  THE YOU'RE A  TROLL NONSENSE.
YOU'RE A  GUTLESS TURD POLISHER!


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

Good grief.

I provided my definition, then the definition and the link to the merriam webster def.

If this is all you have, we're done, I suppose.


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



She is actually completely incapable of owning her own. If you try to force her, she just gets uglier - which is why I have her sorry ass on ignore.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Good grief.
> 
> I provided my definition, then the definition and the link to the merriam webster def.
> 
> If this is all you have, we're done, I suppose.


really? you cherry picked it ,for your own ends.
I on the other hand used the whole definition (from the same source) OBJECTIVELY TO PROVE YOU A LIAR...." there are 5 count um 5 different definitions of person NONE OF THEM USED THIS PHRASE: " A living human, at any stage of development." 
GAME,SET, MATCH.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


WHERE'S  THE FUN IN THAT!


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I grew weary from boredom. She's boring, really. It's like chinese water torture.


----------



## garyganu (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Don't you think that American society is in decline?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 29, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



No, I don't think so.   I will agree that we are in an economic downswing right now, but society is doing fine.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 
You don't think exponential increases in crime, in murder, in abortion, in STDs, in teen pregnancy, show a decline? You think those things are indicative of *fine*?


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
You find truth boring then.

Boop doesn't have me on ignore. She pretends to ignore me because she is incapable of original thought, and finds the information I post distressing as it shines too much light on progressive values (or lack thereof) and dishonesty.

Which is the same reason you lie and twist and claim "yawn I'm so bored with this".


----------



## Sunni Man (May 29, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Don't you think that American society is in decline?


American society is sinking lower every day into decadence and immorality.

And the bottom is no where in sight.


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think that American society is in decline?
> ...



That means SO much, coming from you.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

Sunni isn't nearly as disgusting as the baby killers on here.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


Thank You for the compliment BD


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


what american society is that?


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You know! The American society that won't live their live by the doctrine according to KG.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


 
I thought you were ignoring me? I'm not even in this series of quotes.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


another bullshit statement!
the crime rate in 1880's tombstone was higher than IN MODERN  New York and L.A. COMBINED..

THE crime rate is not exponentially increasing it's simple math :in 1970 the U.S. POP was 203,392,031 in 2010 it was 308,745,538 a difference of 105,353,507 by any measure that is not exponential growth.
almost all  the crime in this country is committed by 10% of the population .since the population is larger that 10% will be larger.

 add in the growth of the media and the INTERNET, smart phones  etc...
gives the illusion of more crime but it's just that, an illusion.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


OH! THAT ONE! the real one just has growing pains.


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yeah, you know; the one ruled by evil and fear. Unlike real life.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


don't forget self imposed ignorance!


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
And you're a liar.

[SIZE=+1]United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants[/SIZE]United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes, my favoritest of my pet peeves. Willful ignorance.


----------



## koshergrl (May 29, 2012)

Which is funny, since you excel at it.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


just keep telling yourself that.
thanks for the stats they prove my point for me!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Crime in general, and violent crime especially, has been on the decline since the 70s.

Teen pregnancies are also down.  At least according to the CDC:  Products - Data Briefs - Number 89 - April 2012

As for abortions, there are no wild increases.  Again, according to the CDC: CDC - Data and Statistics - Reproductive Health

"In 2008, 825,564 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. This represents essentially no change from the number of abortions reported in 2007. The abortion rate for 2008 was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years. This also is unchanged from 2007. The abortion ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2008. This is a 1% increase from 2007. During 19992008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. During 19992008, women aged 2029 years accounted for the majority of abortions."



So there are no "exponential increases" as you claimed.


----------



## Vidi (May 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



According to your own link, every single category of crime listed has gone down since 2006. The numbers you posted dont support your assertion.

just saying.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The folks I kick it with are not in decline. Quite the opposite.
I keep hearing this rank hearsay from the gossipers about how terrible, bad, "in decline" and awful those folk on the other side of the tracks are but I ignore them.
Mama taught us to mind our own business and if we were going to talk about "American society" then we best say something positive about our Christian neighbors and others also and if we did think of something negative to say about them it would be best to keep our pie holes shut.
Amazing how smart Mama was. 
Even more amazing the folk here that claim they are religous yet know nothing about how one should act when practicing it.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I disagree. I think that you can not separate social and economic issues. Spiritual decline leads to economic decline and a decline in the ability to protect ourselves as a society and a world power.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Earlier you claimed yours was not a religous argument.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

We are not in decline. 

We certainly aren't in decline because of social issues like gay marriage. This has been the empty shrill siren call of the self-appointed moral Cassandras for 100 years.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Spiritual principles are universal. They include, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. 

I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance and gratitude to God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, beauty, coolness, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking, phony self esteem and the hatred toward God.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> We are not in decline.
> 
> We certainly aren't in decline because of social issues like gay marriage. This has been the empty shrill siren call of the self-appointed moral Cassandras for 100 years.



Not at all. The stats bear out the fact that since the sexual revolution and the release of the pro-child abuse, pro-promiscuity,  Kinsey reports, pro-no-fault divorce Kinsey reports, our society has fallen into the hole that whole-sale sexual depravity leads to.

Divorce, crime, child abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion...all exponentially higher than pre-Kinsey and pre-RvW.

Unless you think those are signs of a sound society?


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > We are not in decline.
> ...



This is one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives  seek to "restore America". Liberals seek to "change America".


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I think much of this has to do with where you look and the influence of the media and politicians.

I have seen great examples of love, selflessness, courage and sacrifice.  Spend some time working with disastor relief or working in an area hit by a disastor and you will see it too.  The problem is, the media doesn't report it.  They'd rather spew garbage that keep us uncomfortable or afraid.  And that is because reporting fearful things is self-serving.

I see that the value given to beauty, popularity, coolness, wealth,pride,  power, thrill seeking and fame have always been with us.  These are nothing new.  But again, the media loves to portray what they want.  It is self-serving.

I see more people communicating with more different people than ever before in the history of mankind.  Anytime we have more communication there is the potential for conflict, but also the potential for great things.  

I see that we have more people having access to a quality education than ever before in our history.  We have more people with more access to better medical care than ever before in our history.  We have more people following their dreams.  We have more people free to change professions and careers.  We have people who, just a few decades ago, saw only limited options now having virtually unlimited opportunities.  We have music, literature and arts available to more people from more sources than ever in our history.

I see unrest being portrayed because the populations are no longer able to be controlled, as they were just a few decades ago.   If that scares you I am sorry.

I see our society in a flux, as these new freedoms create new avenues for people that did not exist a short time ago.  If that scares you I am sorry.




One of the basic points you need to consider is the influence of the media.  You can rant about porno and glamor junk ruining us.  But what ruins us is the acceptance of news slanted to an agenda.  That is what destroys.  That is what causes fear.  And teh reaction to that fear is damaging.

Think about when you watch the news.  If you are having a great day, life is good and you feel hopeful, do you rush to turn on CNN or Fox?  No.   But if there is a disastor you certainly do.  You watch news when you are scared.   News is no longer a service.  News is big business.  And how do they keep you watching?  By keeping you afraid.   Stop being afraid and you'll be much happier.

Gays marrying will not destroy anything.  It is a minor issue at best, unless you are gay and in a situation where on of the benefits of being married would help.  

Our society is doing fine.  The economic downturn was not created by gays or diversity or any of the other things you fear.  It was created by greed and by the people in charge being uninterested in what is best for people.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > We are not in decline.
> ...



Do you know what "exponentially higher" means?  You have already been shown that crime rates are not exponentially higher.  Abortion rates are flat or dropping.  Fear-mongering is a classic control mechanism.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



America is changing.  It has always been changing.  Change is inevitable.

And what are conservatives trying to restore America to?  What are you trying to bring back?


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Abortion rates have dropped for 10 years. They are still about 80 times what they were in 1972.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Let's just say we'd like to see something like lower incidence of abortion, lower incidence of STDs, lower incidence of teen pregnancy, lower incidence of child abuse. I think that's a good place to start.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



No, I haven't been shown anything. You SAYING something is not evidence of squat.

Here we have the classic example of a depraved individual trying to convince the masses that depravity = change and is therefore good. 

It's GOOD that children are sexualized, it's GOOD that people are promiscuous, it's GOOD that more children are abused than ever before, it's GOOD that the sex slave market is booming, it's GOOD that abortion rates are higher, it's GOOD that divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates are higher.

All those are indicative of HEALTHY changes in society, according to WB.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



How can you say that our society is doing fine when the government borrows 43 cents for every dollar that it spends. This is unsustainable and nobody seems to to think that this is a critical problem that will destroy us unless we reduce the size and cost of government. 

Also, American universities are a HUGE part of our decline. They promote an agenda that is anti-american, anti-God and anti-family. Without God, family and country, our nation will cease to exist. American universities do MORE HARM THAN GOOD. 

There is nothing new about yellow journalism, However today's American culture is no longer able to discern the truth from lies because they have lost their moral compass.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Because he believes a promiscuous, diseased, abusive society is an improvement over a functional, healthy one. This is the sort of society that accommodates depraved individuals, and that's why you'll find depraved individuals advocating for it, and pretending it's preferrable to the alternative.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Oh please, try and stick with what someone else has actually said.

Unless you can show where I said its good that children are sexualized, you have lied.

Unless you can show where I said its good that children are abused, you have lied.

Unless you can show where I said its good that the sex slave market's growth is good, you have lied.

Unless you can show where I said that higher abortion rates are good, you have lied.

Unless you can show where I said higher divorce rates are good, you have lied.

Unless you can show where I said higher teen pregnancy rates are good, you have lied.



In other words, you have blatantly lied numerous times.   When you claim that these things have increased exponentially, and I argue and show links to the contrary, I am simply debunking your mistakes (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt & not calling them lies).  I am not saying that any of these things are good.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

You keep stating that we're in a great position, socially, that the changes we have undergone are an improvement.

Those are the changes we're talking about. So obviously you approve of them.

And at least you're finally acknowledging them now. I get so tired of you wackos just pretending that everything is peachy keen.Which of course tells me, and everybody else, that you like the changes.

As we all know you do.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

And PS...did you or did you not say our society was doing just fine, except for a *slight* economic downturn?


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I seek to restore the the basic values of God, family and country along with the spiritual values I mentioned above.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Now this is something we agree on.  We probably disagree on the causes, but we agree it is unsustainable.  Gov't spending must be cut.  At the same time, the system of taxation inthis country must be changed.



garyganu said:


> Also, American universities are a HUGE part of our decline. They promote an agenda that is anti-american, anti-God and anti-family. Without God, family and country, our nation will cease to exist. American universities do MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
> 
> There is nothing new about yellow journalism, However today's American culture is no longer able to discern the truth from lies because they have lost their moral compass.



Universities do more harm than good?  The level of technology and engineering that comes from university educated people has profoundly changed our world.  But, because you think liberals threaten morality, they cause more harm than good?

Look at the treatment options and survival rates for thousands of diseases and types of cancers.  Tens of thousands of people are alive and healthy because of these advances at universities and by university trained medical people.  But they do more harm than good? 

Nonsense.


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> How can you say that our society is doing fine when the government borrows 43 cents for every dollar that it spends. This is unsustainable and nobody seems to to think that this is a critical problem that will destroy us unless we reduce the size and cost of government.
> 
> Also, American universities are a HUGE part of our decline. They promote an agenda that is anti-american, anti-God and anti-family. Without God, family and country, our nation will cease to exist. American universities do MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
> 
> There is nothing new about yellow journalism, However today's American culture is no longer able to discern the truth from lies because they have lost their moral compass.


American universities may offer comparative religion courses.  By the time smarter students get to university, the scam of 'god' or 'gods' and the fraudulent media of creationism and virgin birth and the rest have wormed their way into the minds of really stupid, dogmatic people, ruining law and science.

When you don't let evolution into schools, until the Russians launch Sputnik, religionists are a real problem.  When you use the Constitution to prohibit alcohol media, to advance petroleum advantages, religionists are a problem.

No wonder equality is such a reach, for so many religion-affected persons, who have no idea why we would want to enforce the separation clause finally.  Maybe then we get equality, and narcissists who won't move from gay marriage can access equality, with everyone else.  Not any time soon, for dead as dead can be Jesus!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You keep stating that we're in a great position, socially, that the changes we have undergone are an improvement.
> 
> Those are the changes we're talking about. So obviously you approve of them.
> 
> ...



Oh that is absolute bullshit.

But, if that is the way you want to look at it, then you must like domestic abuse, poverty, death from cancer, cureable diseases running rampant, segments of society being kept down, and the plethora of other problems that have been addressed by these changes.

No, I never said society was all peachy keen and without problems.  You lied again.   I simply pointed out that I do not see society in decline, and especially not due to gay marriage (which is what we are actually discussing in between your lies and strawman arguments).

You want it to be black & white.  You want all the changes to be either good or bad.  I am realistic enough to see there are problems with all change, but that change is inevitable.  I don't scream about the decline in society unless there is actually a decline in society.

You claimed there were exponential increases in crime.  There were several posts (with links) that showed relatively small increases, and plenty of decreases.

You claimed there were exponential increases in teen pregnancy, abortion, STD, ect ect.  And link showed different.  (From no less an authority than the CDC)


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



That is great.  But when people decide they don't want God, don't blame the universities.  Blame the greed, promotion of hatred, and control issues of the churches.  That is what has turned people away.

Promoting families is great.  A gay couple raising children is a family, whether you like it or not.  Include that in your values and I'm more likely to believe you.  

The values of country are kinda another issue.  I love this country and what it has done over the 250 odd years it has been around.  But I also despise some of the things it has done and has stood for.  That is where we differ.  You want to go back to unquestioning loyalty, whereas I prefer to see reality.  I am proud of the good and ashamed of the bad.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



God, Family and country are the foundation of our society. Without this foundation our society will collapse no matter how many engineers and doctors that we have. Hundreds of millions have perished during the 20th century due to centralized governments that destroyed the foundations of their society in China, Germany, Cambodia/vietNam, Russia, etc. The first things that the government destroyed was religion, family and the educated class.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And PS...did you or did you not say our society was doing just fine, except for a *slight* economic downturn?



Yes I did.  But that in no way infers any of the horrific crap you accused me of.

I see both good and bad in our society.  But I see more growth, realization of potential and increases in quality of life for more people.  I see that as good.  I see more information and knowledge available for more people, and I think that is good.

Just because I do not see society in decline does not mean, in any way, that I see it as perfect or without problems.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



First of all, we have more educated people in this country than at any time in history.

Second, our gov't (liberal or conservative) is not trying to destroy God or the family.  Just because there are attempts to include gays in marriage does not mean destruction.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Because he believes a promiscuous, diseased, abusive society is an improvement over a functional, healthy one. This is the sort of society that accommodates depraved individuals, and that's why you'll find depraved individuals advocating for it, and pretending it's preferrable to the alternative.



Are you incapable of having a discussion without lies?


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



A very small percentage of gay men are interested in raising children. Bi-sexual women often raise children from previous broken marriages. The contribution of gay couples to raising families is negligible. Also, children benefit more from opposite-sex parents. man and women complement each other and keep each other in check. Gay unions are missing balance.

The universities are systematically destroying their student's faith in God. 80% of university students lose their faith in God before they graduate. It is very arrogant to teach kids that there is NO higher power. This defies  reason and commonsense. It also leaves kids vulnerable to the belief that the government is their highest authority.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because he believes a promiscuous, diseased, abusive society is an improvement over a functional, healthy one. This is the sort of society that accommodates depraved individuals, and that's why you'll find depraved individuals advocating for it, and pretending it's preferrable to the alternative.
> ...



Yes. Which is why she is on ignore. She brings nothing to the table.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The government is controlling the universities. Most universities' funding comes from the government (including private universities). The money comes through grants, student loans  and scholarships. This makes universities beholden to the government. This government funding has led to the increase in tuition that surpasses even the increase in health-care costs. College tuition is the highest sector of inflation in America. This leads to many students having huge debt after graduation. They owe this money to the government. According to new laws that are part of the health care bill, all student loans must be made by government, not the banks. The students and the universities are beholden to government.

They teach the myth of man-made global warming. Grants are only given to scientists that support this idea who's ultimate goal is more government control. 

They teach young women that it is a waste to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen". They teach them that career is more important than family. 

They teach them that there is no God and that the government is the ultimate authority.

Just because more kids graduate high school and college does not mean that they are more educated. Most kids are promoted through the public school system regardless of their academic abilities. They use social promotions to protect their self esteem. Most of today's college freshen require courses in remedial reading.

Many college graduates are not much better. They are brainwashed to dismiss the virtues of God, Family and  Country and they don't even know basic skills like crossing the street or balancing a checkbook.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Do you have a source for your belief that only a small percentage of gay men are interested i raising children?  Or are you simply basing this on what you know of the stereotyped gay man?

Many women who are gay hide it.  That does not mean they are bisexual.  Simply that they are under great social pressures.


Universities do not set out to destroy faith in God.  If learning causes these young adults to question things, then so be it.  Unquestioned faith is worthless.

Universities have the task of educating people.  That these people find themselves confronted with idea that they were never exposed to may cause some issues with their faith.  That the facts they learn may cause some issues in their faith is not the fault of the universities.

I think you are mistakenly looking at the fact that so many young people lose their faith while in college and assuming the university is at fault.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



My source about gay men raising children is: reason, commonsense and my personal experience.

Colleges actively promote the liberal agenda. That is not education, that is indoctrination.


----------



## wjmacguffin (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> My source about gay men raising children is: reason, commonsense and my personal experience.


Translation: I have no facts to back up my claim but I can't admit that. 



garyganu said:


> Colleges actively promote the liberal agenda. That is not education, that is indoctrination.


Anyone who teaches something I don't agree with politically is morally wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Do you have any examples of these liberal agendas?  I went to college and spent most of my time going to class, studying and partying.  I think the overwhelming majority of students do the same.

Now, if a given professor speaks his mind on an issue, that is his right.  Unless you would choose to revoke the 1st Amendment for all college professors.

As for the source on gay men, that would be supremely limited and therefore not something we use to base laws on.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I disagree, I think that we MUST base our laws on reason, commonsense and experience.

There is overwhelming evidence of the liberal agenda in today's universities and in the media. This is a topic for whole new thread.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



If we base our laws on reason I am fine.  But who's experience?  Yours?

Why not find out the truth about what gay men want or are interested in?  Why not skip the prejudices involved in personal experiences and get actual information based on facts.  Because I can pretty much guarantee you have had contact with gay men that you are totally unaware are gay.  So even your own limited experience is not based on all the facts.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You keep stating that we're in a great position, socially, that the changes we have undergone are an improvement.
> ...


 
And you're lying.

The CDC shows EXPONDENTIAL increases in teen pregnancy, abortion, STDS and murder since the advent of the "sexual revolution". 

You dishonest pieces of shit keep pretending the slight decrease in the last 10 years negates the fact that for 40 years prior to that, the rates of abortion, child murder, child abuse, divorce, teen pregnancy, and STDs climbed steadily. The last 10 years decrease doesn't represent overall decreases at all.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Since we are discussing gay marriage, and that gays being out is a relatively recent occurance, no one looked at the last 40 years.  30 years ago people were still being fired from jobs, beaten up and losing custody of children simply for their sexual orientation.  

I also notice you did not back down or apologize for accusing me of being in favor of child abuse or child molestation?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a damn thing to do with your la de la da "spiritual principles".
Americans enjoy them because OF THE LAW and the blood spilled in protection of them.
Nothing spiritual whatsoever.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So sex causes folk to murder.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
You deny there are any issues with child abuse or child molestation, you don't acknowledge the increase in incidence, you state that our only societal issue is a *slight* downturn in the economy...

Obviously you think it's okay to have an upsurge in those things. I have nothing to apologize for.

And yes, we are discussing gay marriage, but we are also discussing history, that of course progressives like to either lie about or just ignore. And the HISTORY of the *improvements* you extremists tout as being "positive" have actually resulted in very unsavory trends.

I can understand that you would like to ignore them. Unfortunately, those of us who aren't committed wholesale to the continued attack on all that is wholesome, healthy, and proven effective, will not.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Perversion, promiscuity, single parent households, and sexual molestation lead to crime. You bet.

And the rejection of children as *human* leads to lack of protection, lack of concern, and abuse. You bet count two.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


 seeing through a glass darkly are we.
all the thing you described are hand in glove you can't have one without the other.
those concepts (bad and good ) we're in play long before Christianity was invented.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


restore America to what? some fantasy time that never existed?
what so amusing about that statement is the people who use it display a"willfull ignorance" of history.
pick a time in our history when things closer to life, liberty, happiness, justice for all and equality? 
OK choose ..
this should be entertaining.


----------



## Montrovant (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Do you understand what exponential means?

If something increases exponentially, it would not raise steadily.  In fact, it would raise more and more.  If shown as a graph, rather than a straight line, you would see a curve.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Are we going to focus on trivia now?

I think 80 x more abortions is exponential. If that is not mathematically correct terminology, you are free to attack my math teachers.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


is it just me, or does this just scream of indoctrination and a sense of entitlement. 
more importantly it stinks of an assumed Superior moral agenda based on the unprovable premise of a god.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
You have an active fantasy life, I can see.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You keep stating that we're in a great position, socially, that the changes we have undergone are an improvement.
> 
> Those are the changes we're talking about. So obviously you approve of them.
> 
> ...


who the fuck is we? I love it when you dogmabots appeal to non existent authority!


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

No authority, just a majority.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And PS...did you or did you not say our society was doing just fine, except for a *slight* economic downturn?
> ...


bump


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Sexual promiscuity leads to crime?
Single parent households do not lead to crime.
BAD PARENTING can lead to  a crime but what is that % of all crime? 

How does the "rejection of children as human" lead to crime when the abortion kills the fetus?
You have no facts to back up, no correction, YOU NEVER HAVE ANY FACTS to back up anything you claim on this subject.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Ok I'm going to ignore that because that's just stupidity on parade.

Unless you really want to maintain that there is no connection between criminal behavior and single parent households?


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


total bullshit!
if you went to college you must have missed the most important reason for going.
TO open minds to possibilities..not to indoctrinate them into a one dimensional pov.
if 80% of university students lose their faith,then logically there are major flaws in that faith if knowledge has the power to kill it.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


 really? lets go back over your posts and see who's "fantasy life" (project much) is more evident?


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No authority, just a majority.


another lie you tell yourself   news flash: 56% of the american people think that same sex marriage should be legal nation wide and the number is growing every day.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



We have solved the problem of hunger in the US, at least for now. However, that has happened many times in the past. The cycles of feast and famine repeat throughout history.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


The following is an excerpt from the "Declaration of Independence" Which our constitution was based on:

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*

Your ignorance proves my point about the brainwashing that occurs in today's education system.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No authority, just a majority.
> ...



If that is true then certainly some state would have passed same sex marriage by the vote.  Out of 32 states, 32 have rejected the premise.  Aside from polls conducted to prove a point, where has same sex marriage been a majority view?


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You are correct, you can't have good without evil, humility without braggadocia and so on and so forth. However, today's popular culture is celebrating and embracing the negative and demonizing the positive. All things run in cycles and history repeats itself. These are signs of a declining society.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Right after that comes:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If the consent of those governed is missing the demands of the government become part of the Intolerable Acts which what the Declaration of Independence addressed.

What should happen to an oppressive government that demands that the governed acquiece to the government.  It's right there in the Declaration.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What should the governed do to the misbehaving government?

Right there in the DOI!

it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

To think that the beginning, middle and end of the Declaration is the right to pursue (not be guaranteed) happiness is short sighted.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



My life and my perspective begin in the 1950's. Things were much better before "The Day The Music Died". Bye Bye miss American pie.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is just plain wrong to not live within your means. Besides, it is unsustainable.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



College students are "YOUNG MINDS FULL OF MUSH". They are easily indoctrinated

A majority of Americans believe in God, while a minority of college graduates do not believe in God

A majority of Americans are against gay marriage, yet a majority of college graduates are in favor of gay marriage.

Most Americans believe in enforcing our immigration laws. A majority of college graduate believe in amnesty.

Most American believe that the Palestinians are terrorist, bigots. Most college graduates s.believe that Palestinians are freedom fighters.

Most Americans believe that the Earth's climate is cyclical. A majority of College students believe in man-made global warming.

Most Americans believe that abortion is murder. A majority of college graduates believe that abortion is a woman's right.

I can go on and on.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yeah, it was this line of talk that had me put her on ignore.  I'm on 4 discussion type forum boards and I have a grand total of 2 people on ignore.  This bitch crossed the line and seemed to be glad of it.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And the Declaration of Independence has what place in our legal system?

Also, would you care to share ANY evidence that the writers of that line intended for it to mean the Christian God?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Again, you are confusing cause and effect.  

The fact that these things happen at roughly the same time does not mean the university causes them.  In fact, most universities try to maintain a somewhat neutral stance, politically.  It keeps their funding going.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Yeah, cuz we don't know anything about the men who wrote the Declaration.


This is what I'm talking about...Progressives are the enemy of truth, and also the enemy of history, because history shows them for what they are.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> A majority of Americans believe in God, while a minority of college graduates do not believe in God



If a minority of college graduates do not believe in God, then that would mean that a majority do believe in God.

Therefore...

A majority of Americans believe in God and a majority of college graduates do believe in God




WinterBorn said:


> A majority of Americans are against gay marriage, yet a majority of college graduates are in favor of gay marriage.




Polls show that the perceptions of the acceptability of homosexual relationships have been shifting.  What can be said is a majority of voters have voted against Same-sex Civil Marriage in the past.

Not to worry, we are nearing a time when a majority of voters will be approving it at the ballot box.  The first good shot is Maine this year, with Washington a close second.



>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Mobs have zero consideration for the will of the people, or for law. Zero.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is a reflection of yourself when you call a woman a "b*tch". Shame, Shame.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No, not a Christian God. But the belief in a "higher power" is almost universal throughout the history of humanity.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh, bull.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



When a woman says that according to me "it's GOOD that children are sexualized, it's GOOD that people are promiscuous, it's GOOD that more children are abused than ever before, it's GOOD that the sex slave market is booming, it's GOOD that abortion rates are higher, it's GOOD that divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates are higher" and refuses to back off that stance, her being called a bitch is actually rather tame.

I have no problem treating women well.  I am a chivalrous and gentlemanly guy.  But that does not mean all women are immune from scorn.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Especially when she is banking on people being well-bred enough not to stoop to her level.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
and they're worthy of scorn if they dare to defend vulnerable children.

Got it.

BTW, you feel good about the increase in abortion? You don't see that as a problem?

How about the increase in child abuse and crime?

Never mind, you already said you did.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Absolutely not true. most university professors are liberals and impart these beliefs on their students. Conservatives and Christians are ostracized on college campuses.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Winterporn and Pooper allegedly *ignore* me for the same reason...they don't want to have to answer for their appalling lack of humanity, and they don't like to speak to the facts.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



And the DoI has what place in our legal system?


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > A majority of Americans believe in God, while a minority of college graduates do not believe in God
> ...



Obviously the first quote is a typographical error. 

Your response to my second quote proves my point that our youth are being indoctrinated.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Did you go to college?  Please tell us exactly HOW these indoctrinations take place.  I must have missed being dragged into a dimly lit room and brainwashed into believing a certain way.

Please tell us what these universities are doing, besides giving these young adults information and letting them make their own decisions.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Here is an interesting article, there are hundreds more just like it. Just google the topic:

Systematic Practice of Political Indoctrination at Universities and Colleges - Atlas Shrugs


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I think its funny that you try and make the educators out to be the bad guys.  Are these students so stupid that they cannot make up their own minds?  You obviously don't hold them responsible for their actions.  Which is odd, considering the number of times conservatives in this thread have ranted about personal responsibilities.  The students you claim are being "indoctrinated" are all old enough to help decide who will run this nation, and old enough to be given serious weapons and put in life or death situations with the military.  But they are not responsible for their own actions while at a university?  lol


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Hmmm, when I went to college there were christian organizations on campus and even conservative ones.  I had friends in the Young Republicans group.

My oldest son was very active in the christian organizations on campus when he attended.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



As I wrote earlier, the students are "YOUNG MINDS FULL OF MUSH" they are easily indoctrinated. It is a very common practice for the youth to be politically indoctrinated. Hitler was very successful indoctrinating the Youth of Germany. He turned the youth on their own parents.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I saw the comments at the bottom.  One of them complained that a college level anthropology class taught evolution?   Well DUH.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
When schools that receive public funding ridicule, grade down, and intimidate the students they are supposed to be teaching for their beliefs instead of their performance, then the instructors are the ones who need to be held accountable for their actions. Not the student.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Perhaps your children's minds were full of mush.  My children's minds were not.  Perhaps if the parents actually taught their children to think, they would not be these mindless wandering babies, helpless in the face of such an onslaught?   lol

And btw, the article you posted talked about the Univ of Ca.  A liberal college in CA?  What a shocker.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The first thing that the schools do is attack, belittle, mock and demonize the institutions of God, family and country. This is very common in most all of today's American universities. Then they impose their own morality. This includes the global warming belief, the amnesty belief, the atheism belief, belief that life was created by random chance, the belief that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, the belief that all forms of sexual perversion are acceptable, and the belief that a career for women is preferable to raising children, etc,


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Do the schools attack & mock God, family and country?  Or do the other students, almost all of whom are away from home for the first time, do this?  I would say that the students do it.  I have nevere seen any university function that did any of that.

What you mistake for imposing beliefs is that in the science classes they only teach that which is within the realm of science.  

The university itself does not teach any belief concerning sexual perversions.  What they do NOT do is discriminate mased on sexual orientation.  If you cannot see the difference you have my pity.

The students themselves are the ones who are responsible for whatever they decide.  I know numerous professors (having grown up in a college town), and none of them were any part of any "indoctrination".


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

I guess the radical fundamentlists decided to start earlier.

from: How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren | Katherine Stewart | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It is an interesting article about christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to school children.

"This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly "Bible study" course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club."


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There is too much information to discuss it all here. For one thing, most universities have "sex week" where they invite prostitutes and porn stars to lecture the students.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Most universities certainly do not do that. 
Some do but not most.
You have now stooped to bull shitting because you have lost the debate.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Most of the major influential universities have "sex week" including Harvard and Yale.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Because he believes a promiscuous, diseased, abusive society is an improvement over a functional, healthy one. This is the sort of society that accommodates depraved individuals, and that's why you'll find depraved individuals advocating for it, and pretending it's preferrable to the alternative.



We have a functional, healthy society. The idealized stereotype you seem to pine for never existed. Examples of societies that are dysfunctional are Haiti and Somalia. Old people railing against how society has plunged into moral decay is as old as the hills themselves. 

Blacks are no longer second class citizens like they were 50 years ago. Nor are women. It was great to be me, a middle-aged white guy. Kinda sucked to be everyone else. Women knew their place and I never had to be worried about negroes. Yeah, let's go back to that, an uptight, repressive society. That's healthy and functional. 

Opponents of integration argued that we couldn't give blacks full rights because they were less civilized, and they would steal all the white women. History will judge the opponents of gay rights the same way we judge the opponents of full suffrage and integration today.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because he believes a promiscuous, diseased, abusive society is an improvement over a functional, healthy one. This is the sort of society that accommodates depraved individuals, and that's why you'll find depraved individuals advocating for it, and pretending it's preferrable to the alternative.
> ...



Zimbabwe was functional until things suddenly changed politically, now it is dysfunctional. The same can be said for many nations. The US is in a precarious position.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



So far I have found references to "sex week" at Brown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Kentucky, and Yale.  (btw, the president of Yale just cancelled Sex Week there)

I found one reference to 2,618 acredited 4 year colleges and universities.  So having sex week at 4 or 5 universities is hardly "most", as you claimed.

But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and triple that number to 15.

That means they have Sex Week at 0.6% of the 4 year collegs and universities.  And that means 99.4% do not.

So your claim "... most universities have "sex week" where they invite prostitutes and porn stars to lecture the students" is nonsense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 30, 2012)

As of this post we have 127 pages of conservatives exhibiting the ignorance and hate and not one logical, factual, objective shred of evidence supporting denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I kinda doubt we are in the same boat as Zimbabwe.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I found info on 5 having it.  Brown, Northwestern, Yale, Harvard, and Univ of kentucky.

Unless you have links showing significantly more, your claim to "most" is bogus.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece also fell into dysfunction. The Soviet Union also fell. Germany was destroyed. Modern Greece is on the verge of dysfunction.


----------



## garyganu (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Those are some of the most influential universities in the country.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Yes, they did.

But that still does not mean anything where the US is concerned.   The idea that allowing gays to marry would cause the collapse of an entire nation is ridiculous.

The conservatives claim that homosexuals make up only 1.5% of the population.  There are 311 million people in the country.  Even if every single homosexual married, that would still be only 2.3 million weddings. 

To put it in persepctive, by the 1.5% claim, there are 4.66 million homosexuals in the USA.  The population of New York City is 8.1 million.   Do you think if half the peope in NY tried they could destroy the US?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Totally irrelevant.

First you claimed "most universities".  Then you claimed "Most of the major influential universities".

Now you claim that these 5 are some of the most influential?  What happened to "most".

Also, since Yale's president cancelled the event, and UK is on no one's list of "most influential universities", you have only 3 left that could be considered seriously influential.

So the list does not include Princeton, William & Mary, Cornell, Dartmouth, MIT, Emory, Tulane, Stanford, and Temple.   So I just listed 3 highly influential universities for every one that has a sex week.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
No-fault divorce and the sexual revolution have certainly put their mark on us...

Homosexual marriage will just further take us down the path we started when we determined to let child molesters, Nazis and rapists dictate to us what is "normal" and "acceptable" in terms of raising and educating our children.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

Gary, this is why I continually ask for evidence or links.

First you said "most universities".  Then you claimed "Most of the major influential universities".

It turns out 3 or 4 universities have Sex Week.  Sounds like wild exaggeration to me.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As of this post we have 127 pages of conservatives exhibiting the ignorance and hate and not one logical, factual, objective shred of evidence supporting denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law.



Very true.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Yes, well, Winterporn thinks a 50 percent abortion rate is indicative of the success of abortion and a healthy society, so what he thinks doesn't hold a lot of water.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > As of this post we have 127 pages of conservatives exhibiting the ignorance and hate and not one logical, factual, objective shred of evidence supporting denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law.
> ...


 
Lie.

What we have are progressive extremists ignoring the facts that were posted, and pretending they don't exist.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


your point? the 50's were only better if you were a white upper middle class male and over 21.
your pespective is to put it nicely, narrow.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Not in this thread - or the 600 other threads on the topic, for that matter.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


bullshit! Hunger in America: Key Findings
    Hunger in America: Key Findings
The 37 million Americans served annually by Feeding America include nearly 14 million children and nearly 3 million seniors.
Each week, approximately 5.7 million people receive emergency food assistance from an agency served by a Feeding America member. This is a 27percent increase over numbers reported in Hunger in America 2006, which reported that 4.5 million people were served each week.
These numbers are based on surveys conducted at emergency feeding centers, such as soup kitchens and food pantries, but do not factor in many individuals also served at non-emergency locations, such as Kids Cafe programs and senior centers. 
Client Households 

76 percent (10 million) of client households served are food insecure, meaning they do not always know where they will find their next meal.   
36 percent of these client households are experiencing food insecurity with hunger, meaning they are sometimes completely without a source of food. 
79 percent (11 million) of households with children served are also food insecure.
Of the 37 million people the Feeding America  network serves:
70 percent of households have incomes below the federal poverty line.
The average monthly income for client households is $940.
36 percent of households have one or more adults who is working.
10 percent of client households are homeless. 
Tough Choices 

Many of the client households served by Feeding America food banks report that their household incomes are inadequate to cover their basic household expenses. 

46 percent of client households served report having to choose between paying for utilities or heating fuel and food. 
39 percent of client households said they had to choose between paying for rent or a mortgage and food. 
34 percent of client households report having to choose between paying for medical bills and food.
35 percent of client households must choose between transportation and food.
One in four client households (24 percent) do not have health insurance and nearly half of our adult clients report that they have unpaid medical and hospital bills.

Thirty percent of households report having at least one member of their household in poor health.

Hunger in America: Key Findings


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Yes, in this thread. And in every one of the other threads as well.

You'll note that winterporn determined he would ignore me after I called him on the fact he claimed our only societal issue right now is a slight economic downturn.

Which means  he doesn't view increased illegitimate teenaged births, increased abortion, increased child abuse, increased child murder, increased STDs as issues.

Kinda interesting, I think.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


dodge.


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
That's an interesting bit of propaganda. Where'd you get it? Link doesn't work.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


 bigoted ranting will do that!


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 
You would know, loon.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


either you're stupid or lying, the link works just fine..and it not propaganda.
it is however more proof of highly tenuous grip on reality!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes, in this thread. And in every one of the other threads as well.
> 
> You'll note that winterporn determined he would ignore me after I called him on the fact he claimed our only societal issue right now is a slight economic downturn.
> 
> ...



Cite them again, or indicate the post number. 

And no, studies from Regent University are not objective, factual, documented evidence.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


interesting 
for being bias and supporting an agenda. the term objective evidence mean anything to you..?


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Media bias mean anything to you?

The left wing media is biased...but the left wing extremists refuse to afford anything but left wing media credibility.

The left wing media refuses to report findings that show their politics in an unfavorable light..this is why you can't find mainstream media articles on the horrendous activities of Planned Parenthood (except when it's just over the top and they absolutely can't ignore it), or in this instance, the bias of academia. And anyone who does report on it is decried as "Pro-Life! Hisssssss!"

Anyone who complains is necessarily a right wing *whacko* because the left wing media refuses to report on it.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Oh, lovely. A well thought out argument, that.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Media bias mean anything to you?
> 
> The left wing media is biased...but the left wing extremists refuse to afford anything but left wing media credibility.
> 
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Oh, lovely. A well thought out argument, that.


a picture paints a thousand words .


----------



## koshergrl (May 30, 2012)

Not really.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No it is not.


----------



## Vidi (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Media bias mean anything to you?
> 
> The left wing media is biased...but the left wing extremists refuse to afford anything but left wing media credibility.
> 
> ...



a lack of evidence is proof then?


----------



## Montrovant (May 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes, in this thread. And in every one of the other threads as well.
> 
> You'll note that winterporn determined he would ignore me after I called him on the fact he claimed our only societal issue right now is a slight economic downturn.
> 
> ...



Since he said nothing of the sort, this post is nothing but another example of your lies. 

What he said is that our society is doing fine, that it is not in a decline.  He mentioned the economy as a separate issue.

Care to show us where he said what you claim, or to admit your lies?  I find it doubtful.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 30, 2012)

Ridiculous the claims that media bias, college teachers, liberals and such influence folks to be gay.
The most absurd claims I have heard in my 57 years.
Without any facts whatsoever to back those claims up of course.


----------



## garyganu (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



My analogy to Ancient Greece and Rome had nothing to do with homosexuality per se. Both empires were at the height of their wealth, power and influence when they declined and fell, just as the US is today.. Zimbabwe was also doing very well when it declined and fell into poverty and starvation. IMO, today's US is also in a precarious position.


----------



## garyganu (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



My mistake, I should have written many instead of most. My comment was meant to point out a trend in the current morals of our universities. This would have been considered outrageous a few decades ago. Now it is acceptable by some of America's top universities. What will be acceptable 20 years from now?


----------



## garyganu (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



According to your information, not a single person has starved to death in the US due to lack of food availability. That means that we have solved the problem of starvation in today's America. At least for now.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I don't think 5 would out of 2600 would be considered many.  But ok.

In 20 years perhaps freedom won't be so threatening?


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


you do realize that most all of the best minds of Greece and Rome were gay.
you know what they say about opinions...


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


I love when you rationalize!
first you said:"We have solved the problem of hunger in the US, at least for now."-GG  

then you said"According to your information, not a single person has starved to death in the US due to lack of food availability."-GG

the article never mentions STARVATION! ASSHAT!
moving the goal posts when your ass is in a crack is chicken shit !
kinda kills any credibilty you might have had.
Here's a thought, Pick one line of bullshit and stick with it!


----------



## garyganu (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I like to have passionate debates but I prefer to keep them civil.

IMO, hunger leads to starvation. If there is zero starvation, hunger problems are not severe, therefore, not a major problem in the U.S. IMO.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Your opinion is ill informed and idiotic. 


> As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
> 
> HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Your opinion on this subject is ill informed and idiotic. 



> As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
> 
> HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News


----------



## garyganu (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



 2 percent of all American households sometimes feel the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources  and the vast majority of those with children manage to spare them from hunger.[8]

Certainly, this constitutes a problem; even more certainly, the truth is far from the collective-emergency myth that "one in eight Americans is struggling with hunger."

read more here: Is America Struggling with Hunger? - Jeremie T.A. Rostan - Mises Daily


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...


another steaming pile- !!!!


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



after reading the linked article you provided, Ive come to the conclusion that Jeremie T.A. Rostan is a fucking idiot.

I wont even go into the ridiculous lapses in reason he displayed in the article, far toop numerous to bother with.

Try again. This time with an article written by someone with a brain.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am not surprised that you see no problems with homosexual relationships and infidelity.  You seem willing to bend over backward to embrace the corruption homosexual activity represents.  

I do hold straights to the same standards.  Do you see me petitioning to give "live-ins" marriage benefits?  Do you see me saying there is nothing wrong with infidelity in marriage?  Do you see me claiming there is nothing wrong with "swingers"?

The heterosexuals in those groups do not flaunt their behavior in company where respect is important.  They are as deceitful as those that engage in homosexual behavior.  Unlike the homosexual activists, they are not demanding that society is changed to "welcome" their perverse behavior.  That is the difference.  Now would you like to get back on topic?  Active homosexuals are living a lie.  They are pretending one or both are interchangeable with the opposite sex for a sincere life time mate.  They cannot be, their DNA identifies them.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You are right.  We are discussing a tiny fraction of the population forcing their wants and desires to be supported by the rest of the population.  And they do not care how many people disagree with them.  They do not care what the rest of the population believes.  It is only "their" beliefs that are to be followed, by "force" if necessary.  That does not sound like "rights" to me.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



When do they become "open and honest" about their relationships?  After they have been in the parents home as a guest?  After they have seduced their child (adult or not)?  After they have pretended to be the opposite sex?  Please explain to me how you can be "open and honest" when you are not willing to accept that you fit better with the opposite sex.  What about parents?  Are they deceived until "it is too late"?  What about co-workers, and other social groups where respect is important?  What about churches, do they go to church together for a long time before they reveal their "real relationship"?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> With the doctrine of coverture no longer in effect in marriage law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just a definition that has been in place for eons.  

Let's say the homosexual activists actually force their beliefs onto the rest of the nation.
Will they want to travel abroad as a married couple?  
Will the US gov't be responsible for their safety, even if they choose to go to countries where homosexual activity (thus those in a homosexual marriage) is punishable by death?
Will those "couples" put military lives at risk by flaunting their relationships in hostile areas of the world?
If one partner is arrested in another country, what lengths should the US gov't go to have them freed when the homosexual partners were aware of the attitude towards homosexuals when they went to that particular country?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And still, that has nothing do with gays being denied their rights under the 14th amendment.



gays have the same rights that I do.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > winterborn said:
> ...



Again, I am amused.  Articles that are biased towards the homosexual agenda are presented as scientific fact.  When articles that are biased towards the heterosexual agenda are presented, then those are "biased".


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

What do you mean by "force their beliefs on people?" We're not forcing anyone to participate in homosexual acts or gay marriage. We just want to be able to marry those of the opposite sex.

 If you want to talk about forcing beliefs on people in this instance, then let's talk about the church.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Does homosexual sex have any chance of "producing" (conceiving)?  That would be scientific authority (but you guys don't care for science when it is easy to prove)

What gives you the authority to change the traditional family that has been in place for thousands of years, and where it is celebrated and reinforced, those families have made the most productive societies in the history of the world?  Please give examples of the great contributions that homosexuals have left for the generations that will "follow" them.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Of course the swingers are not demanding anything.  They already have the benefits.  

Gays have serious, sincere lifemates.  They have all the parts of the relationships that straights do, except for the benefits.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Is this "another" example of: hey, you, Christian, shut up and give us your money to support something that you see as sinful and destructive?


----------



## WinterBorn (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



What is truly sad is the number of people fighting tooth and nail to prevent this, when it will have absolutely no effect on them.

It boils down to being able to marry the one you love.  Now, between consenting adults there is no reason gays should not be allowed the same benefits for a committed relationship that straights are given.


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

Also, if you look at recent public opinion polls, you'll find that a little over half of the population supports the right for gays to marry each other. So... it's not really a minority.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I am not "dictating" your behavior.  You are free to do as you choose, including living a lifestyle full of deceit and destruction.  I do object to the homosexual activists wanting to force the consequences of their choices and their actions onto myself and other taxpayers.  Why can't you take responsibility for your own actions?  If you want to be in destructive relationships, don't expect the taxpayers to come in and rescue you when nature takes its course.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes, millions of children sacrificed to the god Molech (abortion), and his worshippers are fine with that.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Do you have any, ANY proof that "homosexual marriage" will not destroy anything?

Do you have ANY examples where a society has excepted homosexual marriage as a "respectable" choice (not just a whimsical mockery)?

You have made a strong statement.  Where is the evidence?


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Where is the evidence to support your own claims?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Are you saying homosexual activists don't "intend" to destroy the traditional family, or are you saying they "won't" destroy the traditional family.  One is a "belief", and the other is a statement with no evidence.  Which is it?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Weren't you just telling me how open and honest gays were?  ".... Many women who are gay hide it.  ....."  You do like to talk from both sides...


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Where did the founders of the Constitution say those "rights" originated?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There is a long, long history of just that....


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No authority, just a majority.
> ...



IF that were true, then why is it voted down when the population has a chance to "vote on it"?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I think that is a one D ten T problem.


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It's not IF it's true, it IS true. According to multiple public opinions polls, the majority of Americans support gay marriage (I stated this earlier, but you ignored it... as well as my other comments). This number is also rising. 

I guess the opposition just has stronger feelings about it (as bigotry often does).


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



In the declaration of independence they say those rights come from our creator, BUT, in the Treaty of Tripoli they clearly state:



> Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion



We are a nation of laws, not religion. Our faith may define our culture but it does not define our laws. Thats an important distinction.

So the question is: where in our laws does it say we can discriminate against any group of people based on our religious beliefs?


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



Unless those states deny certain rights to their citizens, which in that case the federal government CAN interfere. 

If you consider marriage a right, then the states who prevent homosexuals from marrying each other are denying them their rights.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...




Actually no. While I wish that were the case, the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. The DoI was a mission statement ( or as I like to call it, the first American Unions list of demands to its corporate master ) the Constitution is the contract and therefore all laws much abide within the boundries set forth in the Constitution.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> I guess the radical fundamentlists decided to start earlier.
> 
> from: How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren | Katherine Stewart | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> 
> ...



Egads, please list the last time a Christian church (not renegade Charles Manson type that proclaims themselves "god") did genocide.  Please list anytime a Christian church did genocide.  Were they screaming: this is for my Lord when they were doing the crime?


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


It goes further than that. There are legal privledges that are given only to married couples. Those legal privledges are being withheld from same sex couples. This is expressly forbidden under the 14th amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As of this post we have 127 pages of conservatives exhibiting the ignorance and hate and not one logical, factual, objective shred of evidence supporting denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law.



Please list the laws denying homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the radical fundamentlists decided to start earlier.
> ...



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/queen-mary.html

One of the reasons the Founders wanted a complete seperation of church and state was the fallout of Henry the Eighth and the religious war between his children that followed.

Oh and lets not forget the Inquistion shall we? ( no one expects it after all )

oh and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Just playing the devil's advocate here, but some might say that that is not the context for which the 14th Amendment was made for. The original intent behind it was for those of African Americans who were being oppressed at the time. 

I have been confronted with this argument on several occasions and would like to know your thoughts behind it.... Is context important when interpreting a legal document such as the US Constitution?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> What do you mean by "force their beliefs on people?" We're not forcing anyone to participate in homosexual acts or gay marriage. We just want to be able to marry those of the opposite sex.
> 
> If you want to talk about forcing beliefs on people in this instance, then let's talk about the church.



Changing the definition for a small percentage of the population so that percentage can use/abuse a system that was not set up for them is "forcing" their belief.

Okay, let's talk about the church.  What church forces you to act?  What church forces you not to "sin"?  Aren't there churces that ignore the Bible and welcome active homosexuals to join without informing them that they are going against Biblical teachings?  Just how is the "church" forcing you to believe?  And please, be specific.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Do they have any possiblity of conceiving a child as partners?


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



The original context was indeed to give blacks the same rights as whites. 

BUT...notice that no where in the 14th is race even mentioned. this was to insure that ALL persons who are citizens of the United States would recieve equal protection under the law. They didnt just answer the "black" issue with the 14th, they answered ALL discriminatory issues. 

The 14th amendment actually makes the 19th unnecessary, as women who were legal citizens should have already had the right to vote under the protection of the 14th amendment.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Gov't originally gave benefits to married couples to encourage the population to increase.  How can a "committed relationship" between gays increase the population?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Also, if you look at recent public opinion polls, you'll find that a little over half of the population supports the right for gays to marry each other. So... it's not really a minority.



Again, why is it voted down, each time it is offered if it is sooooo popular?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Read my posts from the weekend.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



According to polls?  You call that "proof"?  Who was polled?  What part of the country?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Was the treaty of Tripoli with the American people?  

We are not "discriminating" against a group of people.  Where in our laws does it give a group the authority to change definitions that have been in place for thousands of years?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Where are your rights written differently than my rights?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I thought I said "idea".  Is an idea a legal document?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Same sex couples do not make a marriage as defined for thousands and thousands of years.  Marriage is not a "right".  There is no where in the Constitution that says you have the "right" to be married.

And yes, you do have equal protection under the law if you choose to marry according to the original definition.  If you choose to fight the law, society, and the world, chances are that you will not win.  You can do things your way, but you cannot force the rest of us to play along with you or support your choices.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:



> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*



Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Was that genocide or a power struggle between relatives?

Oh, and about the inquisition, please....

125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed.
There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. Although there are no exact numbers, scholars believe they have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately. There were not as many deaths as the popular press claims. Numbers have often been inflated to as high as 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research. This figure is completely erroneous. A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions. They looked at all the existing records and were able to extrapolate. In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. (so much so that the sick modern pornography industry has turned him into a hero). He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)

According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition's 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal's higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy ("El 'banco de datos' del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700", BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that "in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances" (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).

During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.

Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition, in a wrong way, may have saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war.

Nevertheless, the Inquisition tortures and death were inexcusable. I echo the voice of John Paul II "Forgive us Lord, Never Again"  
Sources: Inquisition 
[ame=http://askville.amazon.com/people-killed-Inquisition/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3878676]How many people were actually killed during the Inquisition?[/ame]


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits?  Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)?  Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age?  Your argument is ridiculous.


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

fair enough.

how about these

How the the Papal State collaborated with fascism in the Balkans

itccs.org | Genocide of Natives committed by Church and State in Canada: Victims attest Genocide still in place

The Vatican Role in the Ustasha Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia | Serbianna Analysis

Anglican Complicity in the Genocide in Rwanda


or this one:

1 Samuel 15




> 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
> 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
> 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and *utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass *



or this one:



> 16 &#8220;Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, *you shall not leave alive anything that breathes*.
> 
> Deuteronomy 20:16





> Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but *he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. *(Joshua 10:40)


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "force their beliefs on people?" We're not forcing anyone to participate in homosexual acts or gay marriage. We just want to be able to marry those of the opposite sex.
> ...



You mean like how African Americans did in the 60s? First off, yes, it is for a small percentage of the population, but the majority of the population agrees with it (not that that should be important). It's not forcing YOU to marry those of the same sex, it is merely allowing that option to exist. 

Uhm... if I have to explain how the church has and have been oppressing people in this country throughout its history then there is something wrong. BUT I feel that this instance would be the best example. Those of the Christian faith are pushing their own beliefs towards homosexuality onto the public. Simple as that.  



logical4u said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Uhm, yes, I believe that it's the most efficient way of understanding the population's opinion on various situations, issues, etc. Unless you have a more efficient way of going about this. Do you?



logical4u said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



They're not written differently at all... If you consider marriage a right, then same sex marriage should be legal (seeing that the US Constitution does not define what marriage is).  

So... you see, you wouldn't be able to marry those of the same gender either!


----------



## Vidi (May 31, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.


----------



## Cenotaph (May 31, 2012)

If you _don't_ consider marriage a right, then the government shouldn't be granting special privileges to those who are married.

However, since they do, then they must also do so with those of same sex marriages (see Amendment 14 as Vidi previously stated).


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2012)

Vidi said:


> fair enough.
> 
> how about these
> 
> ...



Again, the ones with Christians are more about "gov't" power than actually murdering for the Lord.

The ones from the Bible were Hebrews (way before "Christians").  I know you guys don't like to read the Bible, but those peoples were truly evil, and were doing terrible things.  They were warned, and then the Lord sent a bunch of "slaves" to end them (something that would have been a terrible insult to those powerful peoples).  It was a punishment for the people living in that way.  There was no Command to search out any strays that moved to other lands, and settled far away.  There was no Command to kill any of those peoples that were found long after the initial "punishment". 

Any more?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > fair enough.
> ...



No. I see now that youll find justification for anything brought up.  Youre mind is already closed on the subject. So its pointless to continue.


But heres one more on the same sex marriage front.



> After the founding of the United States, state after state maintained this principle. State laws allowed religious authorities to perform marriage ceremonies and to recognize only marriages adhering to the requirements of their own faith, but not to determine which marriages would be considered valid by the public. For example, Californias first state Constitution stipulated, *No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect*, a provision now retained in the states Family Code.
> 
> Boston Review &mdash; Nancy F. Cott: No Objections (Same-sex marriage; gay marriage; Prop 8)


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

The church pushing their opinion on the public?  How is that forcing?  How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public?  Sorry, that is really LAME.

You did not answer the questions about the polls.  Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married.  There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



EVERY argument youve made is a faklse argument.

The "natural argument" is defeated by the fact that 
1) Thats the same argument "they" made against interracial marriage.
2) the thousands of species of animals that display homosexuality

The Church argument is defeated by the Constitution.

The definition of marriage ( and therefore the qualifications ) is defeated by the reality of history in that Rome and Greece both provided for same sex unions. Hell, theres even a gay couple who were made saints! The Passion of SS. Serge and Bacchus

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp


The right to marry not being in the Constitution is defeated by the 14th amendment 

what else you got?


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Oh, wait a minute, equal treatment under the 14th ammendment.....
Oh, I get it, that doesn't fall under "your" agenda.
So you really do believe in special "rights" when it fits your agenda.
Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for eons.  That was the qualifications to form a marriage, along with other things depending on the culture.

Now "you" are telling me that those qualifications are discrimminitory according to the 14th ammendment.  I used your argument to point out how easily it would be to abuse other systems using your logic.  Now you want to call me names?  Are you a heterophobe?  

And yes, they are committing fraud.  They are claiming that two of the same sex are the same as two people of the opposite sex.  They do not meet the qualification for the long standing meaning of marriage.  They are willing to corrupt a society to push their agenda and force legitimization of their acts by usurping a respectable relationship to protect their destructive behavior.  And that is FRAUD.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).



Really? So what _are_ the qualifications?

By the way, a car is not a conscious, consenting being... while homosexuals are. 

Shocking, right?



> The church pushing their opinion on the public?  How is that forcing?  How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public?  Sorry, that is really LAME.



Not just I, but more than half the US population. If wanting the option to marry the same sex is forcing a belief on society, then wanting to deny that option is forcing as well (by your own definition, that is).



> You did not answer the questions about the polls.  Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?



See, this is how people like you operate in debates. You ask arbitrary, detailed questions in an attempt to win the argument. I _sincerely_ doubt you would care if the polls were in your favor... As for myself, I have enough faith (scary for a nihilist to have, I know) in the multiple, separate organizations and companies who administered the polls (all of whose results were quite similar). 

If you are paranoid or detailed-oriented enough to care about something as silly as this, then I suggest you look it up yourself.



> No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married.  There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.



It's not specifically defined... which is why I asked. Since you do not consider it a right, then those married couples who receive special benefits from the government should not have them at all.



> I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".



Too bad they didn't define it. So... whether or not this is true is irrelevant.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



WRONG. Utterly false.

the church even had a rite specifically for same sex union. I even posted a link.

here it is again:

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

And then you have your "corrupt society" argument. Thats blatant crazy talk. You may as well be talking about blacks and whites getting married, its the same exact argument that was defeated decades ago. You have NO argument other than your own prejudice.

There is no evidence that same sex unions can or would corrupt anything other than your prejudice against it.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Uh, no, he didn't.

He made his point. You resort to ad hominem. You lose and you get demerits for being painfully, literally...PAINFULLY stupid.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> If you _don't_ consider marriage a right, then the government shouldn't be granting special privileges to those who are married.
> 
> However, since they do, then they must also do so with those of same sex marriages (see Amendment 14 as Vidi previously stated).



The gov't (the people) encourages behavior that will make a productive society.  Married couples "usually" have children.  They are more likely to establish a home, a community, a state, a country.  It is important to them to have a "safe" place to raise their children.  It is important for them to have a community that supports child raising/educating.  Those children, raised properly, in a good community are likely to continue the same type of community building their parents did.

Homosexuals cannot conceive a child by each other.  Their relationships have not been shown to be community builders.

The 14th ammendment does not apply, equally, across the board: there are restrooms for women and men (seperate and not equal, women's restrooms usually have more stalls and more room), women do not serve in the military in the same capacity as men do,  workplaces do not require the same work from people that do physical labor jobs because people have different strengths and weaknesses, children are treated differently than adults.  Your 14th ammendment is weak; there are too many examples of different treatment under the law, that is perfectly justifiable, just as marriage qualifications are not met by homosexual couples.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



It's a bit hypocritical to call him on using ad hominem and then proceed to use them yourself.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> The gov't (the people) encourages behavior that will make a productive society.  Married couples "usually" have children.  They are more likely to establish a home, a community, a state, a country.  It is important to them to have a "safe" place to raise their children.  It is important for them to have a community that supports child raising/educating.  Those children, raised properly, in a good community are likely to continue the same type of community building their parents did.



How is that relevant? I don't really see how it's fair to say it's not a right defined by the government (and yourself) and then say they should should receive governmental benefits.



> Homosexuals cannot conceive a child by each other.  Their relationships have not been shown to be community builders.



... but they can adopt (or through artificial insemination if they are a lesbian couple). Also, how are their relationships any more or less beneficial to society than that of heterosexual ones? They both potentially produce the same outcomes. 



> The 14th ammendment does not apply, equally, across the board: there are restrooms for women and men (seperate and not equal, women's restrooms usually have more stalls and more room), women do not serve in the military in the same capacity as men do,  workplaces do not require the same work from people that do physical labor jobs because people have different strengths and weaknesses, children are treated differently than adults.  Your 14th ammendment is weak; there are too many examples of different treatment under the law, that is perfectly justifiable, just as marriage qualifications are not met by homosexual couples.



How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?


----------



## Artevelde (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



All you have is lies.


----------



## Artevelde (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?



Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > How is not allowing same sex couples to marry justified?
> ...



How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
Having the desire to live their lives together.
Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?


----------



## Artevelde (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...




Children are not consenting adults in the eyes of the state.
Yes, brothers and sisters could marry if they met the qualifications listed. However, sexual intercourse and having children would be strongly discouraged due to birth defections, etc.
Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a fad. The desire for homosexuals to marry has existed since the 19th Century, and homosexuality itself has existed for as long as recorded history has.
Short-sighted and stupid? How?
You also didn't answer my question. Why do you care? How is this going to impact you in anyway?


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

(Logical answer: I shouldn't care, and it won't impact me in anyway).


----------



## Artevelde (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.

The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.


----------



## BDBoop (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh, look at you moving the goal posts. How quaint.

I'm pretty sure you know what she meant by 'children,' and you changed it to 'somebody's child.'


----------



## Artevelde (Jun 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...





Look at my original posting where I clearly wrote "adult children".

Reading too difficult for you?


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.



Fair enough. I must have skipped over the word "adult" (my mistake). I would suggest you use the word "offspring" next time because the phrase "adult child" is an oxymoron and can be rather misleading. 

However, my opinion still stands. If two people meet the qualifications that I listed, then why shouldn't they marry? Albeit, it's very unlikely to happen. In fact... I don't think it has ever genuinely happened without the aid of some delusion caused by a damage psyche. 



> The idea that the push for gay marriage dates back to the 19th century is a ludicrous lie.



Not really. Anyone with a bit of research under his or her belt would tell you the same. A rather credible source comes to mind... a PBS documentary called _Before Stonewall_ which discusses this specifically (as well as the struggle for homosexuals during the first half of the 20th Century). 

I'm sure that the desire to marry (or share a lifetime bond with) someone you love has existed for as long as humans have (homosexuals included).


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.

There are wackos in every generation that push for the marginalization of traditional values, and the degradation of women and children. That doesn't mean those values are embrace, common, or worthy of support.

Aleister Crawley comes to mind. Kinsey was a fan of his, too...and from Kinsey we get the modern day model of sex ed in school.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.


I listed_ Before Stonewall_ as an example of a credible resource. I felt that that was adequate enough.

It hasn't been until recently that we have been able to tackle this issue.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Nope.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

"This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."

It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.

It's nothing like research, and the information isn't verified. 

This is what happens when people are educated by the tube.

Plus it was made in 1984, and it's done *humorously* in order to hook straight people.

Before Stonewall - Rotten Tomatoes


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2012)

8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
Gays are getting married now.
How has it affected ANYONE?
Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

So? Logical fallacy.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."
> 
> It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.
> 
> ...



It's not a fluff piece at all. It describes in detail what all happened during that period of time with homosexuals and gives an inside look at those who were apart of it. I don't think I saw any "celebrites" on there (and if there were, there weren't many). Most of the interviews and commentary were done by those who were apart of the gay community during the first half of the 20th century. 

How is the information not verified? How do you come to this conclusion?

Why does it matter if it was made in 1984? It's merely documenting a period of time. It's not arguing the causes of sexual orient (which if it did, then I could see how your point would make sense).

Did you actually _watch_ the documentary?


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
> Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
> Gays are getting married now.
> How has it affected ANYONE?
> Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.



It clearly is an issue, or there wouldn't this much opposition towards it. Why this is is beyond me, though. I frankly don't see why they care so much.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."
> ...


 
Provide verification of the statement you made.

Aside from a vague reference to a 1984 PBS pro-homo feel good mockumentary. Give specifics.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Dont expect any more from the parrot parade. Art, Kosh never have anything of any value to add to anything. Crazy is too weak a word for them.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Verification for what? 

It clearly is pro-homosexuality, but it's not a "feel good mockumentary." You haven't seen the documentary, so I don't see how you can apply these labels to it... It wouldn't matter, though, seeing that you're the type of person who is rather stubborn and adamant about their opinion. So, regardless of what your _actual _opinion of it is (_if_ you watch it), you will still stick by your original bogus assertion.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



neg me all you want Art. Just because you live in fear, doesnt mean the rest of us do. We are not afraid to find a little history and incorporate it into our world view. We dont need everything to fit into your precious little box.

And stop playing the "what if" game and deal with the issue at hand. Your siblings and parents and children scenario has been answered in more than one thread and you keep coming back to it like its a valid argument. Its not. It only shows how stupid people, trying to cover up their own fear,  keep falling back to the same stupid argument ad naseum.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yea, I don't even know why I bother responding to their posts. It's just a waste of time...


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



The same argument was made against interracial marriage. How does it feel to agree with fear based bigotry?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.
> 
> There are wackos in every generation that push for the marginalization of traditional values, and the degradation of women and children. That doesn't mean those values are embrace, common, or worthy of support.
> 
> Aleister Crawley comes to mind. Kinsey was a fan of his, too...and from Kinsey we get the modern day model of sex ed in school.



If youve decided that Alister Crowley is a reasonable example then youre further gone than I thought.

How about you base your opinion on TODAY instead of some crazy mystic. 


This is the really really world, Kosher, there is no magic. Harry Potter was a fiction story. no one is taking a train to Hogwarts.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



Once Kosher enters the thread, its pretty much over. Shes got crazy down pat. Bringing up Alister Crowley as a valid point? Cmon.

The simple facts are that people who live in fear are going to always fight against anything that is outside their worldview. They cant handle the concept that ANYTHING that they dont specifically endorse could be acceptable to others. If it is acceptable, then there must be something fundamentally wrong with those people, NEVER themselves. Its too threatening to them.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.

The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.
> 
> The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.



The verification is the documentary itself. 

Watch it. 

Also, you didn't provide any evidence that the documentary's information isn't verified.... which I asked for and still have yet to receive an answer.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

In other words, you don't have verification.

You fail.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.

Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.


----------



## KevinWestern (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> 
> Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.




Kosh, let me share with you the timeless tale of "The Big Government Thug", enjoy....

.
.
.

_(Kosher walks on Soccer Field during a heated game)
*
Kosher:* Listen up everyone! New government mandate: No one is allowed to play soccer, it is hereby outlawed for all. 
*
Soccer Player:* Uh, what the heck? Why?

*Kosher:* The majority agrees that baseball is the best sport, and therefore should be the only sport citizens are allowed to play. 

*Soccer Player: *But look - there's a baseball diamond right over there. How about you go play baseball, and we play soccer. We can do both simultaneously, peacefully. Everyone wins that way, and th..
*
Kosher: *Shut it bucko! Again, baseball is the best sport. With my infinite wisdom and knowledge, I know what's best for you and the entire country, and therefore I feel it my duty to use government authority in order to force you to live by my own personal standards. 

*Soccer Player: *What a dick...

(Soccer players leave field, Kosher smiles arrogantly)

Scene end._


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> 
> Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.



It far closer to verufucation than Alister Crowley references. Hypocrite much?

BTW your new avatar is perfect for you. never change it.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> In other words, you don't have verification.
> 
> You fail.



What are you talking about? The evidence and verification of the information presented in the documentary is validated through the interviews and commentary of the people who were apart of that period of time. It's one of the ways we _document_ history... 

It's silly to ask of me to verify every single piece of information they present in the documentary. The only reason you ask this is because it's a relatively laborious task, and it's highly unlikely for me to follow through with it. And somehow... you feel that that makes you the victor in this "debate."

Now, I'll do the same. _You _provide evidence that the information presented in the documentary is not valid and not verified.


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> 
> Saying *"IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED"* is not verification.



Documentary by a reputable and reliable educational television station*


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.
> 
> The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.



The thread descended into lunacy the moment you entered it. As does EVERY thread you enter. 

And I just HAVE to ask...were you ever on Trading Spouses? because your posts read like soemthing this woman would post:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns&feature=player_embedded]God warrior! - YouTube[/ame]

Ive been wondering this ever since the first time you neg repped me and every neg rep youve given me like clockwork every time you come into a thread I post in.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> ...



shhhhhh....crazy woman doesnt have any reputable sources of her own so must attack you for actually learning something from educational programming that didnt originate on the 700 club.

back away slowly before you get her crazy on you. Its like a zombie apocolypse with this one spewing the stupid virus all over the place.


----------



## BDBoop (Jun 1, 2012)

P.S.: Full moon in three days. May want to take cover.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
> ...



Waste of time. Non issue. 
One day they all will be gone.
Good friend of mine, half Indian, career Army officer.
"40 years from now they will look back and see how stupid they were opposing equal rights for gay folk"
We call him "Vike" because the high school team he played for before he played in college were the Vikings. Vike told me years ago he had many gays and lesbians in his units in the Army and they were never a problem. Vike stated it was always some nosy women that would out them and get them discharged. He hated that. 
The MAIN REASON the bigots are fighting gay marriage so hard NOW is because they know that the next generation and the current professional class in America has no problem with folks that are committed to and love each other getting married. 
The uneducated and slow are the ones that oppose it primarily.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > The gov't (the people) encourages behavior that will make a productive society.  Married couples "usually" have children.  They are more likely to establish a home, a community, a state, a country.  It is important to them to have a "safe" place to raise their children.  It is important for them to have a community that supports child raising/educating.  Those children, raised properly, in a good community are likely to continue the same type of community building their parents did.
> ...



It is not a "right" to receive welfare or social security, yet, under qualifiers, some (not equal) citizens receive benefits.  I did not say they "should" receive benefits.  I said that traditional marriage promotes a "healthy" society and so the gov't encourages that behavior by adding incentives, legally.  Because the rest of the society benefits, as well (including homosexuals), those "incentives" are tolerated and accepted.

The "primary" purpose of a homosexual couple is NOT to conceive children with each other.  They must rely on others for "their" children.  There is no societal benefit to promote/encourage homosexual (fraudulent) marriage.  They can adopt children, or produce them manipulating (not natural, not green) another person's body (outside "their" relationship) to have a child that is NOT part of both of them.  Therefore their relationship is LESS beneficial to society, than the traditional couple (not speaking of the small percentage of traditional marriages that do not have children, but of the majority of traditional marriages that DO have children.

Can homosexuals add to society?  Yes.  Do they?  In some cases.  But the primary reason for homosexuals to join as a couple is NOT to make a family.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



"contemporary standards"??  Is that the new homosexual activist RE-definition of marriage to deceive people into believing that two people of the same sex are just the same as two people of the opposite sex?

I care because historically, EVERY time someone comes along promoting a "feel good" agenda with no basis in reality, it ALWAYS ends in a total stain (huge numbers of people dying).  Instead of the people explaining how "this time" it will end differently, and why, these people say, we have the right people leading, now....
Since when have people changed?  When have they become less lustful, less greedy, less power hungry?  HINT: THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT UNTIL THE LORD COMES AGAIN AND DEMONSTRATES HIS JUSTICE.  Therefore, what they are promoting, if allowed to come to fullfillment will end in a total stain...


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Not on this site. It's the uneducated and the slow who are promoting it.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > So somebody's child who has reached the age of 18 is still not legally an adult according to you? Logic isn't your strong suit I guess.
> ...



Why don't we change the definition of homosexual to someone that chooses to be heterosexual.  That way they could have a traditional marriage and be like those they choose to imitate?  (Following your lead of changing a definition to suit "my" ideals, not consider who it will affect)

Yes, the desire to marry someone a person loves, has been a source of heartbreak for centuries.  There is only one of each person, and not everyone can marry that person, hence the word: heartbreaker!


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Since you have decided to ignore ALL history and all evidence that contrdicts your fear based position, I suppose you would see it as a lie.

also, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Moon is a vengeful wrathful God and theres a troll under the bridge that wants to eat your soul...as long as we're all going to live in Arts fantasy land, lets go all the way shall we?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



Another shot from the fear based lunatic. Hows your cats?


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I don't have cats. I have a dog that kills them.

No fear here, just a desire to maintain traditional values. You people have been lying about social norms since the Kinsey studies, and we let you get away with it. I think it's fairly obvious that your idea of "normal" brings nothing but depravity, disease, death and destruction to people. Time to stop listening.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
> Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
> Gays are getting married now.
> How has it affected ANYONE?
> Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.



I guess that is because you choose to ignore the truth.  The first article is about domestic violence in homosexual relationships.  Usually, when "couples" are violent, similar acts of violence are targeted towards the children....

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia
In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders.

Regarding studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[2] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[3] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[3]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexual couples:



 

Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community... 
Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are HIV-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humiliation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.[4]

 


In 2000, the New York Times in an article entitled Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships cites some information which may indicate that domestic abuse may be under-reported in the homosexual community.[5] The New York Times article states the following:


 

But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently...
 For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston.

Mr. Shannon said: People feel, 'Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.' [5] 


Studies
 The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded that "married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."[6]
 Another study indicated that 83% of homosexuals report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. [7]
 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states that "11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner".[8]
 A study published in The Journal of Family Violence reported among its participants that "Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" of its participants.[7]
 A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. [9]
 A 1985 study of 1109 lesbians by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they had been abused by a female partner.[10]
 Coleman, in a 1990 study of 90 lesbians reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence.[11]
 A study of 113 lesbians reported (1994) that 41% said they had been abused in one or more relationships.[12]
 In their book, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (1991), Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[13]
 The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse." [14]
 A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."[15]

Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons | Mail Online   A gay couple who adopted nine boys have been accused of sexually assaulting two of the children.

Read more: Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons | Mail Online

A DUTCH man accused of sexually abusing more than 60 children was married to his homosexual lover. Under American law, this man would be able to adopt children or obtain children through surrogates and raise them in his home. How long before we see children subjected to a lifetime of abuse by their adoptive homosexual parents? Heterosexual men commit sexual abuse too, but they do not have the same rate of sexual perversion against the young.  The Thinking Housewife  &#8220;Married&#8221; Pedophile Accused of Abusing More than 60 Children

BY DOUG PATTON, Conservative viewpoint

All who continue to deny the dire warnings concerning the freak show that awaits our culture at the bottom of the slippery slope called "gay rights" need only contemplate the story of 11-year-old Thomas Lobel. 

Thomas is being raised in San Francisco (of course) by two lesbians, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, who claim they were "married" by a rabbi in some sort of ceremony back in 1990. They adopted Thomas when he was 2 years old. 

Because he has a speech impediment, Thomas learned sign language at an early age. According to his two "mothers," he told them in sign language  at age 3, mind you  that he was a girl. On the strength of that assertion  from a 3-year-old!  Moreno and Lobel made a gigantic leap and assumed it must be true. Thomas, they concluded, must be what is euphemistically referred to these days as "transgendered." You know, transgendered, like "Chaz" Bono, Sonny and Cher's little girl-turned-lesbian-turned-boy-turned-who-knows-what-next.

So, this troubled little boy, Thomas Lobel (whom the only parents he has ever known now call "Tammy"), confused and withdrawn because of his handicap, was brainwashed into believing something he couldn't possibly understand yet. 

Four years ago, when Thomas was 7, psychiatrists "diagnosed" him with "gender identity disorder." By age 8, with ongoing encouragement from his two lesbian parents, he was supposedly "transitioning," whatever that means. 

But this story gets worse. Much, much worse. 

This summer, aided and abetted by a medical establishment that no longer has any moral or cultural moorings, these two deviants started the hideous process of "gender reassignment" on poor Thomas, now 11, in order to suppress the onset of his male puberty and physically turn him into a girl! This "therapy" includes a hormone-suppressant, which is implanted in his upper left arm to prevent him from developing naturally into the boy God intended him to be. It will suppress the growth of facial hair, the natural deepening of his voice and the broadening of his shoulders.

Thomas will remain a pre-pubescent boy until he and his "mothers" decide whether he should transition to an adult female. In order to do that, he will have to take female hormones, which will raise his voice, allow him to grow breasts and develop other feminine physical characteristics. Lastly, of course, is the decision to have sex-change surgery.

San Francisco is one of only four cities in the United States with a hospital that has a program for "transgender children." The others are Boston, Seattle and Los Angeles. The University of California San Francisco is home to the Center of Excellence for Transgender Health. 

Such an innocuous sounding name. 

There is virtually no chance that this poor, bewildered boy will "decide" to do anything other than to allow himself to be manipulated and mutilated by these domineering women in his life. They, along with the so-called doctors who condone and facilitate this perversion, should be prosecuted for child abuse. 

What will these two decide to convince their son to become next? A dog? A cat? A fencepost? A lesbian? What was wrong with him being a boy? That's how he was born. That's what he was supposed to be. 

"Everybody was angry with us," Moreno says. "They all said, 'How could you be doing this? You might be ruining his whole life!'" She says she and her partner have faced intense criticism from both friends and family. 

What they should be facing is a judge and jury. Instead, we have criminal child abuse being validated by our psychiatric community and our legal system. It may not be popular to say so, but this is the stagnant social cesspool that results from embracing deviancy.

In the blink of an eye we have gone from unthinkable to the new normal. 

Lesbian couple guilty of criminal child abuse | Hernando Today

Exposure to a plethora of pernicious elements that often plague the homosexual lifestyle left Dawn feeling outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities.


From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my fathers relationships.
The Effects of Gay Marriage on Children | This is Marriage

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Lesbian Couple sentenced 30 years for Child Abuse 

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

Kenmore women each sentenced to 30 years

Two Kenmore women accused of abusing their six children were sentenced to 30 years in prison each this afternoon.

Mary Rowles, 31, the mother of the six children, and her lesbian partner, Alice Jenkins, 28, could have received more than 100 years each from Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove.

In October, the women pleaded guilty to an entire 55-count indictment alleging kidnapping, child endangering, felonious assault and other charges involving the children, now ages 7 to 15.

Rowles' five sons allege they were locked in dark closets, deprived of food, forced to eat feces and were mentally and physically abused for a year or more. Rowles' 12-year-old daughter was not subjected to the same abuse, police said, but is included as a victim because of her presence in the home.  Lesbian Couple sentenced 30 years for Child Abuse - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy

Posted on December 1, 2007


For some reason, when I read about this I though of a recent post over on Feminist Critics:


Seven-year-old Sean Gibson was found earlier this month wandering in a parking lot by employees of Westgate Resorts in Kissimee, Florida. He was out late by himself and begging for food at a buffet. The poor kid only weighed 37 pounds. They called authories who took him to the hospital.

Now domestic partners Suzette Stevenson, 45, and Jamie Lynn Martin, 26, have been charged with aggravated child abuse.

Fair warning, the torture these women subjected this boy to is rather graphic:


The boy, who is not a biological child to either woman, was allegedly tied by his wrists and made to stand in an upright position for hours at a time, forced to drink shampoo, was burned with cigarettes and had to urinate and defecate in a closet, according the Baker County Sheriffs Office documents.

-

Instead, the two women allegedly threatened him with a box cutter and left him in a car, drugged with some type of adult sleeping pill, as they tried to collect $100 in a real estate promotion awarded to anyone who visited a timeshare open house.

And here:


The staff at Celebration was appalled when the extent of Seans abuse became apparent.

They amputated the big toe of his left foot, one of two that had been broken by bending. Other injuries include rope burns on his wrists from where he was left hanging by his arms from two large wall lights at the trailer.

He had burns on the sides of his ears, and they believe those came from being dragged across carpets, said the investigator. The doctor initially called him walking death and indicated he may have damage to internal organs from repeated kicking.

Seans head was covered in bruises and knots believed to be from blows by fists, hands or other objects.

The one thing about this is that at numerous point people had the opportunity to intervene. At the daycare someone should have noticed. The fact that this boy was pulled out of school should have been a red flag. Or maybe someone could have bothered to verify the fake birth certificate these women had. The social service system was designed to address situations like this, but at every point that someone had a chance to step in no one did a thing. In the end it was the boy had to save himself.

One other element about this stands out. These two women were torturing this boy for apparently no reason at all. That just does not fit with the general profile of abusers. There is always reason, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Given that, I cannot say that the torture was not mitigated by these womens general attitude towards males as a result of their sexual orientation. That is not to say that being lesbians caused them to be abusive, but there seem to be a propensity for lesbians who abuse children to specifically target boys.   Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy | Toy Soldiers


To be honest, I quit looking at this point.  I was looking for a case, I believe out of CA where a lesbian couple abuse a young girl (she had cigarette burns), and other scars of abuse.  I have noticed when those cases "make" the news, they are only posted for a short while, and get no where near the attention that other abuse cases get.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



Interracial marriage can produce children (the main purpose of marriage to perpetuate the species in a stable environment).  Homosexuals cannot copulate and conceive without "cheating" their pronounced "preference".


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> ...



Just who is it that is trying to change the game for those that are already playing and following the set rules????


----------



## logical4u (Jun 1, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.
> ...



Sorry, that is not "totally" true.  I have watched documetaries about Biblical history, and watched things that directly opposed what was printed in the Bible, that was presented as facts.  I have issues with accepting what PBS says at "face value".  They have been caught in deception too many times.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 2, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
> ...



Particularly when those hetero abusers are...gasp...CHRISTIAN. Then you get idiots like Sky and Ravi screeching that sending children to church should result in hard time or the death penalty.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



You and the right wing kooks. 
"promoting it" 
No, we want to ALLOW IT. 
I promote free beer, hot women and no taxes.


----------



## garyganu (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You are an intolerant hateful person because you call people "bigots" just because they disagree with you. SHAME ON YOU.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cenotaph said:
> ...



I call them like I see them.
Grow some stones. Get used to it Gary. I have relatives that are gay and lesbian. You claim they are less than human and I will call you a bigot everytime I hear it.


----------



## garyganu (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



SHAME ON YOU. You call people bigots and haters just because they disagree with you about redefining marriage. You are a VERY INTOLERANT person..


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 2, 2012)

Ahhhh!   Wall of text, followed by quoted wall of text!


----------



## BDBoop (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > You are an intolerant hateful person because you call people "bigots" just because they disagree with you. SHAME ON YOU.
> ...



As will I.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

garyganu said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



I call you a bigot because you are one.
A biased, conceited, egotistical and hompophobic bigot.
Oh, I will tolerate you but not without telling you who you are.

Wham it zero on set, EP team on the ready, KO team on the squares, 4th string D to group.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg
You were saying...



logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
> ...


----------



## garyganu (Jun 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > garyganu said:
> ...



You guys are making wild unfounded accusations and state them as if they are true. That is very irresponsible. 

I challenge anyone to cite a single instance where I have called gays "less than human". You can not because I have never said anything like that. I believe in equal opportunity for everyone. However, you have repeatedly called those opposed to the redefinition of marriage "haters and bigots".


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 2, 2012)

ANOTHER quoted wall of text!


----------



## garyganu (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



In your opinion; Is everyone who is opposed to the redefinition of marriage a bigot?


----------



## Catalist (Jun 2, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists&#8217; desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included..........



Read much?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2012)

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...








now that I'm done lol.. Socrates (469-399 BC) Greek philosopher 
Practiced educational method using analytical cross-examination, emphasizing self-knowledge and rejection of received opinion. Dialogues with his pupils recorded by Plato. Sentenced to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens. 


Plato (c.427-347 BC) Greek philosopher 
Key figure in Western philosophy, founder of the Academy in Athens, pupil of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. Dialogues The Symposium and Phaedrus celebrated the spiritual love of youths, but tolerated backsliding. Love poems to Aster. 

David & Jonathan


Harmodius & Aristogiton


Plato


Alexander

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) King of Macedon 
Conquered most of Greece, Persia, Asia Minor, India & Egypt (founded the city of Alexandria), transmitted Hellenic values across the civilized world. Mourned the death of his lover Hephaestian with extravagant funeral rites.  


http://rictornorton.co.uk/greatgay/greatgay.htm

you ignorant fuck!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 4, 2012)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I will remind you being black is not the same as being gay, so stop using loving vs Va. as a case point for gay marriage.
> ...



_Loving_ is also on point with regard to the 14th Amendments requirement that a states citizens be allowed equal access to the law: 



> This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Loving v. Virginia





> In your opinion; Is everyone who is opposed to the redefinition of marriage a bigot?



Perhaps. But such a person is certainly ignorant. As no one is advocating marriage be redefined. Indeed, the entire point of the law is to ensure all citizens have equal access to marriage laws - just as they exist now, unaltered.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 4, 2012)

Horse crap.

You are seeking to redefine the meaning of the word, that is exactly what is taking place. Because homosexuals ALREADY have access to marriage right now. They have opted out. Now they are seeking to force us to call what they do, instead, "marriage". That is changing the definition..just as it would be changing the definition to call single people "married" and pretend we're "discriminating" against single folk because single folk can't call themselves "married".


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Horse crap.
> 
> You are seeking to redefine the meaning of the word, that is exactly what is taking place. Because homosexuals ALREADY have access to marriage right now. They have opted out. Now they are seeking to force us to call what they do, instead, "marriage". That is changing the definition..just as it would be changing the definition to call single people "married" and pretend we're "discriminating" against single folk because single folk can't call themselves "married".



We already have access to Religious Marriage.   The government, however, is discriminating on gays (in most states and federally) based on gender.   That is illegal.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 4, 2012)

If it were true.

They are not married. Just as single people aren't married. If they want to get married and access those privileges, they are welcome to.

They choose not to. Too bad *snif*.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> If it were true.
> 
> They are not married. Just as single people aren't married. If they want to get married and access those privileges, they are welcome to.
> 
> They choose not to. Too bad *snif*.




What's not true?  That laws barring Same-sex Civil Marriage are written in terms of gender?



>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 4, 2012)

It's not true that they're excluded from being married. They are subject to the exact same parameters that all of us are.

Gay people can get married...just like we can. If they want to partcipate, they have to marry a not-closely-related, not-already married, not-underaged person of the opposite sex who is of sound mind.

We all have the exact same right to participate. They, like many career bachelors  and bachelorettes, and closely related roommates and people who are engaged in extramarital affairs, choose not to participate in the construct.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It's not true that they're excluded from being married. They are subject to the exact same parameters that all of us are.
> 
> Gay people can get married...just like we can. If they want to partcipate, they have to marry a not-closely-related, not-already married, not-underaged person of the opposite sex who is of sound mind.
> 
> We all have the exact same right to participate. They, like many career bachelors  and bachelorettes, and closely related roommates and people who are engaged in extramarital affairs, choose not to participate in the construct.




Or they can drive or fly to a state and get a Civil Marriage to someone of the same gender.


>>>>


----------



## Vidi (Jun 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You wouldnt know a traditional value if it hit you square in the face. You have yet to display the compassion traditional values demands. 

...oh wait...unless sociopath is a traditional value?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It's not true that they're excluded from being married. They are subject to the exact same parameters that all of us are.
> 
> Gay people can get married...just like we can. If they want to partcipate, they have to marry a not-closely-related, not-already married, not-underaged person of the opposite sex who is of sound mind.
> 
> We all have the exact same right to participate. They, like many career bachelors  and bachelorettes, and closely related roommates and people who are engaged in extramarital affairs, choose not to participate in the construct.



Same argument applied to interacial marriage. Black had the SAME rights as everyone to marry someone of their own race.

Its called bigotry. Try not to express it so much.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 4, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I disagree with David and Jonathan.  That aside, including them going back what, 7000 years, you have managed to list nine (9)?  That is not saying much.  Guess the humanitarian abilities of the homosexuals are right up there with the muslims.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 4, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Deceiver!


----------



## logical4u (Jun 4, 2012)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Horse crap.
> ...



Are there homosexuals in heterosexual marriages?


----------



## logical4u (Jun 4, 2012)

Vidi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Manipulation and Deception


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2012)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yep...and that usually does not end well.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 4, 2012)

logical4u said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Your accusations only further prove that you base your entire argument on fear and ignorance.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 4, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Are there homosexuals in heterosexual marriages?




No.


Homosexual indicates sexual orientation just as Heterosexual indicates sexual orientation.  For it to be a heterosexual Civil Marriage it would have to be the Civil Marriage of two heterosexuals.  If one of the two persons in the Civil Marriage is a homosexual, then it would be a homosexual/heterosexual Civil Marriage.


You can have two homosexuals in a Same-gender Civil Marriage.

You can have two heterosexuals in a Different-gender Civil Marriage.

You can have one homosexual and one heterosexual in a Same-gender Civil Marriage.

You can also have one homosexual and one heterosexual in a Different-gender Civil Marriage.

The laws are written as a function of gender, not sexual orientation.

>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 4, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You're joking, right?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2012)

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


really?besides you not using the link, just the three I listed changed the world forever.  (even more than jesus) 

this statement: "Guess the humanitarian abilities of the homosexuals are right up there with the muslims"---logical4u..
ii rock solid proof that you are  an ignorant, bigoted, illiterate  fuck!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It's not true that they're excluded from being married. They are subject to the exact same parameters that all of us are.
> 
> Gay people can get married...just like we can. If they want to partcipate, they have to marry a not-closely-related, not-already married, not-underaged person *of the opposite sex* who is of sound mind.
> 
> We all have the exact same right to participate. They, like many career bachelors  and bachelorettes, and closely related roommates and people who are engaged in extramarital affairs, choose not to participate in the construct.



The mistake you make here, among many, is the perception of marriage law as acknowledging gender bias, which it doesnt. The states marriage laws are gender neutral, a contract among equal partners and the state; consequently there is no good reason same-sex couples can not enter into such a contract.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 5, 2012)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



so, homosexuals CAN marry?


----------



## logical4u (Jun 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Please list when "homosexual marriage" was used interchangeably with "traditional marriage" in the last five hundred years (modern history).  It is a new concept that requires re-defining a word with a meaning that has been in place for thousands of years.  If homosexuals can marry heterosexuals and produce children (and they are), they have the exact same rights that are in place today.  You are deceiving people by telling them otherwise.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 5, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I did not read the link.  Like I said, you listed nine.  Hitler changed the world forever, also.
You gave the examples of those, not me.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 5, 2012)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...




Oh...Ouch.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



This is ignorant nonsense. The is no such thing as homosexual marriage. 

Marriage is marriage, a contract entered into by two equal partners. In_ Perry v. Brown_ the 9th Circuit ruled that to disallow same-sex couples access to a states marriage law is un-Constitutional in that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

http://www.bradblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012-02-07-Decision-on-Merits.pdf

Your position is legally invalid and irrelevant, subjective opinion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



They may not marry as long as they are prohibited from marrying a person of the same-sex. Allowing homosexuals to marry only heterosexuals of the opposite sex is a form of discrimination, such as segregation, where a separate but equal marriage policy is just as offensive to the Constitution as a separate but equal education policy. 

Prior to_ Loving v. Virginia_, African-Americans were allowed to marry, provided it was only to a person of the same race. In _Loving_ the Court held such separate but equal provisions un-Constitutional as a violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and marriage. These two fundamental rights forbid the state from dictating to citizens whom they may or may not marry; the issue is not the mere ability to marry, but the right to decide with whom free from interference from the state. 

Case law in support: 

Griswold v. Connecticut

Loving v. Virginia


----------



## daws101 (Jun 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


I listed 5. seems your math skills are on par with your reading skills...

  exampleavid & Jonathan (the authors you don't count them)  


Harmodius & Aristogiton


Plato


Alexander

Socrates

that would leave 5
 if I did add them that would make 7 not 9 

once again rock solid proof that you are  an ignorant, bigoted, illiterate  fuck!:


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 6, 2012)

And Jesus changed the world more than any of those...and is still changing the world. And will change the world as to make it unrecognizable in the future, as well.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And Jesus changed the world more than any of those...and is still changing the world. And will change the world as to make it unrecognizable in the future, as well.


some advice, better to not speak and let everyone think you're an ignorant asshole,
then opening your mouth proving it so


----------



## logical4u (Jun 6, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



There is a difference.  Try going into most countries in the world and introducing your same sex partner as your spouse.  The results could be really ugly.  One corrupt judge does not change thousands of years of a definition.  It does not matter what he says, homosexual actions are not "acceptable" and the legitimizing of those actions is "foolish".  That judge has been exposed as "sympathetic" to homosexual agendas, BTW.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 6, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



A corrupt judge and a case involving different "races" (not same sexes).  Great support there.

Same question: Do homosexuals marry people of the opposite sex?  Simple question, just answer it.  Do homosexuals have sex with people of the opposite sex and have offspring?  Another simple question that you can answer.  If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", there is no discrimmination.  You just have some emotionally imature people crying: but I waaaaant it, I WAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT IT.  You cannot show where it does anything good for society.  It has been voted down by the population when it is put up for a vote.  Maybe you can show where there is more than 2% of the population that actually wants "homosexual" marriage with some facts and not a tantrum.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 6, 2012)

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Like I said, over 7000 years, that is not impressive.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Therefore you would be in favor of sterile hetrosexuals being barred from marriage?


----------



## logical4u (Jun 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Let's stick with the OBVIOUS, two people of the same sex, cannot produce children, together.  Tracking "sterile" heterosexuals would be like making abortion illegal: expensive to monitor, and wide open for abuse.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2012)

> Does homosexual sex have any chance of "producing" (conceiving)? That would be scientific authority (but you guys don't care for science when it is easy to prove)



The ability to procreate or not is legally irrelevant, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry. 



> What gives you the authority to change the traditional family that has been in place for thousands of years, and where it is celebrated and reinforced, those families have made the most productive societies in the history of the world? Please give examples of the great contributions that homosexuals have left for the generations that will "follow" them.



Nothing is being 'changed.' 

Again, in both _Romer_ and _Lawrence_, the Court upheld and reaffirmed the doctrine that because a thing is &#8216;traditional&#8217; or &#8216;historic&#8217; is not justification to preempt a fundamental right. 

And there is no evidence documenting that same-sex couples will have a negative impact on society. Indeed, all the objective research establishes the fact that families with same-sex parents are as stable and as nurturing as families headed by opposite-sex parents. See: _Perry v. Brown_.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 7, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Does homosexual sex have any chance of "producing" (conceiving)? That would be scientific authority (but you guys don't care for science when it is easy to prove)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


bump


----------



## logical4u (Jun 7, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Does homosexual sex have any chance of "producing" (conceiving)? That would be scientific authority (but you guys don't care for science when it is easy to prove)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



from another thread
"Gadawg
You were saying...


Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u  
Quote: Originally Posted by Gadawg73  
8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
Gays are getting married now.
How has it affected ANYONE?
Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.
I guess that is because you choose to ignore the truth. The first article is about domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Usually, when "couples" are violent, similar acts of violence are targeted towards the children....

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia
In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders.

Regarding studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[2] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[3] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[3]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexual couples:



 

Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community... 
Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are HIV-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humiliation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.[4]

 


In 2000, the New York Times in an article entitled Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships cites some information which may indicate that domestic abuse may be under-reported in the homosexual community.[5] The New York Times article states the following:


 

But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently...
For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston.

Mr. Shannon said: People feel, 'Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.' [5] 


Studies
The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded that "married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."[6]
Another study indicated that 83% of homosexuals report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. [7]
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states that "11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner".[8]
A study published in The Journal of Family Violence reported among its participants that "Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" of its participants.[7]
A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. [9]
A 1985 study of 1109 lesbians by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they had been abused by a female partner.[10]
Coleman, in a 1990 study of 90 lesbians reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence.[11]
A study of 113 lesbians reported (1994) that 41% said they had been abused in one or more relationships.[12]
In their book, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (1991), Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[13]
The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse." [14]
A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."[15]

Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons | Mail Online A gay couple who adopted nine boys have been accused of sexually assaulting two of the children.

Read more: Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons | Mail Online

A DUTCH man accused of sexually abusing more than 60 children was married to his homosexual lover. Under American law, this man would be able to adopt children or obtain children through surrogates and raise them in his home. How long before we see children subjected to a lifetime of abuse by their adoptive homosexual parents? Heterosexual men commit sexual abuse too, but they do not have the same rate of sexual perversion against the young. The Thinking Housewife  Married Pedophile Accused of Abusing More than 60 Children

BY DOUG PATTON, Conservative viewpoint

All who continue to deny the dire warnings concerning the freak show that awaits our culture at the bottom of the slippery slope called "gay rights" need only contemplate the story of 11-year-old Thomas Lobel. 

Thomas is being raised in San Francisco (of course) by two lesbians, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, who claim they were "married" by a rabbi in some sort of ceremony back in 1990. They adopted Thomas when he was 2 years old. 

Because he has a speech impediment, Thomas learned sign language at an early age. According to his two "mothers," he told them in sign language  at age 3, mind you  that he was a girl. On the strength of that assertion  from a 3-year-old!  Moreno and Lobel made a gigantic leap and assumed it must be true. Thomas, they concluded, must be what is euphemistically referred to these days as "transgendered." You know, transgendered, like "Chaz" Bono, Sonny and Cher's little girl-turned-lesbian-turned-boy-turned-who-knows-what-next.

So, this troubled little boy, Thomas Lobel (whom the only parents he has ever known now call "Tammy"), confused and withdrawn because of his handicap, was brainwashed into believing something he couldn't possibly understand yet. 

Four years ago, when Thomas was 7, psychiatrists "diagnosed" him with "gender identity disorder." By age 8, with ongoing encouragement from his two lesbian parents, he was supposedly "transitioning," whatever that means. 

But this story gets worse. Much, much worse. 

This summer, aided and abetted by a medical establishment that no longer has any moral or cultural moorings, these two deviants started the hideous process of "gender reassignment" on poor Thomas, now 11, in order to suppress the onset of his male puberty and physically turn him into a girl! This "therapy" includes a hormone-suppressant, which is implanted in his upper left arm to prevent him from developing naturally into the boy God intended him to be. It will suppress the growth of facial hair, the natural deepening of his voice and the broadening of his shoulders.

Thomas will remain a pre-pubescent boy until he and his "mothers" decide whether he should transition to an adult female. In order to do that, he will have to take female hormones, which will raise his voice, allow him to grow breasts and develop other feminine physical characteristics. Lastly, of course, is the decision to have sex-change surgery.

San Francisco is one of only four cities in the United States with a hospital that has a program for "transgender children." The others are Boston, Seattle and Los Angeles. The University of California San Francisco is home to the Center of Excellence for Transgender Health. 

Such an innocuous sounding name. 

There is virtually no chance that this poor, bewildered boy will "decide" to do anything other than to allow himself to be manipulated and mutilated by these domineering women in his life. They, along with the so-called doctors who condone and facilitate this perversion, should be prosecuted for child abuse. 

What will these two decide to convince their son to become next? A dog? A cat? A fencepost? A lesbian? What was wrong with him being a boy? That's how he was born. That's what he was supposed to be. 

"Everybody was angry with us," Moreno says. "They all said, 'How could you be doing this? You might be ruining his whole life!'" She says she and her partner have faced intense criticism from both friends and family. 

What they should be facing is a judge and jury. Instead, we have criminal child abuse being validated by our psychiatric community and our legal system. It may not be popular to say so, but this is the stagnant social cesspool that results from embracing deviancy.

In the blink of an eye we have gone from unthinkable to the new normal. 

Lesbian couple guilty of criminal child abuse | Hernando Today

Exposure to a plethora of pernicious elements that often plague the homosexual lifestyle left Dawn feeling outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities.


From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my fathers relationships.
The Effects of Gay Marriage on Children | This is Marriage

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Lesbian Couple sentenced 30 years for Child Abuse 

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

Kenmore women each sentenced to 30 years

Two Kenmore women accused of abusing their six children were sentenced to 30 years in prison each this afternoon.

Mary Rowles, 31, the mother of the six children, and her lesbian partner, Alice Jenkins, 28, could have received more than 100 years each from Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove.

In October, the women pleaded guilty to an entire 55-count indictment alleging kidnapping, child endangering, felonious assault and other charges involving the children, now ages 7 to 15.

Rowles' five sons allege they were locked in dark closets, deprived of food, forced to eat feces and were mentally and physically abused for a year or more. Rowles' 12-year-old daughter was not subjected to the same abuse, police said, but is included as a victim because of her presence in the home. Lesbian Couple sentenced 30 years for Child Abuse - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy

Posted on December 1, 2007


For some reason, when I read about this I though of a recent post over on Feminist Critics:


Seven-year-old Sean Gibson was found earlier this month wandering in a parking lot by employees of Westgate Resorts in Kissimee, Florida. He was out late by himself and begging for food at a buffet. The poor kid only weighed 37 pounds. They called authories who took him to the hospital.

Now domestic partners Suzette Stevenson, 45, and Jamie Lynn Martin, 26, have been charged with aggravated child abuse.

Fair warning, the torture these women subjected this boy to is rather graphic:


The boy, who is not a biological child to either woman, was allegedly tied by his wrists and made to stand in an upright position for hours at a time, forced to drink shampoo, was burned with cigarettes and had to urinate and defecate in a closet, according the Baker County Sheriffs Office documents.

-

Instead, the two women allegedly threatened him with a box cutter and left him in a car, drugged with some type of adult sleeping pill, as they tried to collect $100 in a real estate promotion awarded to anyone who visited a timeshare open house.

And here:


The staff at Celebration was appalled when the extent of Seans abuse became apparent.

They amputated the big toe of his left foot, one of two that had been broken by bending. Other injuries include rope burns on his wrists from where he was left hanging by his arms from two large wall lights at the trailer.

He had burns on the sides of his ears, and they believe those came from being dragged across carpets, said the investigator. The doctor initially called him walking death and indicated he may have damage to internal organs from repeated kicking.

Seans head was covered in bruises and knots believed to be from blows by fists, hands or other objects.

The one thing about this is that at numerous point people had the opportunity to intervene. At the daycare someone should have noticed. The fact that this boy was pulled out of school should have been a red flag. Or maybe someone could have bothered to verify the fake birth certificate these women had. The social service system was designed to address situations like this, but at every point that someone had a chance to step in no one did a thing. In the end it was the boy had to save himself.

One other element about this stands out. These two women were torturing this boy for apparently no reason at all. That just does not fit with the general profile of abusers. There is always reason, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Given that, I cannot say that the torture was not mitigated by these womens general attitude towards males as a result of their sexual orientation. That is not to say that being lesbians caused them to be abusive, but there seem to be a propensity for lesbians who abuse children to specifically target boys. Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy | Toy Soldiers


To be honest, I quit looking at this point. I was looking for a case, I believe out of CA where a lesbian couple abuse a young girl (she had cigarette burns), and other scars of abuse. I have noticed when those cases "make" the news, they are only posted for a short while, and get no where near the attention that other abuse cases get."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 8, 2012)

logical4u said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Does homosexual sex have any chance of "producing" (conceiving)? That would be scientific authority (but you guys don't care for science when it is easy to prove)
> ...



Isolated, anecdotal, incidental cases do not constitute evidence. One can find news stories with heterosexual parents committing the same crimes, but that doesnt prove opposite-sex couples are any more unfit as parents than same-sex couples.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 8, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Lol..even when they aren't isolated, anecdotal or incidental?


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 8, 2012)

OMG Wall of text, quoted wall of text, quoted wall of text!  

Please, use links rather than such huge posts.  They are rude.  And please, don't quote someone else's huge post.  Same issue.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 8, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Homosexuals are a tiny part of the population, there should be no incidents.  De Nile isn't just a river.


----------



## NeoTemplar (Jun 9, 2012)

garyganu said:


> The use of the word Faggot is an unnecessary and highly offensive pejorative. You lose all of your credibility because the main point of you post is to insult people.
> 
> People are a collection unique individuals that we must share the world with. I doesn't help anyone to make needless insults. It only turns people against you and shows that you are a cruel person.



Its only an insult if you choose to take it as one the word actually means to bind as one and Gays actually bind themselves to one gender so its actually quite fitting.



PredFan said:


> The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.



I have no problem with giving gays rights as long as they don't include Marriage and children, if a gay wants to get married or have kids go find the opposite sex, if not don't bitch about not having the right to do it




BDBoop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



except being able to marry and have kids which are heterosexually exclusive and always have been.



BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



No matter what you would like to believe its not a marriage because it isn't supported by any Religion and that was Marriage is all about. because Marriage is an institute of Religion rather then Government, through all of history the religion rather then the Government has sanctified marriage its properly defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex because it originally meant to take a wife which also defined as a female partner.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s an illegal &#8216;solution.&#8217;
> ...



That would automaticly redefine the term, is your reading comprehension lacking?





JakeStarkey said:


> Our American laws will enforce the same obligations on gay as well as straight parents, garyganu.  You have nothing to worry about.  But is suspect this is not a legal argument really, just a stalking horse for a moral or religious one.  You are in the vast minority of those who feel your way in the forty and under set.  Your way is going to be extinct in America in fifty years as the passenger pigeon.



There are also psychological ramifications here that your failing to take into account.



BDBoop said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 9, 2012)

NeoTemplar said:


> Its only an insult if you choose to take it as one the word actually means to bind as one and Gays actually bind themselves to one gender so its actually quite fitting.


The term faggot (in reference to homosexuals) originates from the definition "a bundle of sticks." The correlation between these two things is that centuries ago people would use homosexuals as wood kindling for those being burned at the stake. So... gays didn't even deserve a "trial" to be burned at the stake... they were just used as fire wood.

Seems rather derogatory to me (especially in the context that it is usually said in). Although, I personally am not offended by something as silly as just one word.



> I have no problem with giving gays rights as long as they don't include Marriage and children, if a gay wants to get married or have kids go find the opposite sex, if not don't bitch about not having the right to do it except being able to marry and have kids which are heterosexually exclusive and always have been.


So far I have yet to see a valid argument supporting this.



> No matter what you would like to believe its not a marriage because it isn't supported by any Religion and that was Marriage is all about. because Marriage is an institute of Religion rather then Government, through all of history the religion rather then the Government has sanctified marriage its properly defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex because it originally meant to take a wife which also defined as a female partner.


Well, it's too bad for you that civil marriage exists... Oh, and that not all of us are apart of your religion.



> There are also psychological ramifications here that your failing to take into account.


Really? Such as what?



> If Gays can't automaticlly breed then they aren't meant to have sex, in other words it isn't natural.


No... it just means it's not normal in comparison to the rest of society. Not unnatural. 



> Thats extremely ignorant of you it affects all marriage everywhere for all time from then on, in psychological and socital way. The problem that heterosexuals have with Gays wanting to marry is that would imply that same-sex marriage is just as valid and necessary as traditional marriage which is not the case, also all married couples share a psychological and emotional bond that they don't want to share with homosexuals because its purely heterosexual in nature.


Really now? Homosexuals don't share a bond on a "psychological and emotional" level? How do you know this?




> The court has no right to change any religious Institution


I agree. However, that is completely irrelevant when discussing the _legal_ recognition  of same-sex marriage.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 9, 2012)

> I have no problem with giving gays rights as long as they don't include Marriage and children, if a gay wants to get married or have kids go find the opposite sex, if not don't bitch about not having the right to do it.



Theres no such thing as gay rights, just as theres no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is contract law, written by the states; all citizens are entitled access that that law, regardless sexual orientation. 



> except being able to marry and have kids which are heterosexually exclusive and always have been.



And again: the ability to procreate or not is irrelevant. 



> No matter what you would like to believe its not a marriage because it isn't supported by any Religion and that was Marriage is all about. because Marriage is an institute of Religion rather then Government, through all of history the religion rather then the Government has sanctified marriage its properly defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex because it originally meant to take a wife which also defined as a female partner.



Marriage in this context is secular law, having noting to do with religion. Marriage law has been gender-neutral for decades, the doctrine of coverture long abandoned by the states. 



> Your the one doing all the twisting, Marriages is clear defined in every civilization in history as being between a man and a woman, why do Gays want something thats purely hetrosexual? Its like a lesbian saying she wants a Penis instead of her favorite Dildo.



Also irrelevant. That something offensive to the Constitution is traditional or historic doesnt justify its continued practice. 



> You cannot compare Inter-racial marriage with Gays wanting to marry as Inter-racial marriage is defined as being between a man and woman of seperate race or skin color.



Of course one can, both concern freedom of choice in the context of the right to privacy, as well as the right of equal protection of the law. 



> Thats extremely ignorant of you it affects all marriage everywhere for all time from then on, in psychological and socital way. The problem that heterosexuals have with Gays wanting to marry is that would imply that same-sex marriage is just as valid and necessary as traditional marriage which is not the case, also all married couples share a psychological and emotional bond that they don't want to share with homosexuals because its purely heterosexual in nature.



Actually, youre the only one exhibiting his ignorance. Again, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage or traditional marriage, as a given states marriage law is the same for all. No same-sex couple is advocating any law be changed, only that they be allowed access to the same law as opposite-sex couples. 



> The court has no right to change any religious Institution



No one ever said it did.


----------



## Tsalagi (Jun 9, 2012)

Who can possibly try to read/post in this mish/mash of global garbage regurgitated time and again by people too lazy?, incompetent?, oh whatever, to make a point?


----------

