The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

funny, you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it. You are a bigotted, confused idiot.

It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Stop bloviating about your prejudices ...

She says as she begins to bloviate about her prejudices...

ROFLMNAO!

You people are helpless.

 

[Lilah]

It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

 

[Syriusly]

It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists,.

Ah so when I say that means that first you want to stop same gender marriage and then you want to make it illegal to be homosexuals, and then you want to start putting homosexuals to death....that would be an accurate description of the slippery slope that you say exists.

 

[Syriusly]

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The failure is you ignoring your hypocrisy. That's how you cowards avoid addressing it.

If you deny marriages you oppose from exercising something you say is a right, you're a coward.

When you seek to change the definition of marriage, you are changing marriage.

Ah the lectures from homophobic bigots are amusing in a sad way.

You are a bigot and a hypocrite.

You want to deny rights to homosexuals because they are homosexuals.

And you have quite the junior high potty mouth.

You love faggots

I love all humans equally- just I don't judge them based upon whether they are black or Jewish or homosexuals- I leave that for bigots that wallow in their own hatred like pigs in slop.

Meanwhile- some parting words for today

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47And if you greet only your brothers,i what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder. And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control. Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free. But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.

 

[Lilah]

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder. And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control. Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free. But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.

I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you. You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world. But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century. Shame on you!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where R My Keys is out of the closet.

He wants homosexuals out of society, away from tainting the nation and the blood pool.

Such monsters crops up every generation.

He at least is where society can keep an eye on him since, I would not doubt, he has been reported those interested in his ilk.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.

Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.

I don't loathe anyone except people like you. I am perfectly fine with myself.

Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true. I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.

Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.

You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.

It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry. Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.

I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.

Who said you need to like something? YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.

You're not a second class citizen for not having special rights, fish breath. You had equal rights under every marriage law in the country.

Fish breath.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder. And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control. Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free. But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.

I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you. You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world. But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century. Shame on you!

I love you how faggots think what you got going is modern, as if homosexual metastasy didn't cause the destruction of many civilizations in history. You think you're new and hip, but you're a rerun of old, failed cultures who met their end through indulgence in unbridled depravity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.

I don't loathe anyone except people like you. I am perfectly fine with myself.

Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true. I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.

Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.

You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.

It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry. Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.

I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.

Who said you need to like something? YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.

You're not a second class citizen for not having special rights, fish breath. You had equal rights under every marriage law in the country.

Fish breath.

Give it up Chief Sellout you and your God lost.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder. And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control. Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free. But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.

I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you. You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world. But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century. Shame on you!

I love you how faggots think what you got going is modern, as if homosexual metastasy didn't cause the destruction of many civilizations in history. You think you're new and hip, but you're a rerun of old, failed cultures who met their end through indulgence in unbridled depravity.

Wherever you get your history books from, return them as ask for your money back.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

No, that's what your party does, or did you forget?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.

When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.

So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.

let the people speak.

whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote. We may say they were "God-given" but we made them valid by majority vote.

Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words) for a while.

The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it. If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote. If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.

because they know that they are not in a majority. prop 8 in california proved that

LOL- are you ignorant or just stupid? Or maybe both?

Prop 8 passed in 2008.

Since that time voters have voted in favor same gender marriage 3 times.

Now most Americans favor same gender marriage
Gay Marriage Attitudes A Pause Not A Plateau - Forbes

*In 1996, when Gallup asked whether marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 27 percent said they should; last month, 55 percent did. May 2011 was the first Gallup asking in which a plurality of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
*In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal question from 1996, 25 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. In 2013, 53 percent did.
*In 1996, 27 percent told Pew that they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In 2014, 54 percent did.

Hey dickhead, if you have a majority, why not hold a vote? If you had the winning lottery numbers, would you buy a ticket? If it's as guaranteed as you claim about the majority, why are you scared to have a vote nationwide? I know, you're a fucking liar that isn't willing to prove what you claim in a real sense yet you'll still claim what say exists. Put up of STFU coward.

Wow....I can pretty much envision you sitting in your underwear in the basement yelling cursewords at the screen, with spittle flying as you hunt and peck your way through your psot.

I live in California- the courts have already ruled- the ban on gay marriage- Prop 8 is unconstitutional- hadn't you heard?

Why would we have a vote on something that is already dead?

I am fine with voters voting- but all laws are subject to the Constitution- and just like a State can pass a law banning gun ownership- and the NRA files lawsuits to get it declared unconstitutional, its perfectly fine to use the court to try to get marriage bans declared unconstitutional.

Only Leftwat statists who serve their father, the devil, see victory in overturning the will of the people and advancing a sinister and perverted agenda through black robed tyrants finding "rights" that don't exist in the Constitution.

 

[GreenBean]

It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia or as they refer to it "Inter generational Intimacy" and the groundwork is already being layed. Thy are working to “abolish age of consent laws.” There are indications of an effort to “do away with statutory rape laws,” so that adults, primarily homosexuals would be able to openly prey on little children sexually without fear of legal consequences.

Here's a few items from the 1972 Gay Rights Platform

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Really - "You can't make this stuff up"

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

funny, you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it. You are a bigotted, confused idiot.

It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Most lefties are. They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like. Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults. They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases. The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.

The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.

The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.

FTR: That's OKA: Evil...

Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely. Why are you so afraid of people?
If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men. States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization. The standards by which individuals could be forcibly sterilized were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families. Does the majority really rule?

Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia or as they refer to it "Inter generational Intimacy"

Hey fag-hater, you lost. Suck it down like a big fat dick little Jesus-freak.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

yes, I do. not in 1890, but today it would pass. if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?

It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?

Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.

You mean, like religious indoctrination? Hey! Maybe you're on to something there. Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.

No one can force you to be a part of a religion. That involves your choice.

People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.

Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?

You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.

Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath. Who forced you into that lifestyle? And you haven't seen intolerance until you've actually been to a country where Sh'ria is enforced, so quit talking out of your ass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?

Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.

You mean, like religious indoctrination? Hey! Maybe you're on to something there. Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.

No one can force you to be a part of a religion. That involves your choice.

People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.

Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?

You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.

Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath. Who forced you into that lifestyle? And you haven't seen intolerance until you've actually been to a country where Sh'ria is enforced, so quit talking out of your ass.

I'm straight Chief Sellout, and I've walked the earth decades longer than you little man. I was born straight, they were born gay. Grow up and fucking deal with it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

but thats exactly what you want. you want a minority to dictate to the majority.

The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people. But, you don't get to determine what someone else's rights should be.

Nope. You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone. Bull fcking shit!