Gay marriage

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Well duncan, your sentence structure is so fucked up, I can hardly make sense of anything you write. Therefore, I'm not assigning much importance to it, and I'm certainly not inclined to debate you. Hell, I don't even understand you.

I don't know who's been filling your head with that mush your trying to push off here, but YOU are the one that's WRONG.

I'll make one "short" attempt at explaining why to you, because I think you're either super young, like 8 or 9, or an idiot.

Now follow me here.... "MEN HAVE A PENIS, WOMEN HAVE A VAGINA, THE PENIS IS TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WOMAN'S VAGINA FOR THE >NATURAL< PURPOSE OF PROCREATION". "IT ALSO HAPPENS TO FEEL VERY GOOD". "THEY WERE CREATED TO WORK IN CONJUCTION". "MEN, STICKING THEIR PENIS UP ANOTHER MAN'S ANUS, IS ABOUT THE MOST UNNATURAL AND PERVERTED ACT ONE HUMAN BEING CAN DO TO ANOTHER". "THERE'S NOTHING LOVING, OR NATURAL ABOUT IT".

I hope you were able to follow that.

I think that pretty much sums it up!!!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Alright Pale Rider...I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion here. And please forgive me if I accidently mistype - we all do.

I'm a 22 year old college graduate who knows that when one is in a debate, you attack the argument and not the person.

The line of thinking you are using seems to me to be as follows:

Sex is natural only if for procreation
Homosexual couples cannot procreate

Therefore, sex in a homosexual relationship is not natural.

I hope you realize this rules out all sex that is non-procreational - a perfectly valid belief but I'm sure you agree that most men masturbate.

And I will state once again that homosexual sex is found throughout the animal kingdom:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/02/09/2003098128.

Please define what you mean by "natural".

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Sorry that link doesn't work...you have to delete the period at the end of the address for it to work right.

 

[007]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
Alright Pale Rider...I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion here. And please forgive me if I accidently mistype - we all do.

I'm a 22 year old college graduate who knows that when one is in a debate, you attack the argument and not the person.

The line of thinking you are using seems to me to be as follows:

Sex is natural only if for procreation
Homosexual couples cannot procreate

Therefore, sex in a homosexual relationship is not natural.

I hope you realize this rules out all sex that is non-procreational - a perfectly valid belief but I'm sure you agree that most men masturbate.

And I will state once again that homosexual sex is found throughout the animal kingdom:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/02/09/2003098128.

Please define what you mean by "natural".

College graduate of what? Liberal arts?

We are not "animals" duncan. We are human beings, with the ability to "reason" right from wrong. Well... at least some of us are. And I define "natural" as that which is what natures intended function is. It is "natural" for a man to have sex with a woman. That's the "intended natural sexual function" of the opposite sexes. A man having sex, which is "NOT" natures natural function is a sick, twisted and perverted act.

But I don't believe I'm telling you anything you don't already know. You liberals just like to play ignorant asking the same idiotic questions every time. You draw out a discussion about something that is so cut and dried anyone can understand it. You look for an opportunity in someone's answer to your moronish questions to twist and convolute the subject. It's tiresome and getting boring.

No matter how long or how hard you liberals try and push your fag love fest agenda, you'll never be able to convince the majority of normal thinking people, that "KNOW" fagness is a sick, sick lifestyle. Never.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I am just trying to understand your position:

Are you saying that the only function of the penis is for procreation and it should only be used in this way?

 

[007]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
I am just trying to understand your position:

Are you saying that the only function of the penis is for procreation and it should only be used in this way?

No. I'd be out of "my" mind if I said people couldn't have sex just for fun.

What's so hard to understand here duncan? Why are you playing so ignorant?

A man and woman... OK? Get it? Not butt buddies... a man and a woman! Shit man... c'moooon.

 

[menewa]

Anyone who opposes same-sex marriages does so because of a bias developed through their Judeo-Christian religion. Thus, a law against same-sex marriage imposes ones religious beliefs over another and is thus unconstitutional. Unless however someone can condemn same-sex marriages without relying on some superstitious quote.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
Anyone who opposes same-sex marriages does so because of a bias developed through their Judeo-Christian religion.

How do you figure?

I'm 100% opposed to same sex marriage because I think it's a vile and disgusting. Some may be opposed due to their religious beliefs, but I wouldn't be making blanket statements like that. Others are opposed because they don't want to see our society filled with this filth.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How do you figure?

I'm 100% opposed to same sex marriage because I think it's a vile and disgusting. Some may be opposed due to their religious beliefs, but I wouldn't be making blanket statements like that. Others are opposed because they don't want to see our society filled with this filth.

Well, you've proved me wrong. You've used plain hate in place of any Middle Eastern religious doctrine, a just substitute.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
Well, you've proved me wrong. You've used plain hate in place of any Middle Eastern religious doctrine, a just substitute.

Because I think homosexuality is vile and disgusting that means I am basing my beliefs on 'hate'?

I think people that eat one anothers feces is vile and digusting too, does that mean I am basing my belief on that subject on hate?

Did you ever think maybe some just simply think it's wrong and don't want to be a party of condoning the behavior?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Because I think homosexuality is vile and disgusting that means I am basing my beliefs on 'hate'?

I think people that eat one anothers feces is vile and digusting too, does that mean I am basing my belief on that subject on hate?

Did you ever think maybe some just simply think it's wrong and don't want to be a party of condoning the behavior?

Okay. That's fine to consider something disgusting. But just because a particular act is considered disgusting by some people should the said act be made illegal and should those people not be given equal rights?

You don't have to condone same-sex marriage, but why oppose it. Nobody is going to force straight people to marry someone of the same sex, so how is it going to hurt anyone at all, ever. I've seen no objective reasons as to why it should be illegal because there are none.

Just saying something is disgusting is not a good enough reason to criminalize it. I think two fat people fucking is disgusting. But far be it from anyone to deny big people love.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
Okay. That's fine to consider something disgusting. But just because a particular act is considered disgusting by some people should the said act be made illegal and should those people not be given equal rights?

They already have identical rights as straight men and women. A gay man can marry a woman, A gay woman can marry a man. They have no less and no more rights than anyone else in the nation. As a straight man, I don't have the right to marry another man either.

You don't have to condone same-sex marriage, but why oppose it. Nobody is going to force straight people to marry someone of the same sex, so how is it going to hurt anyone at all, ever. I've seen no objective reasons as to why it should be illegal because there are none.

I oppose it because if it is made legal it's the same as making it an accepted part of society. I don't accept this filthy behavior and I don't believe it shoud be a part of mainstream society. I have no problem if this is what these people decide to do behind closed doors, but I will do my best to keep it right there behind closed doors.

Just saying something is disgusting is not a good enough reason to criminalize it. I think two fat people fucking is disgusting. But far be it from anyone to deny big people love.

It's not a good enough reason for YOU. I think homosexuality is disgusting, as do the majority of Americans. If this is what the people want, and this is what the people vote for, then that's the way it'll be. Look, you can stand behind gay marriage all you like, but you can't cry equal rights while trying to deny those opposed their right to speak against it and vote against it.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by menewa
Well, you've proved me wrong. You've used plain hate in place of any Middle Eastern religious doctrine, a just substitute.

Menewa please prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is normal and natural for two men or two women to copulate.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by menewa
Okay. That's fine to consider something disgusting. But just because a particular act is considered disgusting by some people should the said act be made illegal and should those people not be given equal rights?

You don't have to condone same-sex marriage, but why oppose it. Nobody is going to force straight people to marry someone of the same sex, so how is it going to hurt anyone at all, ever. I've seen no objective reasons as to why it should be illegal because there are none.

Just saying something is disgusting is not a good enough reason to criminalize it. I think two fat people fucking is disgusting. But far be it from anyone to deny big people love.

No the act should not be made illegal but neither should they be given "special rights", special because they are born with all the same inaliable rights as you or I, they should not be coddled because they make a bad lifestyle choice. What's next? Special rights for people who like to piss on each other? And yes the two are equatable in their vileness.

I'm sorry you find it so hard to stand up for what is so OBVIOUSLY right, but hey thats the way it goes.

 

[dilloduck]

Being against gay marriage because it's not "natural" is like banning airplanes because its not natural for people to fly. If you are against gay marriage, a different approach will have a better chance of convincing me than this will.

 

[mattskramer]

NO MARRIAGE OR SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR BAD LIFESTYLE CHOICES!

Marriage to the person you love (be that a person of the same sex or of the opposite sex) is not a "special right". If we are to make laws to prohibit bad lifestyle choices, let us include smoking and the wearing of striped pants with plaid shirts. Yuck.

I'd say its probably pretty representative of America as a whole, better than two to one.

The popularity of a position (appealing to the masses) does not necessarily make that position right or wrong.

It's about a mental illness that entails a perverted sexual preference. Nothing more. Fags and their filthy perverted attack on a Holy Union of MAN and WOMAN is nothing more than directed by the devil himself.

It is a mental illness according to your bigotry and that of some others. Even the APA removed its definition as an illness from their manuals. It is no more an illness than is liking peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches or doing hand stands. Marriage as a holy union is based upon the value and definition that each couple applies to their marriage. Did you know that there are some atheists that are married?

The psychiatric community "CAVED" in the face of insurmountable and relentless pressure from the fag community.

Explain in specific and concrete terms how the psychiatric community "caved" in? The "fag" community does not own and control the APA. If a large group of people say something (how large is the fag community?) it does not make the message true. If the anti-fag community is larger than is the pro-fag community, why doesn't the anti-fag community put "insurmountable and relentless" pressure on the psychiatric community to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness?

----------------------------------------

Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal. And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn't matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this world.... My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me -- and all of us -- to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage. Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.

Schools participate in many things to which I'm opposed (Verbal prayers for a practically captive audience, the "Pledge of Allegiance", sex education, etc.) That is why I support the privatization of education and I also support having school attendance as an option (not as a requirement). I recommend that you have your (grand) children attend a private school of you liking or have the children taught at home. You have the right to object to a pro-homosexual policy just as you have the right to object to a pro-war war. Even if same sex marriage is allowed, you would still be free to criticize it. You will still be free to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong. Parents teach their children many things based on their own values. People who think that people of different religious philosophies should not get married may teach such views to their children. Just because the school system and/or general public teach something to which you disagree does not mean that you can't teach your child opposing information.


Churches will be legally forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.

Churches, assuming that they are not tax supported, should be treated as private institutions and be allowed to set their own rules.

Two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.” What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.

I agree, particularly when it comes to children. When I was young I wanted to swim across the ocean. Before I was 20 feet from shore, my parents had me come back. Who put in into the child's mind that he or she needs, or should have a daddy? Is there no disclaimer to your statement on mothers being married to fathers. Should the child be subjected to dysfunctional marriages consisting of highly abusive mothers and fathers? Apparently so.

Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.

Please define what you mean by fully accept. There are probably some policies, behaviors, and things that I don't fully accept. Yet they exist.

Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.

Wow! What does the law specifically say? Canada is not the USA. Though I don't know the exact words of the bill, I doubt that it would pass in America. Even our first amendment should have reasonable limits (if it does not). There are laws against disturbing the peace. I doubt that a weak, pale, skinny white man would be allowed to scream racial slurs at the top of his lungs at 3:00 in the morning in downtown Harlem.

Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, "Because I don't approve of that [polygamy]."

Cheryl Jacques does not speak for me. I support the legalization of polygamy.

Sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Homosexuality is not a civil right.

Is it anything like religious preference? I recall that, not long ago, it was understood that people were not to get married to people of different religious faiths.

It's not that I feel threatened, it's I have 2 young boys who My husband and I are trying to raise to be good, decent, law-abiding, contributing, heterosexual Christians.

Christians! You are trying to raise your boys to be Christians?!? Shame on you. Don't you realize that many people think that you are brainwashing your kids with wishful thinking and perhaps some unhealthy attitudes. Are you teaching them that "God Hates Fags" and that "Queers Go To Hell" (signs that I have seen at gatherings of self-righteous "Christians" anti-homosexual meetings)? We can't allow that!

I'm being sarcastic. I hope that you see the point, but you probably don't. Homosexuals are not forcing you to teach your children differently. You are free to teach your children to be good, decent, law-abiding, contributing, heterosexual Christians and you will be free to continue to do so whether or not gay marriage is allowed.

------------------------------------------------

MEN HAVE A PENIS, WOMEN HAVE A VAGINA, THE PENIS IS TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WOMAN'S VAGINA FOR THE >NATURAL< PURPOSE OF PROCREATION.

Ah yes. The classic irrelevant argument of (1.) natural and (2.) purpose.

(1.) As I have pointed out many times, just because a certain behavior is not natural is not a reason for it to be outlawed. Would you outlaw the wearing of swimsuits in winter or the wearing of a coat in summer? Would you outlaw the activity of handstands or walking backwards? We better outlaw synthetic clothes and vitamins not found in nature.

(2.) The purpose of a dictionary is to look up words. Yet large dictionaries can be used as booster seats and paperweights. The purpose of the bridge of one's nose was not to intended to support eyeglasses. Yet it can be used very easily for that activity.

------------------------------------------------------

I'm 100% opposed to same sex marriage because I think it's a vile and disgusting.

I'm 100% opposed to peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches because I think that they are vile and disgusting.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Menewa please prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is normal and natural for two men or two women to copulate.

We have already gone over this. It is an irrelevant challenge.

Wow! I think that covers it. Did I miss anything? Does anyone have another point to make against gay marriage?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I'm 100% opposed to same sex marriage because I think it's a vile and disgusting.

I'm 100% opposed to peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches because I think that they are vile and disgusting.

I'll just reply to this portion as it appears to be the only part directed at my post.

Peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches are not currently up for debate/vote in congress. Activist judges are not currently legalizing/criminalizing them.

Thank you for not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll just reply to this portion as it appears to be the only part directed at my post.

Peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches are not currently up for debate/vote in congress. Activist judges are not currently legalizing/criminalizing them.

Thank you for not making any sense whatsoever.

This is what i've been saying for two months now, this guy makes no fucking sense at all in any of his arguments. PB & potato chip sandwiches compared to homosexuality??????? WTF!

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll just reply to this portion as it appears to be the only part directed at my post.

Peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches are not currently up for debate/vote in congress. Activist judges are not currently legalizing/criminalizing them.

Thank you for not making any sense whatsoever.

Why not? It is disgusting. Therefore it should clearly be outlawed. Since, according to your reasoning, disgusting things should be outlawed.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Why not? It is disgusting. Therefore it should clearly be outlawed. Since, according to your reasoning, disgusting things should be outlawed.

Ok, let me know when peanut butter and potato chips are up for discussion in congress and I'll be happy to debate it with you. Otherwise, I won't engage in nonsensical analogies with you.

Good day.