Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[Gunny]

Is it human nature to choose to not have children – to not perpetuate the species – as far as your genes are concerned? Then I guess that my wife and I are not being naturally consistent with human nature. I already argued this fallacy too. What is natural is not necessarily what is good or right. What is unnatural is not necessarily bad or wrong.

I have not argued that what is natural is good or right. I agued that it was ... ummmm...... natural or unnatural. Conversely, Einstein, what is natural is not necessarily bad or wrong simply because it suits a convolutred argument to claim it is.

If I was going to make any argument at all along this line of thinking, I would argue that heterosexuality is consistent with biological, not human nature, and that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.

And the fact that you are inconsistent with human nature is not any kind of revelation given your past confessions of practicing abnormal behavior.

There is nothing fallacious about my argument at all. However, your attempt to turn it into something it is not, as usual, IS.

 

[mattskramer]

I have not argued that what is natural is good or right. I agued that it was ... ummmm...... natural or unnatural. Conversely, Einstein, what is natural is not necessarily bad or wrong simply because it suits a convolutred argument to claim it is.

If I was going to make any argument at all along this line of thinking, I would argue that heterosexuality is consistent with biological, not human nature, and that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.

And the fact that you are inconsistent with human nature is not any kind of revelation given your past confessions of practicing abnormal behavior.

There is nothing fallacious about my argument at all. However, your attempt to turn it into something it is not, as usual, IS.

Okay. Okay. I guess that the debate about heterosexuality being natural or biological or whatever is then an academic debate that ultimately means nothing. It is simply irrelevant in the debate concerning whether homosexuality is right or wrong – good or bad.

 

[Gunny]

Okay. Okay. I guess that the debate about heterosexuality being natural or biological or whatever is then an academic debate that ultimately means nothing. It is simply irrelevant in the debate concerning whether homosexuality is right or wrong – good or bad.

There are just no bounds to what you won't twist in an attempt to turn an argument to your advantage.

Homosexuality is wrong at EVERY level, just as you are.

Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology. That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason. Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation. In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.

Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect. There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse. Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.

It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome. Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.

Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong. With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.

Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior. Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public. That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.

Quit trying to sell everyone a cow while telling them it's a Cadillac. That's all that ANY and ALL of your arguments on this topic boil down to.

There's no agree to disagree ... there's no walking away. YOU are wrong. To exacerbate THAT, you continually attempt to sell your relativist snake oil even though you get called on it just about each and every time. Get a clue, huh?

I'ts NOT normal for one man to want to stick his crank up another man's butt, period. End of story.

 

[nt250]

Do gays demand that we celebrate homosexual behavior? How did you reach that conclusion? Do you have a link to such a statement? Many gay people want, at the very least, civil unions for gay couples so that gay couples have the same degree of access to the benefits that married couples receive. I don’t see that they demand that we celebrate homosexual activity. Even if laws were passed allowing gay marriage, it does not follow that I would be forced to celebrate homosexual behavior. Abortion is allowed. I’m not celebrating abortion.

There are numerous examples of gay rights activists demanding celebration of their personal habits. Two, just off the top of my head without even having to think about it are: 1)South Boston cancelled it's St. Partricks Day Parade because they lost a court case where gay rights activists demanded the right to march under their own banner. This was a long standing tradition but, as far as I know, the parade hasn't been held since. 2) In Providence, RI, the mayor ordered city fire fighters to take part in it's annual Gay Pride Parade. Some of them objected because they had attended previous Gay Pride Parades and we appalled by what they saw. (I don't blame them. I attended one about 15 years ago and I couldn't BELIEVE what I saw.) But the mayor didn't care. (The current mayor is a gay man, and the previous mayor is in a federal prison. Oh, the irony)

Please be more specific about the use of the term accept. Are you referring to the laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color (a genetic condition), religion (a choice), sex or national origin? I accept that people are trying to get sexual orientation included in the list of things for which people can’t be discriminated against. I doubt that they have succeeded. Even if they have succeeded, I don’t see that my non-discrimination against gays necessarily follows that I accept homosexual behavior. Again, where is it written that that I must accept the personal behavior of anyone?

It's now written in the laws. I should have the right to not hire anyone I think is disgusting. Religion, which is the only other choice on your list, isn't disgusting. I think it's stupid, but I don't give a shit if someone wants to believe that crap.

You doubt they have succeeded? What planet do you live on? Ask the Boy Scouts. Check your local school district and see how many gay groups they allow. Then check and see how many groups about sex they allow for heterosexual kids.

Oh, I forgot, being gay has nothing to do with sex.


The bottom line is that I should be entitled to judge others by their behavior and personal habits. If you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it. I don't want to know you have ever done it because I find it a disgusting personal habit and I will never look at you the same way again. I don't care how many people there are our there who pick their nose and eat it. I don't care how normal the experts say picking your nose and eating it is. I don't care how many parades the Nose Pickers Who Eat It March in. It's gross. And I should have the right to decide what behavior I will accept from others.

I don't have that right when it comes to gays. If I said any of this out loud at work, I'd lose my job.

 

[mattskramer]

Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology. That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason. Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation. In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.

I have 2 words for you: So what? Some people choose to not procreate. Some people, as bizarre as it may sound, choose to not have sex. Homosexuality is more than just sex. It includes a preference for a loving relationship with someone of the same sex.

Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect. There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse. Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.

So what? Things simply don’t require your “physical provision”. According to your argument, it seems as though you are suggesting that oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples is wrong? Is “protected sex” wrong if it can’t produce a baby? Things simply don’t require your “physical provision”.

It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome. Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.

So what? Do you suggest that we outlaw all that is not normal and natural?

Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong. With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.

Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior. Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public. That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.

I accept that we live in a republic where, for the most part, the majority rules. That does not mean that the majority is right.

I'ts NOT normal for one man to want to stick his crank up another man's butt, period. End of story.

This is not the end of the story. Is it normal to wear plaid pants with a striped shirt? Is it normal to smoke? Is it normal to be left-handed? Is it normal for a White to get married to a Black? Is it normal to get married and choose as a couple to not have children? These things are not “normal” but they are certainly allowed.

 

[Kagom]

Sorry, I'm not that kind of girl. And I thought you were gay?

I am gay. And I'm not making that kind of invitation, mind you!

 

[glockmail]

....So what? Do you suggest that we outlaw all that is not normal and natural?
....

I think all he is asking for is that it shouldn't be promoted as it has been by our decadent society.

 

[glockmail]

I am gay. And I'm not making that kind of invitation, mind you!

Not very quick on the draw, are you?

 

[Kagom]

Not very quick on the draw, are you?

To be quite frank, I'm not right now. I've cooked, walked, and done all kinds of fun chores today and my brain's not at full capacity. And I'm hoping you weren't referencing what I thought you were

 

[Gunny]

I have 2 words for you: So what? Some people choose to not procreate. Some people, as bizarre as it may sound, choose to not have sex. Homosexuality is more than just sex. It includes a preference for a loving relationship with someone of the same sex.

Irrelevant.



So what? Things simply don’t require your “physical provision”. According to your argument, it seems as though you are suggesting that oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples is wrong? Is “protected sex” wrong if it can’t produce a baby? Things simply don’t require your “physical provision”.

Dishonest and irrelevant bullshit that doesn't address what was posted.


So what? Do you suggest that we outlaw all that is not normal and natural?

Irrelevant deflection. I suggested nothing of the sort.


I accept that we live in a republic where, for the most part, the majority rules. That does not mean that the majority is right.

I did not address majority rules. We are not discussing legality; therefore, this response like your others, is irrelevant to what was posted.

Society decides what it will and will not accept whether or not it puts actual rules/laws in place to enforce it.


This is not the end of the story. Is it normal to wear plaid pants with a striped shirt? Is it normal to smoke? Is it normal to be left-handed? Is it normal for a White to get married to a Black? Is it normal to get married and choose as a couple to not have children? These things are not “normal” but they are certainly allowed.

As usual, your argument is weak and dishonest, and finally, falls back on your relativist crapola.

Being left-handed is not considered abnormal, and is a proven hereditary trait. Irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

Both whites and black are human beings separated only by the shade of their skin; which, is hereditary. Nothing abnormal about it. Irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

Couples who choose to not have children in no way impact on the society around them for their decision that affects only them. I will point out that couples who choose to not have children are not having "Couples Who Have No Children" parades, or attempting to force legislation that gives couples who chosse to not have children special rights. This also is not considered abnormal. It is however also irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

 

[Reneer]

Couples who choose to not have children in no way impact on the society around them for their decision that affects only them. I will point out that couples who choose to not have children are not having "Couples Who Have No Children" parades, or attempting to force legislation that gives couples who chosse to not have children special rights. This also is not considered abnormal. It is however also irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain.

And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.

 

[Gunny]

First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain.

And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.

Homosexuals currently posess EVERY single right under the Constitution of the United States that heterosexuals do.

Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law. The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group.

And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights. I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin. That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.

Perhaps insted of attacking the traditions of this Nation and our culture, you might try attacking the unConstitutional rules and regulations that specify who you can and cannot have as beneficiary. That is, IF that is your primary concern.

ANd I am going to even give the benefit of doubt. I DO recall initially when all this broo-hah-ha started that it was a primary issue. Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing. As a result, you got nothing.

 

[Reneer]

Homosexuals currently posess EVERY single right under the Constitution of the United States that heterosexuals do.

Correct. They just don't have the privilege of entering into a union as all heterosexuals can do if they wish.

Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law. The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group.

I have never said that it had to be codified in the U.S Constitution, Gunny. And I don't disagree with you on this.

And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights. I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin. That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.

Except homosexuals cannot enter into a union that heterosexuals can easily enter into. They cannot attain the financial and legal benefits that heterosexuals can through marriage (there are over 1,000 benefits of marriage, some financial, some legal.) Instead of signing one legal document, to get the same benefits homosexuals would have to sign more than one legal document. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

Perhaps insted of attacking the traditions of this Nation and our culture, you might try attacking the unConstitutional rules and regulations that specify who you can and cannot have as beneficiary. That is, IF that is your primary concern.

It's funny; I'll bet you that someone made that same argument in favor of slavery back in the 1850s. Surprising how slavery is no longer tolerated in this country. And if it was 'just about beneficiary' then that would be easy. That's one benefit out of 1,000+ that would need to be fought for, each on its own merits. Why not just make it easy and fight for marriage / civil unions?

ANd I am going to even give the benefit of doubt. I DO recall initially when all this broo-hah-ha started that it was a primary issue. Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing. As a result, you got nothing.

I'm not about to try and restrict someone's freedom of speech, thanks.

 

[Gunny]

Correct. They just don't have the privilege of entering into a union as all heterosexuals can do if they wish.

Sure they can.



I have never said that it had to be codified in the U.S Constitution, Gunny. And I don't disagree with you on this.



Except homosexuals cannot enter into a union that heterosexuals can easily enter into. They cannot attain the financial and legal benefits that heterosexuals can through marriage (there are over 1,000 benefits of marriage, some financial, some legal.) Instead of signing one legal document, to get the same benefits homosexuals would have to sign more than one legal document. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

It is neither legal nor Constitutional discrimination. You posess every right that everyone else does. It is not descrimination to refuse to legislate special laws that cater to your aberrant lifestlye.



It's funny; I'll bet you that someone made that same argument in favor of slavery back in the 1850s. Surprising how slavery is no longer tolerated in this country. And if it was 'just about beneficiary' then that would be easy. That's one benefit out of 1,000+ that would need to be fought for, each on its own merits. Why not just make it easy and fight for marriage / civil unions?

It isn't funny comparing a lifestyle choice to enforced slavery. No comparison at all.

And you can do what you want. I merely pointed out what you could probably get supported and what you didn't and won't in the foreseeable future get. My way is easier than yours. We can see the obvious results of yours.

Marriage is a religious institution hijacked by the state for the purpose fo taxation. Most religions, including mine, reject your lifestyle.



I'm not about to try and restrict someone's freedom of speech, thanks.

What, did you take notes from mattskramer to come up with this? I never suggested any such thing. Let 'em run their mouthes. Look what it got you.

 

[Reneer]

What, did you take notes from mattskramer to come up with this? I never suggested any such thing. Let 'em run their mouthes. Look what it got you.

Sorry, I guess I added more emphasis to

Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing.

than was intended.

And I'm sure you noticed you ignored everything else I said. :

 

[nt250]

And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights. I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin. That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.

That's one instance where married couples do not have the same rights as single people. I don't know if it's a law or not, but my company has the same policy. A person who is married cannot designate anyone other than their spouse as their beneficiary without the spouses approval. If I get married, my company will not allow anyone but my husband to be my beneficary unless he signs a form agreeing to it.

As a single person, I can designate it to whoever I want to.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The state allows barren couples to marry, y'know. Marriage, as a term in American law and standards, doesn't require procreation as a reason for marriage.

I didnt say it was a requirement. You cant prove a couple is barren, now can you? Many supposed barren couples suddenly got pregnant.

 

[nt250]

First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain.

And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.

Gays have gotten special rights. It may not be by law, but the gay rights movement has convinced many corporations and city governments to extend partner benefits to gay "couples". Single hetrosexuals not only do not have those same benefits, they can get fired for trying to get them. There have been several incidents in my company where hetrosexuals tried to get their partners on their benefits for things like cancer treatment and they been fired for it. But gays can get those same benefits by simply saying they're gay.

The claim that gays don't want "special" rights is ludicrius. They want laws passed that tell the rest of us how we can react to their personal habit. If that's not a special right, I don't know what is.

 

[glockmail]

To be quite frank, I'm not right now. I've cooked, walked, and done all kinds of fun chores today and my brain's not at full capacity. And I'm hoping you weren't referencing what I thought you were

Walking is a chore?

 

[glockmail]

....

Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law. The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group......

Correct, except the actual % is between 1 and 1.5, much less than we were led to believe for the last 30 years or so. Another example of the homosexual agenda 's distortion of reality.