So What's the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize?

[rdean]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys.

Thinking like that is what gets so many right wingers in trouble. Family members should be off limits.

 

[9thIDdoc]

So What's the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize?

I doubt that it'll be Obama.
Unfortunately.

 

[nuhuh]

So What's the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize?

I doubt that it'll be Obama.
Unfortunately.

Dusters were my friends back in the day.

 

[Darkwind]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

Because its is a nonsensical question. The issue for some isn't about how its a threat to traditional marriage.

Ask the right question....

To respond to your thing about less government....you are correct in that conservatives don't believe government has a right to tell you what goes on in your bedroom. Gays included in that. It is why I have no problem with the whole issue.

I do not advocate or support laws that control morality.

 

[Darkwind]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

You just do that now, big man...

 

[Darkwind]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

You just do that now, big man...

Thank you, I will.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why do liberals get so upset when you confront them with the logical implications of their positions? If "society has no right" to keep two men from getting married "because society has no right to tell you who you can love," then society has no right to tell anyone who they can love and has no right to tell any couple that they can't get married, regardless of the composition of that couple. If we start deciding which couples can and can't get married, then we are "discriminating," and we can't have that.

And, again logically speaking, if you can take one perversion, turn it into something "natural and normal," and grant it married status, then you can do that for any perversion. To pick which perversions must remain perversions is to, again, "discriminate," and we can't have that.

When you bar God from the discussion, there is no standard for what is and is not "perversion." It all becomes subjective. Just because you think that it's perverse for a 50-year-old man to marry a pubescent 11-year-old girl does not mean that others think it's wrong--and, besides, society "has no right" to judge such things anyway, according to the argument we've heard for the last 10 years.

"But 11-year-old girls are minors under the law." So what?! Homosexuality was illegal, but then we changed the law (via judicial fiat). So just change the law so that pubescent preteen girls can choose to get married, since some pubescent preteen girls are smarter and more mature than some 18-year-old boys, and therefore it's "unfair" to force them to get their parents' consent to marry Mr. Creepy. I mean, if an 11-year-old girl should not have to get parental consent for an abortion, she should not need it for marriage.

 

[nuhuh]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

 

[Darkwind]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

The problem with your analysis is that I did not say anything about harming people. I said it was not natural. It is not natural because nature specifically moves to perpetuate a species. Homosexuality does not do that. I also said it was not a moral issue with regard to nature. Having said that...

It does not matter to Me what the intent of any marriage is. As long as you are not trying to force Me into accepting it, then we're good to go. Intellectual, or should I say, juvenile rationalizations for behavior are not My concern.

If I have a principled disagreement with something, then no force on this planet will alter that.

Which means I will do and act in a way that will further My interests, and what I think is the right thing for the country.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

As for your assertion that worthless threat...comprehending what you read is essential. Take note of the text highlighted by being bold and colored in red....

I'm sure you can understand what that means....or at least I hope you can.

 

[PK1]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

"So What's the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize?"

How about the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence - rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[nuhuh]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

The problem with your analysis is that I did not say anything about harming people. I said it was not natural. It is not natural because nature specifically moves to perpetuate a species. Homosexuality does not do that. I also said it was not a moral issue with regard to nature. Having said that...

It does not matter to Me what the intent of any marriage is. As long as you are not trying to force Me into accepting it, then we're good to go. Intellectual, or should I say, juvenile rationalizations for behavior are not My concern.

If I have a principled disagreement with something, then no force on this planet will alter that.

Which means I will do and act in a way that will further My interests, and what I think is the right thing for the country.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

As for your assertion that worthless threat...comprehending what you read is essential. Take note of the text highlighted by being bold and colored in red....

I'm sure you can understand what that means....or at least I hope you can.

Well your claim that homosexuality is unnatural is incorrect. That said, you have a right to your beliefs as wrongheaded and incorrect they may be. But when it comes to secular law you are compelled to accept some facets and the religious foundation of your biases are not defensible in the United States.

People had principled objections to desegregation and the legalization of interracial marriage. We find those ideas dying off every day, I suspect your own will do the same one day.

You can sue whoever you want. But when you make claims that have no force of law you just look clueless.

 

[Darkwind]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

The problem with your analysis is that I did not say anything about harming people. I said it was not natural. It is not natural because nature specifically moves to perpetuate a species. Homosexuality does not do that. I also said it was not a moral issue with regard to nature. Having said that...

It does not matter to Me what the intent of any marriage is. As long as you are not trying to force Me into accepting it, then we're good to go. Intellectual, or should I say, juvenile rationalizations for behavior are not My concern.

If I have a principled disagreement with something, then no force on this planet will alter that.

Which means I will do and act in a way that will further My interests, and what I think is the right thing for the country.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

As for your assertion that worthless threat...comprehending what you read is essential. Take note of the text highlighted by being bold and colored in red....

I'm sure you can understand what that means....or at least I hope you can.

Well your claim that homosexuality is unnatural is incorrect. That said, you have a right to your beliefs as wrongheaded and incorrect they may be. But when it comes to secular law you are compelled to accept some facets and the religious foundation of your biases are not defensible in the United States.

People had principled objections to desegregation and the legalization of interracial marriage. We find those ideas dying off every day, I suspect your own will do the same one day.

You can sue whoever you want. But when you make claims that have no force of law you just look clueless.

There is nothing incorrect about it, unless you don't believe in science. But that isn't My problem.

I am NOT compelled to accept any made up facts. Religious foundations are very defensible in this world, this country and this argument. However, I no longer will bang My head against the wall with a primate who lacks the imagination and higher thinking to conceive or entertain the notion of a creator. It simply is not My problem.

I believe in a God, and will act accordingly.

 

[nuhuh]

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

The problem with your analysis is that I did not say anything about harming people. I said it was not natural. It is not natural because nature specifically moves to perpetuate a species. Homosexuality does not do that. I also said it was not a moral issue with regard to nature. Having said that...

It does not matter to Me what the intent of any marriage is. As long as you are not trying to force Me into accepting it, then we're good to go. Intellectual, or should I say, juvenile rationalizations for behavior are not My concern.

If I have a principled disagreement with something, then no force on this planet will alter that.

Which means I will do and act in a way that will further My interests, and what I think is the right thing for the country.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

As for your assertion that worthless threat...comprehending what you read is essential. Take note of the text highlighted by being bold and colored in red....

I'm sure you can understand what that means....or at least I hope you can.

Well your claim that homosexuality is unnatural is incorrect. That said, you have a right to your beliefs as wrongheaded and incorrect they may be. But when it comes to secular law you are compelled to accept some facets and the religious foundation of your biases are not defensible in the United States.

People had principled objections to desegregation and the legalization of interracial marriage. We find those ideas dying off every day, I suspect your own will do the same one day.

You can sue whoever you want. But when you make claims that have no force of law you just look clueless.

There is nothing incorrect about it, unless you don't believe in science. But that isn't My problem.

I am NOT compelled to accept any made up facts. Religious foundations are very defensible in this world, this country and this argument. However, I no longer will bang My head against the wall with a primate who lacks the imagination and higher thinking to conceive or entertain the notion of a creator. It simply is not My problem.

I believe in a God, and will act accordingly.

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

A better question, why on Earth are you thinking about sex with underage children and dogs? WTF man.

 

[Darkwind]

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

I fear you are letting your own bias show. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality it involves two consenting adults that involve actions that do no harm to any other person. There simply is no question of morality, sex should be of no interest if no one is harmed.

I personally know dozens of couples who married with the intent of not having children. My own marriage was entered to with that idea in mind. I also know couples that cannot procreate, yet no one blocks their marriage.

Marriage is not a negative sum situation wherein giving rights in any way subtracts from the earned rights of others. As an individual who insists on not approving their lifestyle, I am sure there are gay people who probably would not approve of your either. In this country there seems to be no end to petty bigotry.

"I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so." Is this a cut and paste? because it is a pretty worthless threat, the right of bloggers on an anonymous internet are well established. here is a place where you can educate yourself. Section 230 Protections Electronic Frontier Foundation

The problem with your analysis is that I did not say anything about harming people. I said it was not natural. It is not natural because nature specifically moves to perpetuate a species. Homosexuality does not do that. I also said it was not a moral issue with regard to nature. Having said that...

It does not matter to Me what the intent of any marriage is. As long as you are not trying to force Me into accepting it, then we're good to go. Intellectual, or should I say, juvenile rationalizations for behavior are not My concern.

If I have a principled disagreement with something, then no force on this planet will alter that.

Which means I will do and act in a way that will further My interests, and what I think is the right thing for the country.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

As for your assertion that worthless threat...comprehending what you read is essential. Take note of the text highlighted by being bold and colored in red....

I'm sure you can understand what that means....or at least I hope you can.

Well your claim that homosexuality is unnatural is incorrect. That said, you have a right to your beliefs as wrongheaded and incorrect they may be. But when it comes to secular law you are compelled to accept some facets and the religious foundation of your biases are not defensible in the United States.

People had principled objections to desegregation and the legalization of interracial marriage. We find those ideas dying off every day, I suspect your own will do the same one day.

You can sue whoever you want. But when you make claims that have no force of law you just look clueless.

There is nothing incorrect about it, unless you don't believe in science. But that isn't My problem.

I am NOT compelled to accept any made up facts. Religious foundations are very defensible in this world, this country and this argument. However, I no longer will bang My head against the wall with a primate who lacks the imagination and higher thinking to conceive or entertain the notion of a creator. It simply is not My problem.

I believe in a God, and will act accordingly.

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

Since I have two degrees in the technical sciences (DBA and Web Desgin) and I"m working on a MBA with emphasis on Tech managment, I find your beliefs unwarranted and grounded in fantasy.

However, it is common knowledge that lower primates and other species that are not intellectually advanced (the nominal mammals of this planet) all live their lives day to day, without regard to any purpose other than the moment, and I find that the intellectual incurious of the unfaithful to be amusing when they get all up in arms.

Since it doesn't matter to Me either way, I'll just bid you goodnight and pursue other conversations that may, or may not, prove to be interesting.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

How about you grow up?

Lol! Coming from you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

How about you grow up?

Lol! Coming from you?

Yep, because I'm a grownup, meaning one who can deal with the rulings of the Supreme Court, either way.

 

[ninja007]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

Wrong conclusions.

Homosexual acts are not natural. It is not a moral issue, it is a biological one. Nature wishes to procreate and perpetuate a species. Same sex couplings do not accomplish that.

Morally, people can disagree with it and if that is their principle, then they have that right.

People exercising a right should not give two shakes about what those who disagree with them think. I am not gay. I don't think being gay is natural. But I don't care if two gays want to have sex, or get married, or whatever. As long as they are not harming children, and

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING I ACCEPT THEIR LIFESTYLE...

I could care less what they do.

I can turn My back on those who are intolerant and not think twice about it.

In fact, that is what I am advocating from this point forward. You don't want to tolerate My moral beliefs, I have no use for you and will ignore everything you say and do.

I will promote people who think as I do.
I will vote for people who believe as I do.
I will provide monetary support for those who think as I do.
I will make My points in debate and then move on, not caring if you or anyone agrees or not.

I will take legal action for slanders and lies against Me, and I will bring legal actions against those who attempt to assign intent to My solutions for society, where I legally can do so.

but they do and they did; thats why it passed.

 

[Bush92]

If they can twist it into a "victim-villain-rights issue" their depravity know no bounds.