Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[OCA]

I've asked at least a dozen times for someone to prove that homosexuality is natural and normal and no one as of yet has answered that. So at this point we are at the point that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice and therefore underserving of the sanctity of marriage which is meant for man and woman only. Clear it up for ya?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Yep, is it worth reading though?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
IP's can be used by multiple people. Case in point, Mine and my spouses. Machines behind the same proxy or firewall can end up being the same exact IP so until there is definitive proof, other than an exact IP address, lets ease up on the dual identity accusations.

So far I've seen nothing to indicate that flasher would have any need to use a second identity.

What are the chances given the population of America that two people with the same exact ip address not related to each other or roommates, as Flasher as indicated he has no idea who it could be, could be using the same IP address? I would think astronomical.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
This thread is monsterous. I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense. Is there any substance to it? Can someone give me a brief synopsis?

That is rather insulting to those of us who DID post valid discussion and you want the cliff notes.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

No offense man. It's just that I've read so many posts on social issues on this board that just degenerate into nonsense and bullshit instead of real ideas and issues with real consequences. I wasn't dissing anyone in particular, I'm just tired of threads that end with meaningless personal attacks and garbage in place of genuine debate.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by OCA
I've asked at least a dozen times for someone to prove that homosexuality is natural and normal and no one as of yet has answered that. So at this point we are at the point that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice and therefore underserving of the sanctity of marriage which is meant for man and woman only. Clear it up for ya?

Why is homosexuality dangerous?
Gay sex may not be appealing to us, but it is not risky unless those practicing it are irresponsible.

THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT HETERO SEX.

Can't get dick off the brain, eh OCA?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Why is homosexuality dangerous?
Gay sex may not be appealing to us, but it is not risky unless those practicing it are irresponsible.

THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT HETERO SEX.

Can't get dick off the brain, eh OCA?

Go look at AIDS stats Chippewa then come back and talk to me.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
No offense man. It's just that I've read so many posts on social issues on this board that just degenerate into nonsense and bullshit instead of real ideas and issues with real consequences. I wasn't dissing anyone in particular, I'm just tired of threads that end with meaningless personal attacks and garbage in place of genuine debate.

Well Syntax here is a real question for ya: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Of course not. This isn't some geometric postulate with a series of finite, logical proofs. This is a social issue, and as such, one's perception of it is colored by their social and cultural conditioning. Give me a break dude.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Of course not. This isn't some geometric postulate with a series of finite, logical proofs.

It is if you consider the ability to tell the future proof of divinity in relation to the Bible.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I don't. Your post has nothing to do with what I just said.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I don't. Your post has nothing to do with what I just said.

Actually, you THINK it had nothing to do with what you just said.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Right. That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature. This is a message board. You editorialize on it. Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible. Get real man.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Right. That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature. This is a message board. You editorialize on it.

Not everything is merely an editorial. Some FACTS exist in proof format.

Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible. Get real man.

That isn't what I said, nor meant.

You are not sounding very intelligent.

 

[Joz]

Originally posted by OCA
Well Syntax here is a real question for ya: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice?

I have to agree with you here OCA. But, too, when you subtract the Bible from the equation ANYTHING can be believed.

The Bible states that sin is wrong ( murder, adultry, homosexuality, too much wine, gossip) not hormonal or genetic tendencies. And whether we want to admit it or not.....sinning is a choice.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I said everything NOT OF A FACTUAL NATURE is what I thought. Christ, can you read?? Secondly, were you not talking about the book of Revelation when you were talking about predicting the future? If not, I guess I misread you. Sorry. But jeez, I didn't say everything posted was editorializing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
rtwng,

I'm still trying very hard to find a meaning in this earlier post other than the obvious one that jumps out at me.

Are you saying that parts of the Bible you discard as ignorant and backward? If so, that must make it very easy when you have to ask forgiveness for sins (you wouldn't have very many in that case, would you?).

Surely you don't think you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you believe.

Tell me it ain't so!

TN

People have been doing for years. catholics, protestants, orthodoxs of various regions, jews for jesus; christianity is really a religion kit. You can join my sect once I decide on everything. Or you can join newguy's; he's got it all figured out, and he's actively prostelytizing.

 

[Aquarian]

syntax, as you have surmised there is mostly opinion on this thread as it's almost entirely a matter of opinion. some of the posts prior on both sides are worth reading, just skip the jabs and the repetetive posts.

oca really likes to repeat over and over his question re natural and normal despite the fact that numerous times it has been shown that 'normal' is not a prerequisite for allowable and that the question of homosexuality being natural has persuasive arguments on both sides. he discounts the hormone level during pregnancy arguments that rwa has supplied tho to be fair I think the link to the research was in another thread... he also hasn't made the realization that anything mankind does, being part of nature, is therefor natural. the better question is whether it is beneficial, harmful, or neutral impact. I'd have to say neutral as there is nothing being forced on others except for knowledge of it's existence. but that's just me

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Right. That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature. This is a message board. You editorialize on it. Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible. Get real man.

Don't be too hard on him, Syntax. He also thinks that air, trees, rocks, and soil are capable of transforming a sound wave into an auditory response.

<b><i>Originally posted by NewGuy </i>
Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.</b>

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I didn't know RWA could be funny....