A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

Why do you object too brothers and sisters getting married?

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]

Gay couples with children are families too, whether the gov't recognizes them as married or not.

So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters from marring each other.

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.

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

 

[BDBoop]

You were saying?

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?"

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.

So what exactly do you think should happen to gay people? If you say "make them straight" then you must know that is impossible if you do any research into objective science ("Scientists" who work for strongly religious groups are not in any way objective and can "prove" a myriad of things that are false). "Ex-gays" have been proven to be false time and time again, and by the omission of leaders who used to run such organizations (look up Exodus, the original ex-gay group).

So, since they can't change their sexuality, now what? Force them into a life of abstinence? Kill them? Really, what should be done with them?

Has any harm come upon you, or anyone you know, as a result of same-sex attraction? Has the moral foundation of the US crumbled as homosexuality has become more accepted in the last few decades? Is anyone hurt when two people of the same sex love each other? Can anything harmful be blamed specifically on same sex attraction?

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Oh yeah, they were wrong back then, but you're not wrong this time. They're totally different. Yeah, right...

You were saying you can't read?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Why do you object too brothers and sisters getting married?

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.

The two are equal. both are dealing with your stance on right to marriage.

 

[BDBoop]

So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters from marring each other.

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.

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

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]

You were saying?

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?"

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.

So what exactly do you think should happen to gay people? If you say "make them straight" then you must know that is impossible if you do any research into objective science ("Scientists" who work for strongly religious groups are not in any way objective and can "prove" a myriad of things that are false). "Ex-gays" have been proven to be false time and time again, and by the omission of leaders who used to run such organizations (look up Exodus, the original ex-gay group).

So, since they can't change their sexuality, now what? Force them into a life of abstinence? Kill them? Really, what should be done with them?

Has any harm come upon you, or anyone you know, as a result of same-sex attraction? Has the moral foundation of the US crumbled as homosexuality has become more accepted in the last few decades? Is anyone hurt when two people of the same sex love each other? Can anything harmful be blamed specifically on same sex attraction?

Yeah, AIDS is more easily spread through anal sex. But unprotected sex (and other fluid sharing activities) is the real culprit of AIDS transmission. If you blame gay people, then why aren't you campaigning against black people and sub-saharan africa as well? It's not the people, it's the unsafe activity.

Anyways, you're mind likely will not be changed as you have a likely unchangeable belief that being gay is wrong. Same as the people 60 years back who thought it was clearly wrong to integrate society, same as the slave owners who found it ridiculous to allow blacks any access to normal society.

Oh yeah, they were wrong back then, but you're not wrong this time. They're totally different. Yeah, right...

You were saying you can't read?

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]

You were saying?

You were saying you can't read?

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.

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]

So are brother and sisters but if gays are allowed to marry nothing to stop brother and sisters from marring each other.

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.

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

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]

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.

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

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.

What the fuck is this thread about the right to marry?
Both go hand in hand.

 

[BDBoop]

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

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.

What the fuck is this thread about the right to marry?
Both go hand in hand.

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]

You were saying you can't read?

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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 idiot. You were molested, and you don't even know it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What the fuck is this thread about the right to marry?
Both go hand in hand.

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.

Brothers and sisters await your approval

 

[Montrovant]

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?

So no answer to my question?

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.

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]

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]

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?

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 idiot. You were molested, and you don't even know it.

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]

As long as the discussion is about a right of marriage both go hand in hand.

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.

What the fuck is this thread about the right to marry?
Both go hand in hand.

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]

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 idiot. You were molested, and you don't even know it.

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.

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]

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 idiot. You were molested, and you don't even know it.

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.

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]

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?