The Homosexual Dilemma

[The Rabbi]

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.

He made a claim. You failed to disprove the claim. How hard is that?
But I see you cannot disprove the claim. How do I know? Because if you could you would have done so already instead of carping about who said what.
Like I said, you a re a stupid shit talker.

 

[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.

Abnormal =/= evil. Sorry about that!

I never said that abnormal was evil.

 

[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!

I never said that abnormal was evil.

You clearly were trying to establish linkage when you prefaced with "society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means? There's the crux.
You clearly dont understand the argument, confirming what I wrote above that gays have a mental illness preventing them from understanding logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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"

lol, don't let your RWnut pals hear you say that. The government gives you rights??!! lol

 

[g5000]

"A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

"A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".

Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".

Nobody is fooled here.

Abnormal =/= wrong. Sorry about that!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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"

Rights are established where God endows those rights. Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT! Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

China has legal marriage AND a one child policy.

 

[g5000]

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means? There's the crux.

First, so what? What is wrong with artificial means? Show harm.

Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful. Again, show harm.

Don't be obtuse.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Or a theologist who envies what Iran has got going.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means? There's the crux.

First, so what? What is wrong with artificial means? Show harm.

Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful. Again, show harm.

Don't be obtuse.

No need to show harm. That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.

 

[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.

Abnormal =/= evil. Sorry about that!

I never said that abnormal was evil.

You clearly were trying to establish linkage when you prefaced with "society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

Who do you think you are fooling?

Societies decide what behaviors they condone and which ones they prohibit. ALL societies do that. What one society approves of another may find reprehensible.

Evil is in the mind of the beholder.

 

[g5000]

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"

Rights are established where God endows those rights. Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT! Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal. Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.

What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.

Simple as that.

Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits? Serious question.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.


>>>>

Same Sex "Couples" are irrelevant to any institution which intrinsically prohibits their participation. We call this: A STANDARD. The purpose of which is to define the institution in terms of what is and is not acceptable behavior or policy, as a means to insure the viability of the institution.

You're simply offended by the standard. Which is perfectly understandable. It was designed to offend you; established as a means to preclude you.

That is what standards DO!

 

[g5000]

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means? There's the crux.

First, so what? What is wrong with artificial means? Show harm.

Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful. Again, show harm.

Don't be obtuse.

No need to show harm. That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.

SMDT's argument is that gay parents are abusive to their children. So bullshit on your "no need to show harm".

He made a claim, it needs to be proven.

 

[Redfish]

"A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

"A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".

Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".

Nobody is fooled here.

Abnormal =/= wrong. Sorry about that!

bullshit again, being left handed is abnormal, but its not wrong. Gays are not evil, they are sick.

 

[Lilah]

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.

Parse it for me, please

So that's a no.

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.

Your sermon is your extraction from the topic; not everyone else's. It's remarkable how you've managed to compress your personal views into a single paragraph, expecting others to revere your seemingly superior knowledge of how society works today. It's particularly interesting how you articulate yourself ... homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevant.' Exactly what kind of rules are you making for the general population?

 

[bodecea]

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.

We can see quite clearly who is flailing....rather, failing. And it's you.

 

[The Rabbi]

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"

Rights are established where God endows those rights. Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT! Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal. Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.

What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.

Simple as that.

Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits? Serious question.

Simply not true by your own admission. The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means? There's the crux.

First, so what? What is wrong with artificial means? Show harm.

Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful. Again, show harm.

Don't be obtuse.

No need to show harm. That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.

SMDT's argument is that gay parents are abusive to their children. So bullshit on your "no need to show harm".

He made a claim, it needs to be proven.

Take it up with him if he made the claim. My argument does not depend on artificial insemination being harmful but on the fact that it is not common when compared to natural methods.