The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[CockySOB]

It is considered inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexual behavior. That is a point often missed, purposefully for the sake of an agenda. It isn't a one way street. Only the "in your face" homosexual crowd wants it to be one.

Conduct unbecoming IIRC.... And homosexuals cannot bitch because adultery is also in the qualifiers for such charges.

 

[007]

I've been arguing about this for years and it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest jerks about the subject are not gays. Some of my favorite posters on other boards happen to people who claim to be gay men. No, the ones with the stupidest arguments are always straight liberals who are so open minded their fucking brains fell out years ago.

:rotflmao:

 

[trobinett]

Don't be sorry. It's you who is just a tad confused about how this works.

You see when you fag defenders start in with your psycho babble, it is you who is trying to convince all us NORMAL people that WE are WRONG. "I" don't have to defend NATURE and it's grand design. "I" don't have to defend the FACT that a MAN was created to be with, SEXUALLY, a WOMAN. It is YOU who has the BURDEN to convince ME that a man sticking his cock up another mans BUTT is NORMAL, and frankly, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

So back to the drawing board for you. Get a new hook, because you're old one is broken.

Right on.

I would only pose the question. What part don't the perverters of nature understand?:bat:

 

[nt250]

I would need to walk in your shoes, before I could possibly comment.I would like to say though, If I were gay like you, I would have outed long ago.It just isn't fair on your family
All this bluff and bluster you spout about hating gays, see a shrink man and never point the finger, it only points right back at you:chillpill

I didn't know you hated gays, Roomy.

I'm very surprised.

 

[MissileMan]

Yo PR! Why don't you act like you own a pair and refute my post in public instead of behind the scenes like some scared little pantywaist!

I posted:

I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society. I really can't imagine conversations like "Sorry Marge! We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." or "Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage" taking place. As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.

Since you think it's dumb to believe conversations like the ones I bolded are highly improbable, let's hear your reasoning for believing straight couples are going to forego marriage if gay marriage is allowed and how divorce rates are going to skyrocket. And just for a change of pace, how about responding with a lot less bluster and a lot more brains than one of your typical posts.

 

[mattskramer]

How lucky for you Matts.... the end of smoking is near, homosexuals are heading for ownership of their own state and now that strap-ons have been invented you can get your lady to handle what you would normally get a young boy to do.

I still think that smoking and homosexual behavior is a valid comparison. Both are unnatural. Both are tolerated to one degree or another. Perhaps smoking is tolerated less than is homosexual behavior tolerated. Anyway, I was also thinking of fast junk food. It is unhealthy. If eaten regularly, it can lead to various health problems. To some people, eating a cheeseburger each day is unnatural. Yet, this behavior is accepted and tolerated.
Again, it is all relative.

 

[mattskramer]

They just wanted to be decriminalized at first, then taken off the mentally ill list. Then the movies and sitcoms, the inclusion of bullshit books in schools that attempt to normalize their behavior, fag day at Disneyworld, fag cruises, "Gay Pride Day" and the ridiculous parades to go with it. Now there are demands, the demand of acceptance of a behavior that for many if witnessed would invoke a very deep sickness in their stomach causing profuse vomiting. I remember walking into a restroom in New Orleans during Mardi Gras while tripping on a rather strong 4 way hit of windowpane acid(thirty years ago and it is still burned in my memory)and witnessing a guy going down on another.... that profuse vomiting happened all over those clowns. Now the demands are marriage and adoption, what next their own state? That is what is meant by a slippery slope.

You are mentioning attempts made by the “gay community” to get homosexual relationships legally recognized (gay marriage). The slippery slope (domino theory) is the notion that if gay marriage were allowed, incest, polygamy, and perhaps bestiality and necromancy would be next. I’m sorry to tell you but these things are not dominos. One thing does not necessarily lead to another.

 

[mattskramer]

Funny you should mention Mardi Gras. That's another thing gay rights defenders almost always bring up. I had forgotten all about that. Except they use Madri Gras as an example of outrageous behavoir by straight people. I've never been to Madri Gras but I have seen videos of it, and the worst thing I saw was a lot of breasts being flashed around. I didn't see anyone on those videos having sex in public.

What I saw at the one and only Gay Pride parade I attended was enough to last me forever.

I have never been to a Marti Gras or to a gay pride march. I’ve seen videos of each. Neither parade looked any more revolting than the other. In the Marti Gras video I saw women flash their chests, kiss, and grope men. I also saw mooning. I saw men beg women for attention. In the Gay Pride march I saw men in skin-tight leather holding hands and kissing. I saw some men dressed up like women. I saw some women looking like med. That was about the extent of it. The videos were equally entertaining/revolting to me.

 

[mattskramer]

Don't be sorry. It's you who is just a tad confused about how this works.

You see when you fag defenders start in with your psycho babble, it is you who is trying to convince all us NORMAL people that WE are WRONG. "I" don't have to defend NATURE and it's grand design. "I" don't have to defend the FACT that a MAN was created to be with, SEXUALLY, a WOMAN. It is YOU who has the BURDEN to convince ME that a man sticking his cock up another mans BUTT is NORMAL, and frankly, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

So back to the drawing board for you. Get a new hook, because you're old one is broken.

Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. The weaker animals are left to starve and die. Again, this is part of some grand design. Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.

 

[nt250]

I still think that smoking and homosexual behavior is a valid comparison. Both are unnatural. Both are tolerated to one degree or another. Perhaps smoking is tolerated less than is homosexual behavior tolerated. Anyway, I was also thinking of fast junk food. It is unhealthy. If eaten regularly, it can lead to various health problems. To some people, eating a cheeseburger each day is unnatural. Yet, this behavior is accepted and tolerated.
Again, it is all relative.

Matts, are you really this dense or are you really just arguing to argue?

All the comparisons you've given are examples of behavior people are trying to STOP. Only gay rights are championed. Smoking and unhealthy eating are things people are suing to STOP.

The only even close comparison to gay rights laws are laws that protect religious freedom. And even those laws do NOT protect behavior. They protect people from being discriminated against by the state for their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are a fundamental part of human nature and go to the core of what separates us from the animals. The ability to think and reason. To contemplate our own selves. That's what makes us humans.

But when it comes to behavior, there are always limits placed on it. What gays want is to define what behavior other people should accept. That's the difference. All other laws limit an individuals behavior in some way. Gay rights laws limit the reaction to the behavior.

 

[mattskramer]

It is considered inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexual behavior. That is a point often missed, purposefully for the sake of an agenda. It isn't a one way street. Only the "in your face" homosexual crowd wants it to be one.

I am intellectually honest and consistent. I’ll grant you that it is inappropriate to flaunt sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual). Now, how do you define the term flaunt.

Is a man allowed to kiss a woman in public?
Is a man allowed to kiss a man with as much sexuality in public?

How intellectually honest and consistent are you or do you advocate a double standard?

 

[007]

Yo PR! Why don't you act like you own a pair and refute my post in public instead of behind the scenes like some scared little pantywaist!

I posted:



Since you think it's dumb to believe conversations like the ones I bolded are highly improbable, let's hear your reasoning for believing straight couples are going to forego marriage if gay marriage is allowed and how divorce rates are going to skyrocket. And just for a change of pace, how about responding with a lot less bluster and a lot more brains than one of your typical posts.

It may not be healthy for you to be so obsessed with my balls MM. Try and keep those thoughts to yourself please.

My point was, your bolded arguements are absurd, childish, and not worth an intelligent response. Try talking like an adult, with adult ideas, adult thought. Not grade school, na nana nana na shit.

Marriage is for "men" and "women". It shouldn't be compared to any other thing, scenario, or sick idea for the sake of distortion.

 

[MissileMan]

It may not be healthy for you to be so obsessed with my balls MM. Try and keep those thoughts to yourself please.

My point was, your bolded arguements are absurd, childish, and not worth an intelligent response. Try talking like an adult, with adult ideas, adult thought. Not grade school, na nana nana na shit.

Marriage is for "men" and "women". It shouldn't be compared to any other thing, scenario, or sick idea for the sake of distortion.

And exactly where did I compare marriage to anything? The prevailing hypothesis of some of the posters is that allowing gay marriage will lead to higher divorce rates and fewer marriages. Any such claims are nothing more than supposition. The bolded arguments perfectly mirrored the absurdity of the hypothesis...an observation apparently beyond your scope. I guess you'd better stick to bluster after all.

 

[007]

And exactly where did I compare marriage to anything? The prevailing hypothesis of some of the posters is that allowing gay marriage will lead to higher divorce rates and fewer marriages. Any such claims are nothing more than supposition. The bolded arguments perfectly mirrored the absurdity of the hypothesis...an observation apparently beyond your scope. I guess you'd better stick to bluster after all.

You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.

The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.

Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.

Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.

 

[mattskramer]

You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.

The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.

Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.

Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.

First of all, this is exaggeration and hyperbole. Even if you carefully select those web sites that have articles that support your bias that places that have legalized gay marriage are not doing well, they do not say that the sky has fallen. Secondly, there are too many intervening variables. Europe is not the USA. I don’t put much faith in such articles or in comparisons between nations based on just 1 variable.

 

[nt250]

First of all, this is exaggeration and hyperbole. Even if you carefully select those web sites that have articles that support your bias that places that have legalized gay marriage are not doing well, they do not say that the sky has fallen. Secondly, there are too many intervening variables. Europe is not the USA. I don’t put much faith in such articles or in comparisons between nations based on just 1 variable.

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[007]

Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. The weaker animals are left to starve and die. Again, this is part of some grand design. Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.

I make NO DISTINCTION between what is "good" and "bad". I DO however, make a distinction between what is "RIGHT" and what is "WRONG". Something YOU and your butt pounding defenders DON'T UNDERSTAND.

 

[mattskramer]

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln

Uh…Yes. That is basically my philosophy within reason. I basically believe that, to a large extent, people (and nations as an extension) should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. I’m somewhat libertarian in that respect. I like relationships based on mutual informed consent and things of that nature. What was your point in bringing this to my attention?

 

[MissileMan]

You were "distorting" the issue, and that is exactly what I said.

I wasn't distorting anything, and as of yet, you STILL haven't explained how allowing gay marriage will increase the divorce rate and lower marriage rates.

The "prevailing" arguement is, that it's allowed over seas, and that the sky hasn't fallen in because of it, when in fact, it has been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it HAS.

One of your biggest failings that I've noticed is that you consider opinions and conjecture that you agree with as proof. And you usually deem it irrefutable to boot. I asked this question earlier and noone replied...maybe you'd like to take a shot at it: How do you intend to blame gay marriage for the rising divorce and out-of-wedlock-birth rates in this country when gay marriage hasn't existed here? Now, when you engage that micro-processor (pun intended) in your skull to formulate your response, ask yourself this question also: (yes, I know that asking you to multi-task is stretching your system capacity) If the rising rates in the U.S. can't be attributed to gay marriage, does it REALLY make any sense to try to attribute it to the rates in Europe?

Why you fag defenders always insist on beating a dead horse is beyond me. Whatever it is that prompts you to keep pumping out this sensless dribble is hard to understand, to NORMAL people.

Maybe you should take a break. Rethink what it is you'd like to champion, and then ask yourself "why"? Maybe then you and your butt buddy defenders can come up with something worth listening to.

Before recommending that I take a break, review the forum and count how many threads I've started to defend gays, and then count how many YOU'VE started to bash them.

 

[mattskramer]

Hurricanes, tornados, floods, cancer, and heart disease are part of this grand design. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. The weaker animals are left to starve and die. Again, this is part of some grand design. Poor Pale Rider still does not understand that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. Perhaps he never will.

Let us no longer allow the creation of dams to prevent hurricanes. Doing so would be to create something unnatural in the face of a natural activity. Let us not protect endangered species. To do so would be to interfere with nature. If there are too many lions killing off too many deer, so be it. If deer become extinct, that was what nature intended. Let us not use chemotherapy and radiation treatment to retard cancer growth. Let nature run its course. If someone dies young due to cancer, that is what nature, in its grand design, wanted.