Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[Dr Grump]

what would be the purpose of allowing same sex marriages.?

The same reason as hetro marriages...

 

[OCA]

The same reason as hetro marriages...

Coupling and procreation? The latter being the major reason doesn't happen in a queer fiasco. There is no valid reason to allow homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists to marry.....Chump.

Queers don't really want to get married anyway, they want legitimization of their perversion of choice, marriage is just the vehicle.

Degenerate lust is usually mistaken for love by queer lifestyle choicers.

 

[Dr Grump]

Coupling and procreation? The latter being the major reason doesn't happen in a queer fiasco. There is no valid reason to allow homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists to marry.....Chump.

Queers don't really want to get married anyway, they want legitimization of their perversion of choice, marriage is just the vehicle.

Degenerate lust is usually mistaken for love by queer lifestyle choicers.

There are millions upon millions of people who are NOT married who have kids. Dunno whether they want their lifestyle legitimised. In my eyes they are anyway, so it is an invalid argument from this end. I note homos aren't giving you grief for your lifestyle choices, maybe you could give them the same courtesy...

 

[jillian]

There are millions upon millions of people who are NOT married who have kids. Dunno whether they want their lifestyle legitimised. In my eyes they are anyway, so it is an invalid argument from this end. I note homos aren't giving you grief for your lifestyle choices, maybe you could give them the same courtesy...

Guess he doesn't think people should get married if they don't want or can't have kids, either.

But I'm sure he speaks from his huge amounts of experience speaking with gay couples when he says what *they* want.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I've noted that moralists, as a whole, tend to secretly engage in, and/or fantasize about, that activity which they most vigorously and vociferously protest.

 

[OCA]

I've noted that moralists, as a whole, tend to secretly engage in, and/or fantasize about, that activity which they most vigorously and vociferously protest.

Psychobabble at its finest:shocked1:

 

[jillian]

I've noted that moralists, as a whole, tend to secretly engage in, and/or fantasize about, that activity which they most vigorously and vociferously protest.

Yup. Methinks he doth protest too much, too.

 

[OCA]

Guess he doesn't think people should get married if they don't want or can't have kids, either.

But I'm sure he speaks from his huge amounts of experience speaking with gay couples when he says what *they* want.

If its a man and a woman then that is cool, if its two people of the same sex they are brweaking the law and what society has always deemed to be correct.

The better question is: for what reason should we reverse the will of the majority in America and change laws concerning queer marriage?

 

[OCA]

Yup. Methinks he doth protest too much, too.

Ahhhhh the simple minds, they are a beautiful thing.

Don't want to get to technical for you guys, if it keeps your mind clear to believe psychobabble about anybody who has different views than you then by all means......I want you to be able to sleep at night.

 

[jillian]

Ahhhhh the simple minds, they are a beautiful thing.

Don't want to get to technical for you guys, if it keeps your mind clear to believe psychobabble about anybody who has different views than you then by all means......I want you to be able to sleep at night.

I have no problem sleeping at night. But it seems to me like you're the one who has issues with people who are different from you.

As for the "psychobabble" BS, seems you apply that label to anything for which you have no response.

 

[OCA]

I have no problem sleeping at night. But it seems to me like you're the one who has issues with people who are different from you.

As for the "psychobabble" BS, seems you apply that label to anything for which you have no response.

Respond to the lamest argument of them all, that anyone who opposes homosexuality is queer themselves? Its so devoid of any intelligence that it renders itself laughable and unanswerable. Get back to me when you have an argument that doesn't consist of this and the other groaner........who are we to say what is right and what is wrong?

 

[jillian]

Respond to the lamest argument of them all, that anyone who opposes homosexuality is queer themselves? Its so devoid of any intelligence that it renders itself laughable and unanswerable. Get back to me when you have an argument that doesn't consist of this and the other groaner........who are we to say what is right and what is wrong?

I believe we were being tongue in cheek. I have a dollar here, perhaps you can buy a sense of humor with it?

It's not about what's right and wrong because it ISN'T your place to say what's wrong or right between ... now read carefully... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS (not sheep, not children).... It IS, however, about giving people the right to marry the other consenting adult of their choosing. By the by, again (and I know I've said this before) I don't think gay couples really care about the term "marriage" per se, if they have all the legal rights that attach to a stable, long term relationship.

And before you talk about the "sanctity of marriage", the average marriage lasts 7 years. I figure gays won't do any better or any worse.

 

[OCA]

It's not about what's right and wrong

Yes it is.



because it ISN'T your place to say what's wrong or right between ... now read carefully... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

Correct, its the voters..............and they have spoken loud and clear, haven't they? LMFAO!

 

[jillian]

It's not about what's right and wrong

Yes it is.



because it ISN'T your place to say what's wrong or right between ... now read carefully... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

Correct, its the voters..............and they have spoken loud and clear, haven't they? LMFAO!

Now read THIS carefully.... it doesn't matter what the voters say, because our Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause.

If it were up to the "voters", I figure we'd still have segregation and anti-miscegeny statutes.

 

[Hobbit]

Now read THIS carefully.... it doesn't matter what the voters say, because our Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause.

If it were up to the "voters", I figure we'd still have segregation and anti-miscegeny statutes.

And gays currently have equal protection as straights. What they want is special protection that redefines a religious institution and subsidizes a lifestyle that has been proven to be detremental to all cultures which have adopted it.

 

[OCA]

Now read THIS carefully.... it doesn't matter what the voters say, because our Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause.

If it were up to the "voters", I figure we'd still have segregation and anti-miscegeny statutes.

Oh contraire it does matter what the voters say, in fact many coonstitutional challenges to anti-queer marriage statutes have failed lately, mostly because LIFESTYLE CHOICE is not included under the equal protection clause. The things you named, segregation and misceegeny have one thing different from queers, they are by birth, queer is by choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

queer is by choice.

You can back this up, right? And don't give me that "it's been done many times before" line either. THat was then, this is now. Now, a credible link please.

That aside, even if it is was by choice, so what? Why do you care?

 

[Bullypulpit]

A point of historical interest is that the last time we saw such fervent attacks on gays and equally fervent endorsement of "family values" was in the 1930's.

At that time a campaign was begun against "sexual deviancy", i.e. homosexuality, sexual relationships outside of marriage, etc. A parallel campaign was also targeted at supporting "family values" and Christian virtue. However, this did not occur on US shores...It happened in Weimar Germany with the ascendance of the Nazi party to power.

I've heard eye-witness accounts of this era as well as read Cambridge Professor of Current History, Richard J. Evans', book on the era, <i>The Coming of the Third Reich</i>. And those two sources taken together make the parallels between then and now all the more striking, particularly given that the rhetoric of the right-wing...in America...now...is almost, word for word, that expressed by the political leaders during that benighted era in Germany. Amercia is not yet a fascist state, but we should remember history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

 

[KarlMarx]

A point of historical interest is that the last time we saw such fervent attacks on gays and equally fervent endorsement of "family values" was in the 1930's.

At that time a campaign was begun against "sexual deviancy", i.e. homosexuality, sexual relationships outside of marriage, etc. A parallel campaign was also targeted at supporting "family values" and Christian virtue. However, this did not occur on US shores...It happened in Weimar Germany with the ascendance of the Nazi party to power.

I've heard eye-witness accounts of this era as well as read Cambridge Professor of Current History, Richard J. Evans', book on the era, <i>The Coming of the Third Reich</i>. And those two sources taken together make the parallels between then and now all the more striking, particularly given that the rhetoric of the right-wing...in America...now...is almost, word for word, that expressed by the political leaders during that benighted era in Germany. Amercia is not yet a fascist state, but we should remember history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

Bully, you will do well if you avoid repeating Nazi propaganda. The Nazis were extremely anti-Christian but used Christian symbolism to appeal to the masses alone.

Hitler and his band of followers, especially Heinrich Himmler, were pagans. Their goal was the eventual widespread practice of the ancient pagan religion of the Germans. Himmler adopted the "SS" logo, which looks like two lighting bolts or two letter "S"s together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sig_Rune

In fact they are runes that Himmler believed to have magical powers. Recruits in the SS were repeatedly told that Christianity was a religion of weakness and that Jesus was the bastard son of a Jewish whore (referring to the Virgin Mary). This all went on with Hitler's knowledge and approval. Furthermore, priests and ministers who did not tow the party line were thrown in concentration camps, tortured and killed. The implication that the Nazis were in league with far right Christians is an insult the memory to those Christians who died for their faith and fighting Nazi tyranny.

Furthermore, before Heinrich Himmler, was Ernest Rohm, the founder of the SA from which the SS was derived, and openly homosexual. Hitler knew Rohm was gay, and did not care. Many members of the SA were also gay and Hitler knew that, too. To further say that Nazi elite were somehow anti-homosexual in light of this is yet another lie. In my opinion,the Nazis had an anti-gay position solely for public consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Röhm

The fact that homosexuals were thrown into concentration camps does not necessarily mean that they were there because of their sexual orientation. The number of homosexuals that died in the concentration camps numbers about 6 to 10,000. More likely those people were there for reasons other than for being gay, more likely political reasons. They were "outted" to further humiliate them. If the Nazis really had a thing for gays, they would have killed millions of them.

 

[OCA]

You can back this up, right? And don't give me that "it's been done many times before" line either. THat was then, this is now. Now, a credible link please.

That aside, even if it is was by choice, so what? Why do you care?

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human Nature S 1999/study_questions_gene_influence_o.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/325979.stm

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/...11D4-A7AD00A0C9D84F02&Method=guidefulldisplay