A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[KevinWestern]

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]

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]

Yeah but that's not a good argument because progressives are okay with us going extinct.

 

[KevinWestern]

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 ?

No one's discouraging hetero relationships in any way shape or form, by the way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is even crazier God had to condemn the sexual practice and bestiality as well. HELLO !

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

No one's discouraging hetero relationships in any way shape or form, by the way.

Yeah it was an exaggeration to show how it goes against nature whether you believe in God or not.

 

[KevinWestern]

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]

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....

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]

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....

Move to an island every gay man and woman and see how long you last.30 years is as long as I give you.

30 years? That's it?

 

[BDBoop]

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 ?

"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]

Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?

I would vote "Yes" if that was an option.

 

[KevinWestern]

Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?

I would vote "Yes" if that was an option.

"Yes" for what exactly?

 

[Montrovant]

It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.

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*

Let's redefine what has been normal and make it abnormal and what was once abnormal and make it normal.

Just the kind of response I was waiting for.

 

[Montrovant]

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....

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]

Is that good enough, or should we start with the Middle East shit?

I would vote "Yes" if that was an option.

"Yes" for what exactly?

The passing of laws criminalizing homosexuality.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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*

Let's redefine what has been normal and make it abnormal and what was once abnormal and make it normal.

Just the kind of response I was waiting for.

Unsurprisingly I was expecting your comment, you have nothing to add.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Give me a break, Kosh, what a dumb comment....

Move to an island every gay man and woman and see how long you last.30 years is as long as I give you.

30 years? That's it?

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]

I would vote "Yes" if that was an option.

"Yes" for what exactly?

The passing of laws criminalizing homosexuality.

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]

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 ?

"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?

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]

Logical fallacy, red herring.