It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

 

[Faun]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Holyfuckingshit!

Men and women who married weren't sexual before Obergefell??

 

[Boss]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

 

[Boss]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Holyfuckingshit!

Men and women who married weren't sexual before Obergefell??

I don't know whether they were or not, I'm not in everyone's bedroom. MARRIAGE was the matrimonial union of a man and woman of legal age. It did not exclude gay people or any other sexual proclivity. But Holyfuckingshit... NOW, marriage is something that can be used to legitimize almost any sexual behavior because the SCOTUS has pretty much made that case in their ruling.

 

[Boss]

Notice the word 'consensual'

Seems to be a word that gives a lot of Conservatives real difficulty.

Not as much as "marriage" seems to give Liberals!

I will state it again... Consent laws can be changed EASIER than marriage! In fact, consent laws in the US are different already from state to state. No reason these can't be changed the same as marriage was changed, either by law or by SCOTUS decree upon high.

 

[Faun]

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

Suuure, rightard... questioning why those folks are not allowed to marry is not wondering why.

You're the one who thinks there is a question. I think the Constitution is clear. There is no question of whether or not you get to discriminate against other groups you don't like. Any "question" you seem to think you're seeing from me is a rhetorical one, asked in order to demonstrate what you can't explain. That's not me wondering, that is you being clueless.

Why am I still waiting for you to quote me questioning why those other forms of marriage are illegal??

You've now made that false claim twice. Either you prove it or you prove I was spot on when I said you're fucking deranged.

 

[Faun]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

 

[Faun]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Holyfuckingshit!

Men and women who married weren't sexual before Obergefell??

I don't know whether they were or not, I'm not in everyone's bedroom. MARRIAGE was the matrimonial union of a man and woman of legal age. It did not exclude gay people or any other sexual proclivity. But Holyfuckingshit... NOW, marriage is something that can be used to legitimize almost any sexual behavior because the SCOTUS has pretty much made that case in their ruling.

Well using your twisted logic, straight men can now marry each other, so it still doesn't delineate sexuality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If I had a brain like yours...I'd be a freaky nutbag too.

IF you had a brain you would lose it up your ass so fast it still wouldn't count.

 

[Boss]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Ah I see the problem here.
You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

No, you clearly DON'T see the problem here because you're a simple-minded moron. I didn't confuse a damn thing, I gave you two examples of words that mean specific things, which can't mean anything else and can't be changed to include something else.

I can give you all kinds of examples... Electrical work isn't plumbing. We don't allow plumbers to obtain a license to be an electrician. It isn't because we're discriminating against the plumber. Grand larceny isn't an an occupation... we don't redefine "occupation" to include grand larceny because that's not what IS an occupation... has nothing to do with discrimination. Cats can't compete in the Westminster Dog Show... they are not eligible and don't meet the criteria because they are cats... it's not because they are being discriminated against. If you are a man, you can never BE Miss America.. sorry... not discrimination.

Rattling off what the SCOTUS said in their lawless ruling is not what is being debated here. I have no argument regarding what they have ruled, it's public record. SCOTUS is not some kind of Supreme Authority we are bound to follow for eternity... they have a long storied history of making some awful decisions... Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu.. the list goes on and on.

 

[Boss]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

 

[auditor0007]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

 

[Faun]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

 

[Boss]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.

 

[Boss]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people.

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else.

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.

 

[Faun]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.

Yet you denied equating them.

Meanwhile, you falsely claimed I questioned why pedophilia, and the other illegal perversions you equated with homosexuality, remained ilkegal.

I offered you ample opporunity to prove that absurd claim and as expected, you failed miserably to quote me since I never asked such a question. You simply lied because you're not man enough to admit it was you who actually questioned why they remain illegal.

 

[Boss]

Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe...

No, I haven't heard that either... but when "gay marriage" doesn't deliver the validation and acceptance you seek, who knows what you'll demand next? You may seek to outlaw "homophobia" by forcing heterosexuals into involuntary participation?

I just think it's important to get things out in the open and understand that society is never going to be able to appease you. It's a futile effort.

 

[Boss]

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.

Yet you denied equating them.

Meanwhile, you falsely claimed I questioned why pedophilia, and the other illegal perversions you equated with homosexuality, remained ilkegal.

I offered you ample opporunity to prove that absurd claim and as expected, you failed miserably to quote me since I never asked such a question. You simply lied because you're not man enough to admit it was you who actually questioned why they remain illegal.

I never said that and I am tired of arguing with you about what I never said.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Faun]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people.

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else.

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.

You're fucking deranged.

Gays did not have the same rights as straights to marry the person they love and with whom they wish to establish a life long marital bond. You can keep repeating your idiocy but it will never become true. It's no one else's fault you're too dumb to understand this; but it does go a long way in explaining why you're so perplexed with the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Faun]

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.

Yet you denied equating them.

Meanwhile, you falsely claimed I questioned why pedophilia, and the other illegal perversions you equated with homosexuality, remained ilkegal.

I offered you ample opporunity to prove that absurd claim and as expected, you failed miserably to quote me since I never asked such a question. You simply lied because you're not man enough to admit it was you who actually questioned why they remain illegal.

I never said that and I am tired of arguing with you about what I never said.

Go fuck yourself.

You're fucking deranged.

I quoted you saying that and linked your post where you said it.