Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[gallantwarrior]

What if gay is natural, but it's just natural for a minority of the population? Will you accept it then?

no....because it is abnormal for the rest of the population......because it is not 'natural' for children to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers....marriage is the basis for the family unit which is the basic foundation of society....the family unit is naturally composed of a mother, a father, and a child....

I said nothing of living arrangements for children. I'm speaking only of Sexual Orientation. I'm assuming that you accept red hair, left handedness, green eyes, etc., all of which are "natural" to only a small percentage of the population. Do you reject those, just because the numbers are small?

Are step-families "unnatural"? Are "adopted children" unnatural?

Then you are willfully ignorant of the true purpose for "sexual orientation". Sex has one biological purpose and one only. Anything else is a personal preference.

 

[WinterBorn]

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

 

[bodecea]

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

So...you are saying that the gay agenda is to force the majority to have gay marriages.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

99% of men are XY and 99% of women are XX.

Are you suggesting genetic testing as a prerequisite for marriage?

Why are you having so much trouble answering this simple question?

Is it XX and XX, or XX and XY?

You seem to be holding something back? Why is that?

how many times need it be answered? men are XY and women are XX.

you are not making sense---must be a liberal thing.

Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I said nothing of living arrangements for children. I'm speaking only of Sexual Orientation. I'm assuming that you accept red hair, left handedness, green eyes, etc., all of which are "natural" to only a small percentage of the population. Do you reject those, just because the numbers are small?

Are step-families "unnatural"? Are "adopted children" unnatural?

No neither, but then again, the children are Always created between a male and a female. It can happen in no other coupling.

Get it?

So step-parents and adopted children are "natural"?

Did you know that we can make a child that has three biological parents? That if you want only a girl we should soon be able to make one from two women, no male genetics at all? If I make a baby in a lab, we do that, is it natural?

No.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no....because it is abnormal for the rest of the population......because it is not 'natural' for children to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers....marriage is the basis for the family unit which is the basic foundation of society....the family unit is naturally composed of a mother, a father, and a child....

I said nothing of living arrangements for children. I'm speaking only of Sexual Orientation. I'm assuming that you accept red hair, left handedness, green eyes, etc., all of which are "natural" to only a small percentage of the population. Do you reject those, just because the numbers are small?

Are step-families "unnatural"? Are "adopted children" unnatural?

Then you are willfully ignorant of the true purpose for "sexual orientation". Sex has one biological purpose and one only. Anything else is a personal preference.

Really? If sex is about making babies why do people who can't have children have sex? Are they just really stupid?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No neither, but then again, the children are Always created between a male and a female. It can happen in no other coupling.

Get it?

So step-parents and adopted children are "natural"?

Did you know that we can make a child that has three biological parents? That if you want only a girl we should soon be able to make one from two women, no male genetics at all? If I make a baby in a lab, we do that, is it natural?

No.

Then you mean No, step-parents and adopted children aren't "natural"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

So step-parents and adopted children are "natural"?

Did you know that we can make a child that has three biological parents? That if you want only a girl we should soon be able to make one from two women, no male genetics at all? If I make a baby in a lab, we do that, is it natural?

Name the child conceived by the contribution of only males. No matter how many males. 1000000000 males, by themselves cannot create a child.

Keep trying, it is amusing

Still need an answer here. You're an honest person right?

He appears to be, but you appear to be seriously deluded. Drink a lot of koolaid, do you?

 

[Redfish]

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

 

[WinterBorn]

What if gay is natural, but it's just natural for a minority of the population? Will you accept it then?

no....because it is abnormal for the rest of the population......because it is not 'natural' for children to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers....marriage is the basis for the family unit which is the basic foundation of society....the family unit is naturally composed of a mother, a father, and a child....

One breeding pair: male, female, and related offspring.
Fucking someone of the same gender is a choice. Reasons for making that choice may vary, but it is not a biologically normal relationship.
Better ask whether monogamy is natural for homo Sapiens.

Do you know anyone who got married so they could fuck?

Everyone I know who is married, did so because they were in love. Now maybe you can DECIDE or CHOOSE which gender you fall in love with, but most people cannot.

 

[bodecea]

Name the child conceived by the contribution of only males. No matter how many males. 1000000000 males, by themselves cannot create a child.

Keep trying, it is amusing

Still need an answer here. You're an honest person right?

He appears to be, but you appear to be seriously deluded. Drink a lot of koolaid, do you?

Why is it that you now feel the need to go personal as opposed to answering questions?

 

[The T]

no....because it is abnormal for the rest of the population......because it is not 'natural' for children to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers....marriage is the basis for the family unit which is the basic foundation of society....the family unit is naturally composed of a mother, a father, and a child....

Correct. These people wish to redefine the natural order...and force everyone to accept it...it doesn't work, NEVER will.

That is the crux of the issue, whether using force of government, and law, really makes their choices legitimately normal.

Agreed. And nor should the force of imperial government be used. It is an individual choice to accept it or not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Name the child conceived by the contribution of only males. No matter how many males. 1000000000 males, by themselves cannot create a child.

Keep trying, it is amusing

Still need an answer here. You're an honest person right?

He appears to be, but you appear to be seriously deluded. Drink a lot of koolaid, do you?

An honest person answers questions, dont you think?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Oh I don't know that I'd say that but it's been down. The question is, if it's a choice, why would I risk it?

Why did Christians risk being fed to the lions?

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

And yet, folks like you repeatedly piss on religion and religious objection to same-gender "marriages" because of their belief in a "make-believe sky-god". Hypocrite much?

 

[The T]

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

This too.

 

[bodecea]

Correct. These people wish to redefine the natural order...and force everyone to accept it...it doesn't work, NEVER will.

That is the crux of the issue, whether using force of government, and law, really makes their choices legitimately normal.

Agreed. And nor should the force of imperial government be used. It is an individual choice to accept it or not.

So...when did you start actively working to get government out of marriage? And what are some of the things you have done in that regard?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why are you having so much trouble answering this simple question?

Is it XX and XX, or XX and XY?

You seem to be holding something back? Why is that?

how many times need it be answered? men are XY and women are XX.

you are not making sense---must be a liberal thing.

Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?

Can anyone tell my why this is such a hard question to get an answer to?

 

[WinterBorn]

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

 

[Redfish]

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

So...you are saying that the gay agenda is to force the majority to have gay marriages.

NO, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to declare that your gay union is normal and equally acceptable as a man/woman union.

But its not, its an aberation. But you are entitled to equal rights just like a downs syndrome person is entitled to equal rights.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

You speculate all you like. The fact remains that people will risk death to engage in certain behaviors.

Let's say that you really wanted to have sex with a dog, but you knew we'd burn you at the stake if we caught you, you'd actually seen it happen before, would you still do it? Wouldn't you say to yourself, man I want to but if I get caught I'm dead, it's just not worth it? Now I'm sure a few would, but 1, or 2, or 3 out of a 100, year after year, age after age? That would be crazy wouldn't it?

Does that make having sex with dogs (or other animals) OK in your book? I guess having sex with children is OK, too. After all, it must be natural for some people to be "minor attracted".