A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

loving vs Virginia was about what? Race or the illegal act of homosexuality?

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.

I didn't equate homosexuality and racism.

Why are you referencing a court case specifically about race in a same sex marriage discussion?

Are you incapable of reading? I stated it quite clearly.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

I didn't equate homosexuality and racism.

Why are you referencing a court case specifically about race in a same sex marriage discussion?

Are you incapable of reading? I stated it quite clearly.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

So why do we have the 1,400 benefits given to married couples?

Can you offer me a reason for those benefits?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

Why are you referencing a court case specifically about race in a same sex marriage discussion?

Are you incapable of reading? I stated it quite clearly.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

And the bullying, name-calling, and hostility had no bearing on it at all?

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, as I thought...there's no evidence. It's all fairy tales.

Whoops, said fairy.

 

[Samson]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

And the bullying, name-calling, and hostility had no bearing on it at all?

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]

Are you incapable of reading? I stated it quite clearly.

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.

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?

But you have used loving vs Virginia as a reference for gay marriage true or false?

 

[Samson]

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

And the bullying, name-calling, and hostility had no bearing on it at all?

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?

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."