The Homosexual Dilemma

[PaintMyHouse]

"Family Research Council"

Really?

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.

Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?

Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?

Gee, answer the fucking question. What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?

 

[80zephyr]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.

A lot can change in one generation.

That wasn't one generation dumbass:

generation

noun
1.
the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
the postwar generation.
2.
the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

Cool, fart smeller. Now look up heterosexual and learn about them.

I am heterosexual you dumbass.

 

[Silhouette]

....But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!

So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

Very clever StMike. It almost looks like you're against the LGBT cult's progression, until you start slinging abusive language at "them", precaculated to elicit the exact type of sympathy they will play the heartstrings of the Justices with (most particulary Justice Kennedy) when the vote comes up this year on whether or not to overturn Windsor 2013 and instead force gay marriage on the unwilling states...

Everyone beware of Saintmichaeldefendthem. His role in the LGBT blogosphere is to ramp sympathy for gays by bashing them. Don't join in. Keep your arguments intellectual if you truly oppose this cult taking over our culture. Do not play into StMike's game..

Read over "Saintmichaeldefendthem"s posts. You will see his courious double-stance all throughout. There should be plenty of reading material in this thread by now for his ruse to be exposed..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.

 

[80zephyr]

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

But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.

Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is? Morons here, total fucking morons.

In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.

That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass. It had nothing to do with marriage. And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex. It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.

Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?

Mark

Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777? Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955? Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?

 

[Carib Gyal]

"Family Research Council"

Really?

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.

Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?

Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?

Gee, answer the fucking question. What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?

Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.

Now you answer mine.

 

[Carib Gyal]

When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.

A lot can change in one generation.

That wasn't one generation dumbass:

generation

noun
1.
the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
the postwar generation.
2.
the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

Cool, fart smeller. Now look up heterosexual and learn about them.

I am heterosexual you dumbass.

At least you don't deny jerking off to the sweet scent of a young boy's farts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic

It Doesn't FUCKING matter. It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality. Got it now?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[80zephyr]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.

Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument. So...

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

....But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!

So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

Very clever StMike. It almost looks like you're against the LGBT cult's progression, until you start slinging abusive language at "them", precaculated to elicit the exact type of sympathy they will play the heartstrings of the Justices with (most particulary Justice Kennedy) when the vote comes up this year on whether or not to overturn Windsor 2013 and instead force gay marriage on the unwilling states...

Everyone beware of Saintmichaeldefendthem. His role in the LGBT blogosphere is to ramp sympathy for gays by bashing them. Don't join in. Keep your arguments intellectual if you truly oppose this cult taking over our culture. Do not play into StMike's game..

Read over "Saintmichaeldefendthem"s posts. You will see his courious double-stance all throughout. There should be plenty of reading material in this thread by now for his ruse to be exposed..

Oh, you're too clever for me.

 

[bodecea]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

Mark

You want to get rid of those too, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic

It Doesn't FUCKING matter. It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality. Got it now?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Give it a rest faggot-hater. You lost. Suck it up and be a man for once.

 

[bodecea]

"Family Research Council"

Really?

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.

Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.

Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?

Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?

Gee, answer the fucking question. What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?

They have gone back....in Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan....places that some on this thread probably admire.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.

Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument. So...

No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.

 

[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

Are you aware that your argument was used before?

As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.

Mark

So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

Mark

You want to get rid of those too, right?

So you're FOR Divorce?

LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.

 

[80zephyr]

80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.

Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against? Mark

A person in Illinois has the same innate right to marry the person he chooses as does anyone in Utah.

Opposition to marriage equality is opposition to innate rights and the Constitution.

If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry one of your own sex. No one cares, son.

Not the point. My logic is impeccable. Even if you don't agree with it.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

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

But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.

Depriving marriage doesn't bother me. We do it everyday.

Mark

Based on what exactly?