The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.

And gays get the bad rap out of that story.

Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him. Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.

Ah...so it was the daughters' fault.

 

[bodecea]

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?

That's ludicriously inconsistent.

You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality. And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

Like Jews...

being a Jew isn't a choice.

Oh? Since when?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.


Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

Hung up? I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life. Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom. He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women. Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women. Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so. Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day. And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom? NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.

Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb. Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou

You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?

Americans are a dumb as dog shit, stupid ******* and wetbacks included. And if you were around enough you'd know that Chief Sellout calls his kids half-breeds, and isn't concerned that not long ago the only good damn drunk Indian was a dead one.

 

[80zephyr]

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.

No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.

If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.

And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.

Mark

You know...the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia in front of the Supreme Court. It got quite a laugh.

 

[bodecea]

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

BS. Every (unbiased) study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

Ah...let's see those unbiased studies then.

 

[Skylar]

And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.

No it isn't. Almost all sexual abusers self identify as heterosexual. That means they are sexually attracted to women. With 3 in 4 being in a sexual relationship with the male child's mother or female relative. Demonstrating elegantly that one's sexual preference in children isn't necessarily related to one's sexual preference in adults.

Its apparent that the folks you have to watch out for if you want to prevent sexual abuse are heterosexual men. As they make up 99% of the abusers. In fact, a child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual male in a relationship with their mother or female relative than from a homosexual.

As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.

That's anti-intellectual clap trap. You don't like the results of legions of studies that contradict you. So you apply an arbitrary label so you can ignore anything that doesn't fit into your beliefs.

The obvious problem with that being that the validity of a study has absolutely nothing to do with its agreement with you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?

That's ludicriously inconsistent.

You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality. And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

Like Jews...

being a Jew isn't a choice.

Oh? Since when?

Since forever. It's an ethnic religion in nearly all cases. It is also does not seek converts which is why there are so few Jews in the world.

 

[bodecea]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

CP World.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Unfortunately perception of sexual orientation in child sex offenders is seriously skewed by the fact that many child predators disguise themselves in the legitimacy of marriage. A lot of gay men and pederasts do this too. But eventually their core sexual nature asserts itself and children are abused.

Historically, the link between homosexuality and pederasty is far more conspicuous to the point that the "age of consent" is nothing more than a modern construct that in prior times was an unheard of concept. Arranged marriages of prepubescent girls was common as well as throwing parties where boys are brought in to entertain the guests. Part of the deterioration of Greek and Roman societies can be attributed to rampant pederasty. The Catholic Church took its strongest stand against homosexuality and pederasty during those times, speaking out against the evil of their day.

The delusion among the perverted Left is this idea that the "age of consent" will hold sway against a waxing tide of lust and perversion. It's just a line and it will be crossed repeatedly. Soon it won't even be a line anymore and the "age of consent" will be a relic of history. Such is the folly of acquiescence to unbridled perversion.

 

[80zephyr]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

If that were true then my 90 year old grandfather would have been prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend. My sterilized brother would have been prevented from marrying his sterilized wife.

What doesn't change is the fact that you want to treat gay couples differently than straight couples. You want to set a standard for gays that you would not set for straights. That's discrimination and that makes you an anti gay bigot. It's okay, you've got company.

Watering down the definition of marriage is the way to its destruction. Its destruction is already underway in our society because the "enlightened" have already damaged it, possibly beyond repair. Now, they appear intent to finish the job, to the determent to us all.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.

And gays get the bad rap out of that story.

Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him. Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.

Ah...so it was the daughters' fault.

They were not innocent victims. Stop lying.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Which god is that?

The one that will judge your immortal soul, whether you believe in Him now or not.

 

[80zephyr]

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.


Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

Hung up? I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life. Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom. He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women. Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women. Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so. Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day. And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom? NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.

Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb. Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou

You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?

Americans are a dumb as dog shit, stupid ******* and wetbacks included. And if you were around enough you'd know that Chief Sellout calls his kids half-breeds, and isn't concerned that not long ago the only good damn drunk Indian was a dead one.

What he says about his family has no influence on what you said. Many blacks call other blacks *******, does that now mean I have the right to do it as well?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

And where do you think the greater pressure is in our society? To be gay or to be straight? How come straight parents keep having gay kids and gay parents keep having straight kids?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Family Research Council"

Really?

 

[Skylar]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.

If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.

And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.

Mark

You know...the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia in front of the Supreme Court. It got quite a laugh.

Exactly the same reasoning. Since both blacks and whites were prohibited from from marrying each other, the laws were 'equal'.

Alas, you need a valid basis for the restriction to exist to begin with. And such a reason exists in neither gay marriage bans nor interracial marriage bans.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.

No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.

No, it didn't. You believe lies, plain and simple. Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

And of course, factually inaccurate. As in 36 states, marriage is also one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Ignoring this fact doesn't change it.

[quote
This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species.

What relevance does the physiological design of the species have to do with marriage? Remember, you've said repeatedly that you're not arguing that marriage is about procreation. Without procreation, what relevance does your point have to marriage, its purpose, or a valid basis for it?

That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.

Given that a majority of the nation supports gay marriage and gay marriage proponents outweigh opponents by a 12 to 19 points, your assessment of what Americans feel on the matter are of no consequence. As you don't know what you're talking about.

A majority disagrees with you. And that majority is growing. Get used to the idea.

Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion. Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.

Factually incorrect. Civil rights may or may not be in line with popular opinion. Interracial marriage bans when it was recognized as unconstitutional was wildly popular. With support in the mid to high 80s. There was very little popular support for interracial marriage, despite the courts recognizing it was a right.

Demonstrating elegantly that civil rights can most definitely be something other than popular opinion. And of course, our law recognizes civil rights. Which might explain the rather horrid record your ilk have had in court.

There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.

And which rights did God 'endow'? And according to who? You can't say with anything more than empty opinion. See, plenty of people claim to speak for God. You included.

Using the reasoning of religion, almost all religion is false. Given that by your own reasoning almost all people who claim to speak for God are wrong, what would be the odds that out of all the people in all the world, across the long span of what is, what has been and what will be......that *you* happened to be the guy to get it right? Especially when there's nothing that mandates that anyone did?

The odds of your accuracy are exceedingly small. Rendering your citation of yourself as the conveyer of God's will unreliable. And of course, without reason or logic.

Oh, and for spice, your claims is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.

More accurately, 'we people' don't accept you as speaking for God. Though I'll be happy to recognize you as the avatar of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You yourself have said that the appeal to authority fallacy is valid only if its logic and reasoning are valid.

And you can't logically or reasonably establish you claims. Which is why you continue to fail.

Amazing that you use the "majority of people" argument. Tell me, before this "majority" would it have been alright for me to tell you that the "majority" don't want gay marriage and that you should just STFU?

If not, why do you use it to bludgeon others?

Mark

You don't gays to be uppity and fight for our rights, do you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Which god is that?

The one that will judge your immortal soul, whether you believe in Him now or not.

Remember that part about asshole Christians, that's you little Bible-thumper.