The Homosexual Dilemma

[Redfish]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others. How hard is that?

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

Incorrect.

That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, it in no way justifies denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

We disagree. its OK to disagree. thats why we vote

 

[g5000]

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.

Abnormal =/= evil. Sorry about that!

 

[g5000]

We disagree. its OK to disagree. thats why we vote

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Laws are made by people and their representatives- but in America- all laws are subject to both the U.S. Consittution and individual state constitutions. Whether the majority of Americans find homosexuality, or Judaism an abnormal behavior is irrelevant, if the laws enacted violate the Consitution.

Laws to have Big Brother policing how Americans can have sex in the privacy of their bedroom are unconstitutional.

I think that is a good thing.

 

[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.

Oh good lord, not this shit again.

This point has been explained over and over. I can only conclude that homosexuality is a mental illness that prevents people from following logical arguments, much less responding to them.

Bigots come to that conclusion all the time- the rest of us have concluded that it is bigotry that prevents people from following logical arguments- hence they both argue that procreation is related to marriage- and it isn't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.

The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.

That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.

Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case. As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.

This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.

I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread? You do SO well over there. Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?

 

[g5000]

We have "redefined marriage" before. In my own lifetime, in fact. There were states who defined marriage as the union of two people of the same race.

The argument of "traditional marriage" doesn't hold water for many reasons. First, the Bible has quite a few versions of marriage. Polygamy and concubines are all over the Good Book.

Secondly, "we've always done it that way" is the last argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression. "We've always had slaves. There were slaves in the bible." Blah blah blah.

Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another. The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority. Simple as that.

The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let's see....Harvey Milk vs. the millions, if not billions the Catholic Church has spent over the last 50+ years protecting their pedophile priests. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[g5000]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.

The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.

That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.

Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case. As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.

This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.

I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread? You do SO well over there. Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?

Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile. Thanks for playing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

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

No, it cannot, as that standard is irrelevant to coupling of the same gender, because:

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.​

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

There was no argument. I merely point out you failed to refute his point.
C'mon. It cant be that hard, can it?

 

[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.

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.


>>>>

No, you read what you want. I wrote the word "tend" specifically to foil moves like yours. You didnt get the memo. Get back to me when you understand the argument.

 

[g5000]

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.

There was no argument. I merely point out you failed to refute his point.
C'mon. It cant be that hard, can it?

I do not have to refute a claim that has not been proven. Thus, argument from ignorance.

Seriously. How many times have I asked you to take a course in Logic?

You really, really should.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's also a fundamental fact that the human species does not depend on all humans to reproduce in order to sustain the species, therefore,

if your main argument is about 'nature', then the 'nature' of the human species is that it has plenty of room to naturally allow many individuals to choose not to reproduce, whether they are homosexual, heterosexual couples who prefer to remain childless, or celibates.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

So...you think it's bad if gays use artificial insemination or adoption....but it's quite ok if the same is used by straights. That's the definition of discriminatory behavior.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile. Thanks for playing.

Oh, and yes he was.
Anti-gay group calls for boycott of Harvey Milk stamp MSNBC
Thanks for failing.

 

[Redfish]

We disagree. its OK to disagree. thats why we vote

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

bullshit, rights are established by voting. the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.

but since you know so much about 'rights" quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?

The State is Irrelevant from Marriage.

However, the community; defined as the sum of a free people who govern themselves... is entitled to establish policy which promotes a healthy, viability... thus where Marriage is recognized as being the core essential to a sound and viable culture, OKA: Civilization, it follows that the policies of such would tend to offer what incentives are available as a means to promote marriage.

Again... read it slowly, to give yourself the best chance to understand it. But when ya fail to do so, just go back to participating in threads which deal with issues within your intellectual means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.

The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.

That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.

Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case. As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.

This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.

I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread? You do SO well over there. Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?

Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?

Not to mention the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to marry, and yet still choose to have children.