DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

What does any of that have to do with marriage equality? You have yet to explain how this makes your case for keeping us from getting married?

Marriage PROMOTES monogamy so if you REALLY cared about promiscuity in the gay (male) community, you would be supportive of marriage equality instead of trying to keep us from it.

Read the link in my signature.

You rejected my statistical posts claiming they were irrelevant due to how old they were... the fact of the matter is they are not old (though some that I posted were) What is shows is that little has changed from the earlier statistics with regards to monogamy.

I have actually clearly and articulately stated my case. Your reactionary responses have failed to address it.

Marriage is a social construct that has traditionally and historically been reserved for male/female relationships. Society has promoted such relationships because they are the foundation of human beings. In the US our government has even rewarded such relationship with some benefits- not true in all countries. Still the traditional male/female unit is seen as a benefit in and of itself-as it promotes a continuation of the species and a stability for society as a whole. The term marriage itself has its Latin roots in motherhood-proof that civilization has long seen it as a promotion of the species- not a transaction of merely "loving relationships".

If homosexual adults wish to live in cohabitation, more power to them. When they choose to promote their lifestyle as the same thing of their heterosexual counterparts, they open up the debate.

Homosexuality is a deviance from the norm. It is not natures design for the species. In that way, from a biological and clinical actuality it is not equal to heterosexual relationships and it never will be.

Irrelevant, regardless your ‘sources.’

The Supreme Court has held and reaffirmed in Romer and Lawrence the long-established legal doctrine that because a practice is ‘historic’ or ‘traditional’ it does not make that practice immune from being offensive to the Constitution.

How marriage was perceived in the past has no bearing on the issue today, and consequently may not be used as justification to preempt the equal protection rights of any class of persons, including homosexuals.

Your argument was tried years ago in the courts, and that argument failed.

 

[clevergirl]

Lengthy, but factual- all of the information is sourced. Homosexuals are not monogamous statistically speaking- . . .

Heterosexuals are not faithful either.

No one cares.

No one said that heterosexuals were always monogamous- Only that homosexuals rarely are.

When the issue is changing and redefining what marriage means and has historically been encouraged for, the issue actually is relevant- regardless of your mindless dismissal-

Obviously millions of American's do care and so do you, or you would not feel compelled to comment at all.

I have stated my position. I have attempted to refrain from personal attack- I understand that the issue is an emotionally charged one- but no one here has provided me any reason to change my position-

It is likely I have likewise failed- but entrenched positions that are based in ones personal world view rarely change.

Peace~

 

[MaxCha]

I have not attacked anyone. I have stated opinions. I have stated opinions supported by statistics. i understand it is a hot button topic- and have been careful to not make it a personal attack-

The discussion is about changing policy and the fundamental and traditional role marriage has played and benefited society.

Nothing ever touted as "traditional" has EVER helped society. Human beings by nature create families, raise young if they chose, and demonstrate a remarkably similar social structuralization similar to many other primates and animals. It is in our nature. The line "traditional values" has NEVER been used to the advantage of society in all human history. No, it's used to oppress.

Every time there is a civil rights movement (Women like yourself, African Americans) people just like you stereotype a group of people and fight to prevent them from having the liberties people deserve. For one brief second, just for me, can you pretend that you are one of those people? Can you imagine how true to your convictions you would be if you had been a racist in the 50's? Seriously, just for one second pretend you are/were one of those people.

I'm willing to put myself in your shoes for a second, if you tell me how.

Let me link you to studies that show African Americans commit a lot more violent crime in proportion to white people.

http://www88.homepage.villanova.edu/lance.hannon/Forthcoming in the Journal of Poverty.pdf

Heres this study, showing African Americans have MUCH higher rates of broken families, single mothers and infidelity (as referenced in court documents) than white people.

http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ss/docs/willert_amanda_s_200308_phd.pdf

Using this as evidence, do you believe black people shouldn't be allowed to marry? In fact, if you were an adult sixty years ago wouldn't you, along with your God-loving friends, be using such studies to deny black people civil rights?

Heres a speech given by segregationist George Wallace. I'm way too lazy to look for his better ones where he actually mentions things like "protecting our families" and "preserving traditional values" or something along those lines but this has the same concept. Don't you agree with this speech - sans the racism? Because GOD FORBID you admit to being a racist!

ADAH: George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Speech

Now tell me, since current studies show black people are not only more violent, commit more murders and robberies, and have higher rates of divorce, why do you think we should NOT repeal equal rights for them? Gay people are just stereotyped as being freaks and slutty and feminine, don't you think being VIOLENT, MURDEROUS and unable to commit are even bigger threats to "family"?? Why not stop the blacks? Are you thinking "because other factors like poverty" make an influence?

I'll admit it, even I can harbor some racist thoughts sometimes. But do I wish to take away their rights? No. One of my best friends is a black girl, and she's an amazing person. I would never judge an individual person on a stereotype - but I know how it feels to generalize a group in your head.

But it is ignorant to stereotype a group of people. And infuriating to hear someone like you spout out studies about how gay people, MY people you might say, are amoral and degenerates and lack the love/capacity to marry. You have no real experience with gay people. Sure, you know some, but you haven't gotten to really know a gay person. I know this because people who end up having a gay person close to them, either a best friend or relative comes out, pretty much always end up seeing that they are doing nothing wrong, and are not bad people and have NO control over how their brain is wired.

Sounds like a white chick saying "studies show half of black people can't spell and that all black men wanna screw young white girls!" back in the day.

Can't you just leave people who have done nothing to you alone?

 

[bodecea]

Lengthy, but factual- all of the information is sourced. Homosexuals are not monogamous statistically speaking- . . .

Heterosexuals are not faithful either.

No one cares.

No one said that heterosexuals were always monogamous- Only that homosexuals rarely are. When the issue is changing and redefining what marriage means and has historically been encouraged for, the issue actually is relevant- regardless of your mindless dismissal-

Obviously millions of American's do care and so do you, or you would not feel compelled to comment at all.

I have stated my position. I have attempted to refrain from personal attack- I understand that the issue is an emotionally charged one- but no one here has provided me any reason to change my position-

It is likely I have likewise failed- but entrenched positions that are based in ones personal world view rarely change.

Peace~

Males are less likely to stay faithful....multiply that by 2. Lesbians are more faithful.

But I seriously question your comment that homosexuals are rarely monogamous.

 

[MaxCha]

Males are less likely to stay faithful....multiply that by 2. Lesbians are more faithful.

But I seriously question your comment that homosexuals are rarely monogamous.

Good point.

All these studies and almost all homophobic remarks are directed at gay MEN. Promiscuity, AIDS, dick in ass!!!!

Uhhh, I would bet good money that lesbians, on average, have the fewest sexual partners and incidents of infidelity among all relationship variations. Also the fewest incidents of domestic violence or spousal abuse. They also haven't participated in spreading a single case of HIV, at least through lesbian sex.

Funny all the "studies" never include the other half of the gay population, beyond the other blatant bias.

If anything, lesbians should think everyone else is amoral and promiscuous.

(*Yes, I'm stereotyping)

 

[Seawytch]

Males are less likely to stay faithful....multiply that by 2. Lesbians are more faithful.

But I seriously question your comment that homosexuals are rarely monogamous.

Good point.

All these studies and almost all homophobic remarks are directed at gay MEN. Promiscuity, AIDS, dick in ass!!!!

Uhhh, I would bet good money that lesbians, on average, have the fewest sexual partners and incidents of infidelity among all relationship variations. Also the fewest incidents of domestic violence or spousal abuse. They also haven't participated in spreading a single case of HIV, at least through lesbian sex.

Funny all the "studies" never include the other half of the gay population, beyond the other blatant bias.

If anything, lesbians should think everyone else is amoral and promiscuous.

(*Yes, I'm stereotyping)

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Males are less likely to stay faithful....multiply that by 2. Lesbians are more faithful.

But I seriously question your comment that homosexuals are rarely monogamous.

Good point.

All these studies and almost all homophobic remarks are directed at gay MEN. Promiscuity, AIDS, dick in ass!!!!

Uhhh, I would bet good money that lesbians, on average, have the fewest sexual partners and incidents of infidelity among all relationship variations. Also the fewest incidents of domestic violence or spousal abuse. They also haven't participated in spreading a single case of HIV, at least through lesbian sex.

Funny all the "studies" never include the other half of the gay population, beyond the other blatant bias.

If anything, lesbians should think everyone else is amoral and promiscuous.

(*Yes, I'm stereotyping)

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has to yet show how universal marriage has negatively affected those societies in any way, form, or fashion.

 

[Seawytch]

Good point.

All these studies and almost all homophobic remarks are directed at gay MEN. Promiscuity, AIDS, dick in ass!!!!

Uhhh, I would bet good money that lesbians, on average, have the fewest sexual partners and incidents of infidelity among all relationship variations. Also the fewest incidents of domestic violence or spousal abuse. They also haven't participated in spreading a single case of HIV, at least through lesbian sex.

Funny all the "studies" never include the other half of the gay population, beyond the other blatant bias.

If anything, lesbians should think everyone else is amoral and promiscuous.

(*Yes, I'm stereotyping)

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

Natural sexual relations would mean man and woman

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Then the verse goes on to say In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

Meaning for the stupid and uncomprehending people Natural sex is man and woman.

 

[Inthemiddle]

 

[MaxCha]

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

Natural sexual relations would mean man and woman

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Then the verse goes on to say In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

Meaning for the stupid and uncomprehending people Natural sex is man and woman.

Oh. Well the bible of the Flying Spaghetti Monster teaches us that "thy homophobes who hath limited intelligence shall, accordingly, be cast unblinkingly into the lake of popcorn." Spaghetti Diviori Sec 2.6.

When you take some history classes, you'll learn that as far back as the start of the dark ages, the imposition of Christianity in an area has never led to anything but more ignorance, poverty, social separation and intolerance. EVERY time.

And despite the foolishness, I'm tolerant of Christians, Islam and all the other religions that make up the rest of the world. I mean, I think it's odd each one thinks they know the truth and the only God. Theres no way to believe that without some serious avoidance and understanding.

But I don't give a shit about your beliefs. Don't try rule my life because of some primitive scroll of fiction.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

Natural sexual relations would mean man and woman

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Then the verse goes on to say In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

Meaning for the stupid and uncomprehending people Natural sex is man and woman.

Oh. Well the bible of the Flying Spaghetti Monster teaches us that "thy homophobes who hath limited intelligence shall, accordingly, be cast unblinkingly into the lake of popcorn." Spaghetti Diviori Sec 2.6.

The bible was brought up by someone other than me, stop

 

[KevinWestern]

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

Natural sexual relations would mean man and woman

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Then the verse goes on to say In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

Meaning for the stupid and uncomprehending people Natural sex is man and woman.

Quick question, do you regard oral sex between man and wife, and role-playing as BDSM sexual star wars characters (or whatever) as "natural relations" as well (just as God intended it)?

If not, would you be in favor of outlawing all of those practices too with your huge Authoritarian Government?

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do have a reading comprehension problem. The women in that allegory weren't gay. They were "naturally" straight. I'm not.

Natural sexual relations would mean man and woman

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Then the verse goes on to say In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

Meaning for the stupid and uncomprehending people Natural sex is man and woman.

Quick question, do you regard oral sex between man and wife, and role-playing as BDSM sexual star wars characters (or whatever) as "natural relations" as well (just as God intended it)?

If not, would you be in favor of outlawing all of those practices too with your huge Authoritarian Government?

.

That's between the Husband and HIS WIFE. Not for me to say one way or the other.

 

[bodecea]

Good point.

All these studies and almost all homophobic remarks are directed at gay MEN. Promiscuity, AIDS, dick in ass!!!!

Uhhh, I would bet good money that lesbians, on average, have the fewest sexual partners and incidents of infidelity among all relationship variations. Also the fewest incidents of domestic violence or spousal abuse. They also haven't participated in spreading a single case of HIV, at least through lesbian sex.

Funny all the "studies" never include the other half of the gay population, beyond the other blatant bias.

If anything, lesbians should think everyone else is amoral and promiscuous.

(*Yes, I'm stereotyping)

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

Hey, much better to be godly like Lot and offer your own virgin daughters to the crowd...or be godly like Noah and have sex with your own daughters.

These are biblically approved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good job!

The bible pretty much ignores us too

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error

Hey, much better to be godly like Lot and offer your own virgin daughters to the crowd...or be godly like Noah and have sex with your own daughters.

These are biblically approved.

The queers turned them down.

 

[MaxCha]

The queers turned them down.

That damn mob of queers didn't even rape Lots young daughters! How could they?!

Anyhoo, the bible specifically outlaws oral sex and masturbation. Anything involving "wasting seed" was outlawed, as the bible was written by primitive, rural tribal people who had no concept of the world outside the deserts they lived in and the nearest other tribes.

If the Bible says oral sex/masturbation is wrong, and the bible says homosexuality is wrong, how are you able to say that one of those laws is outdated and the other is not? Why is it okay to ignore the bible's warning in regards to some things and not others?

Here are links to Christian websites discussing the sin of masturbation.

Bible.com

Here is a bible quote telling us that even THINKING about sex with a woman who is not your wife is a sin that will send you straight to the lake Tahoe of firey lakes!

Matt 5:28-29 (NIV) [Jesus:] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

The bible also asks for execution to anyone who commits adultery, or those who have sex before marriage.

So can any Christian person not deflect the question and tell me HOW they justify ignoring certain biblical laws (with equal emphasis) and not others?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The queers turned them down.

That damn mob of queers didn't even rape Lots young daughters! How could they?!

Anyhoo, the bible specifically outlaws oral sex and masturbation. Anything involving "wasting seed" was outlawed, as the bible was written by primitive, rural tribal people who had no concept of the world outside the deserts they lived in and the nearest other tribes.

If the Bible says oral sex/masturbation is wrong, and the bible says homosexuality is wrong, how are you able to say that one of those laws is outdated and the other is not? Why is it okay to ignore the bible's warning in regards to some things and not others?

Here are links to Christian websites discussing the sin of masturbation.

Bible.com

Here is a bible quote telling us that even THINKING about sex with a woman who is not your wife is a sin that will send you straight to the lake Tahoe of firey lakes!

Matt 5:28-29 (NIV) [Jesus:] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

The bible also asks for execution to anyone who commits adultery, or those who have sex before marriage.

So can any Christian person not deflect the question and tell me HOW they justify ignoring certain biblical laws (with equal emphasis) and not others?

And this is your justiagcation for same sex marriage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The queers turned them down.

That damn mob of queers didn't even rape Lots young daughters! How could they?!

Anyhoo, the bible specifically outlaws oral sex and masturbation. Anything involving "wasting seed" was outlawed, as the bible was written by primitive, rural tribal people who had no concept of the world outside the deserts they lived in and the nearest other tribes.

If the Bible says oral sex/masturbation is wrong, and the bible says homosexuality is wrong, how are you able to say that one of those laws is outdated and the other is not? Why is it okay to ignore the bible's warning in regards to some things and not others?

Here are links to Christian websites discussing the sin of masturbation.

Bible.com

Here is a bible quote telling us that even THINKING about sex with a woman who is not your wife is a sin that will send you straight to the lake Tahoe of firey lakes!

Matt 5:28-29 (NIV) [Jesus:] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

The bible also asks for execution to anyone who commits adultery, or those who have sex before marriage.

So can any Christian person not deflect the question and tell me HOW they justify ignoring certain biblical laws (with equal emphasis) and not others?

And this is your justiagcation for same sex marriage?

It makes a lot more sense than your ‘justification’ for opposing it.