The Homosexual Dilemma

[g5000]

SMDT believes that telling your children that being gay is not evil or wrong is abusive.

Like I said. Westboro Baptist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>

That post made no sense. There is no "procreation rule." You made that up.

Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".

Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't. If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple. That's fine. Apply the same rule equally. On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate. (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)

Let alone "rules" (well actually laws in this case) that require different-sex couples to be infertile together before being allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.

Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.

The USA has had marriage equality for years. A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.

A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.

Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.


20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.

Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.

The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.

Deflection.
Do you have anything else to add? I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.

Harvey Milk has as much to do with this discussion as Elvis Presley does.

Just a strawman thrown out by homophobes when they have run out of legitimate talking points.

 

[g5000]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!

So demonstrate he is wrong. Go ahead.

Argument from ignorance.

He made the claim. You supported it. So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.

Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.

Good luck with that!

 

[The Rabbi]

SMDT believes that telling your children that being okay is not evil or wrong is abusive.

Like I said. Westboro Baptist.

That isnt a demonstration of anything. That is a mere assertion.
Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>

That post made no sense. There is no "procreation rule." You made that up.

Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".

Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't. If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple. That's fine. Apply the same rule equally. On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate. (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)


>>>>


>>>>

You are one stupid shit who cant read. That much is obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!

So demonstrate he is wrong. Go ahead.

Argument from ignorance.

He made the claim. You supported it. So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.

Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.

Good luck with that!

You're failing badly here. I never made the claim nor did I support it. I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.

 

[Syriusly]

The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.

Wow...that is some power you think that homosexuals have over America.

Or maybe you think that Jesus- even though he never mentioned homosexuals once- will rain pestulance and disease on America because two men are allowed to marry?

Me?

I think America is actually an amazing and strong country- able to survive both homosexuals and the religious zealots that would persecute them if it were not for that pesky Constitution.

 

[g5000]

SMDT believes that telling your children that being okay is not evil or wrong is abusive.

Like I said. Westboro Baptist.

That isnt a demonstration of anything. That is a mere assertion.
Try again.

An assertion is a claim. So prove that telling a kid that "being gay is not evil" is abusive.

 

[g5000]

The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.

See?

Westboro Baptist.

 

[Redfish]

Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.

Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.

The USA has had marriage equality for years. A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.

A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.

You don't speak for the legislature or for God.

correct, I speak for myself, just as you only speak for yourself. My views a just as valid as yours

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.

ROFL!

I NEVER tire of this rationalization...

They point out the sexually Abnormal Priests as if "Catholicism" produced them... when IN FACT: THE PRIESTS ARE ... (wait for it...) ... THEM! OKA: The Sexually Abnormal.

Now Homosexuality is as DEVIANT a sexual abnormality as human sexuality can GET, where all of the subjects at issue are HUMAN!

So... it follows that putting such individuals in positions of ANY FORM of responsibility or authority where such includes children is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD! (I added 'ridiculously', because ABSURD does not begin to describe how OBVIOUSLY foolish it is.

The Catholic Church is NOT advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... it merely requires that Priest turn from ALL form of sexuality... that priests remain celibate.

So, I expect that because of THAT, the Catholics likely did not feel that sexuality was an issue.
UNFORTUNATELY, the did not realize, perhaps... that the Homosexual is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Thus is prone toward the predisposition to reject standards regarding sexuality... which of course Priestly celibacy would fall directly into that category which the Sexually Abnormal DO NOT RECOGNIZE AS BEING RELEVANT TO THEM!

So.... there they are, pointing fingers at the Catholics as if THEY were somehow producing SEXUALLY ABNORMAL PRIESTS, when in truth, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality demanded that the Catholic Church allow Homosexuals to participate in their clergy and VIOLA! Pedophile Priests!

Now... it should be noted that they did so intentionally... and yes, it was a conspiracy which sought to take the Catholic Church down a notch... Evil has long had a hard on the Catholics and has a long history of fornicating that flock.

More recently of course it tried to do the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America, who thankfully found the strength of Character to bounce the Homosexuals... as has they failed to do so, their organization would already be TOAST!

 

[WorldWatcher]

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>

That post made no sense. There is no "procreation rule." You made that up.

Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".

Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't. If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple. That's fine. Apply the same rule equally. On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate. (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)


>>>>


>>>>

You are one stupid shit who cant read. That much is obvious.

I read just fine. As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.

The point was a double-standard was to be applied. Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule". But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.

Clearly the application of a double-standard.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

So an Iraqi war vet whose testicles were blown off serving our country should not get married since that would be constructing a union that can't produce children, and he shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into his deivant apparatus utilizing artificial means?

Or do you mean- you just want to discriminate against homosexuals who use sperm donations?

 

[g5000]

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!

So demonstrate he is wrong. Go ahead.

Argument from ignorance.

He made the claim. You supported it. So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.

Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.

Good luck with that!

You're failing badly here. I never made the claim nor did I support it. I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.

Again, argument from ignorance. You clearly need to look up what that means. Neither your nor SMDT has proven the claim he made which you supported.

 

[Syriusly]

The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.

ROFL!

I NEVER tire of this rationalization...

They point out the sexually Abnormal Priests as if "Catholicism" produced them... when IN FACT: THE PRIESTS ARE ... (wait for it...) ... THEM! OKA: The Sexually Abnormal.

Now Homosexuality is as DEVIANT a sexual abnormality as human sexuality can GET, where all of the subjects at issue are HUMAN!

So... it follows that putting such individuals in positions of ANY FORM of responsibility or authority where such includes children is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD! (I added 'ridiculously', because ABSURD does not begin to describe how OBVIOUSLY foolish it is.

The Catholic Church is NOT advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... it merely requires that Priest turn from ALL form of sexuality... that priests remain celibate.

So, I expect that because of THAT, the Catholics likely did not feel that sexuality was an issue.
UNFORTUNATELY, the did not realize, perhaps... that the Homosexual is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Thus is prone toward the predisposition to reject standards regarding sexuality... which of course Priestly celibacy would fall directly into that category which the Sexually Abnormal DO NOT RECOGNIZE AS BEING RELEVANT TO THEM!

So.... there they are, pointing fingers at the Catholics as if THEY were somehow producing SEXUALLY ABNORMAL PRIESTS, when in truth, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality demanded that the Catholic Church allow Homosexuals to participate in their clergy and VIOLA! Pedophile Priests!

Now... it should be noted that they did so intentionally... and yes, it was a conspiracy which sought to take the Catholic Church down a notch... Evil has long had a hard on the Catholics and has a long history of fornicating that flock.

More recently of course it tried to do the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America, who thankfully found the strength of Character to bounce the Homosexuals... as has they failed to do so, their organization would already be TOAST!

Bat shit crazy Keys post.

 

[Redfish]

Gay marriage harms society by putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.

Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.

Laws are made by people. A society decides what is right and wrong for that society. Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.

What you personally think has zero value on this topic, you are but one person.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights. Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children? Answer than one.

My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?

Mark

Totally incorrect. She was lovingly planned by my wife and I. She had her...I adopted her. One of the best things in our lives.

Where's her father? Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion. It was entirely a self centered act.

Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two parents.

Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?

I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.

And there we have it- Saint wants Big Brother to tell Americans when and how they can have children.

Bravo for the Conservatives......

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You ask many people,...

and they will wonder why you are so public with your dilemma with homosexuals and what they do in their bedrooms

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?

What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.