The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.

LOL! Now isn't that precious?

All one needs to do to believe THAT is to suspend all sense of reality.

Human sexuality is designed by its natural physiology. Nature designed human beings with two distinct, but complimenting genders.

THAT is the STANDARD of Human sexuality.

Homosexuality, not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as FAR FROM THE STANDARD AS ONE CAN GET... where the subject scope in consideration remain entirely HUMAN!

Therefore, due to the deviation from that wholly objective standard, homosexuality is most decidedly ABNORMAL.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is about NOTHING except misleading people to believe that sexual deviancy is NOT deviant... thus the goal is to delude others into recognizing that, that which is ABNORMAL is normal.

Can't dumb it down any farther scamp. That's the issue in its core elements. If you can't understand that, then you're simply not fit to discuss the issue.

 

[bodecea]

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!

Again, you FAIL to recognize the difference between homosexuality between consenting adults and pedophilia between an adult (protected Catholic priests) and children (male and female). The Catholic Hierarchy has, over the decades, protected illegal acts and helped spread them by sending pedophile priests to unsuspecting parishes.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Children are the state's only interest when it comes to marriage. Otherwise the state loses money on the tax breaks.

Why different marriages are prohibited in a given state as to its main reason for being involved: the best formative environment of children/future citizens:

1. Polygamy marriage guarantees the state that the attention each child receives from the minority gendered parent will be diluted....to the child's detriment.

2. Monosexual (single parent by choice or circumstance) marriage guarantees the state that the child will lack the influence of the complimentary gender 100% of the time....to the child's detriment.

3. Homosexual marriage guarantees the state that the child will lack the influence of the complimentary gender 100% of the time...to the child's detriment...

4. Incest marriage guarantees the state that progeny will carry a very high risk of birth defects...to the child's detriment.

Hetero marriage isn't perfect, but it is the best structural arrangement of marriage that can be predicted to foster children's best developmental chances and integration into society. Structure and not the individual players is important. Whereas the structure of hetero marriage guarantees the best formative environment for kids at the start, all the others are handicaps. So the state does not incentivize them.

Can and are children raised in all types of environments anyway? Yes, even wolves have been known to raise children. It's not a mandate. It is an incentive program....a privelege and not a "right"..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

True, you did not.

What IS EVIL however, is the deceit, which requires one to accept abnormality as NORMAL. And you should have said that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

No, you are attempting to apply a double-standard, whether you use the word "tend" or not is irrelevant. Same-sex couples are raising children whether there is Civil Marriage available or not, but because they can't procreate together - they should be denied Civil Marriage. Different-sex couples should be allowed to Civilly Marry with the ability to procreate together not being a factor and despite that for some couple they are required not to be able to procreate.

I understand the argument just fine. A double-standard.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

As they have and still think of Left-handedness as abnormal behavior.

 

[Lilah]

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.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No, you are attempting to apply a double-standard, whether you use the word "tend" or not is irrelevant. Same-sex couples are raising children whether there is Civil Marriage available or not, but because they can't procreate together - they should be denied Civil Marriage. Different-sex couples should be allowed to Civilly Marry with the ability to procreate together not being a factor and despite that for some couple they are required not to be able to procreate.

I understand the argument just fine. A double-standard.


>>>>

I stopped reading at the first sentence because it is obvious you dont understand the argument Get back to em when you can get an adult to explain it.

 

[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.

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.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

 

[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.

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.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

 

[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.

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.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

 

[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.

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.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

 

[g5000]

These arguments against gay marriage are identical to those against interracial marriage.

Deviant. Abnormal. Against tradition. Blah blah blah.

 

[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.

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.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

Well, let's see, Jerry Sandusky was a good example of a man How do you and your State feel about such a union?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Let me by clear: My recognizing that sexual abnormality is the result of deviant reasoning, is the epitome of sound sanity. That you claim otherwise, presents your own mental disorder.

Promoting mental disorder as normal, runs counter to the interests of every individual in the culture, including those two men you're speaking of. As a result, allowing sexual abnormality to be recognized as a normal component of the culture injures the culture. And the only sound purpose of government is to promote justice, thus to serve the best interests of the individuals who sum to comprise the culture.

Again... not complicated... nothing complex about it. Just beyond your means to understand.

Now... the reader should understand that the above contributor is demonstrating THE PROBLEM!

Neither you nor I are EVER going to convince THEM that they're wrong.

Thus the issue is what should be done, where a significant percentage of the population has become infected with this perverse species of reasoning.

Now that species of reasoning is a THREAT TO YOU... it threatens the means of you to govern yourself, to defend your children and for your children to defend your grandchildren from that perverse reasoning.


How do you intend to defend from people with whom you've no means to communicate?

Take your time, give it some thought and please, get back to me on it, once ya have it figured out.

Again, just as a reminder:

These arguments against gay marriage are identical to those against interracial marriage.

Deviant. Abnormal. Against tradition. Blah blah blah.

There is no means to reason with these people. They are simply incapable of it.

And in KNOWING THAT... what steps do you take to defend yourself and your family from them and those who THEY ELECT, to pass policy which is a clear and present danger to your means to live a virtuous and free life, without the influence of this profound evil?

 

[bodecea]

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

You cannot vote away rights. Sorry about that!

Well, they have tried. Doesn't usually last past the first court challenge tho.....thank goodness for Checks and Balances.

 

[mdk]

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.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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!

Psst - as a male heterosexual, married to a female heterosexual for 28 years with 2 children the standards don't exclude me or my wife.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

 

[g5000]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.