The Homosexual Dilemma

[PaintMyHouse]

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

So what?

I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?

Democracy ensures that a small minority of people can't exercise control over the population, which is an oligarchy. The problem is tiny minorities of deviants have found another way to impose their will on the majority and that's to claim that their choice of lifestyle is a "civil right" and get others who don't know the law or the Constitution to go along with it. NAMBLA is watching this process with great interest, seeing how all one has to do is draw "rights" out of thin air to gain approval for their lifestyle even if by cudgel.

Lifestyle choice is not race. It's not gender. It's not anything that's protected under our Constitution. All the faggot brigade has is their ability to lie and shout down all opposition.

That's not the same as being right.

Fucking ******* and Jews, with their controlling of our rights. I hear that one day dumb drunken Indians will have rights, but I sure hope not. The next thing you know the Catholics will want them as well.

 

[Carib Gyal]

ROFLMNAO!

Anyone need anything else?

We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".

See how that works? Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.

We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.

The Jewish God made the rules.

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

It's in Genesis.

Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters. Now what?

The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?

Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy. And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.

You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.

Mark

Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married. Is that the case?

Only on the perverted, hell bound Left is there this idiotic notion that gender is just a matter of plumbing. If a man mutilates himself by cutting off his package, he's still a man. He hasn't turned into a woman. Our gender is encoded in the DNA in every cell of our body; there's no escaping from it. If the perverted Left weren't so infatuated with appearances they would understand this.

 

[hipeter924]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.

The Jewish God made the rules.

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

It's in Genesis.

Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters. Now what?

The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?

Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy. And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.

You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?

Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet. After we do, onward. You'd like it, it's Biblical.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability. Did you not take ANY Science classes?

And then there is the reality of evolution and survival of the most fit on a dog-eat-dog world where AMERICAN women didn't get the right to vote until the country was 125 years old.

​

Nonsense. Laws varied state by state, but the general trend was giving the vote to landowners and taxpayers, people who have a stake in this economy. Even blacks voted and have done so for our entire history. There's a certain wisdom that I created a thread about....reserving the right to vote to net contributors to this country and denying it to net consumers. These days that wouldn't fall along the lines of race or gender because all races and genders participate in the economy or suckle from it, one or the other.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.

Mark

Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married. Is that the case?

Only on the perverted, hell bound Left is there this idiotic notion that gender is just a matter of plumbing. If a man mutilates himself by cutting off his package, he's still a man. He hasn't turned into a woman. Our gender is encoded in the DNA in every cell of our body; there's no escaping from it. If the perverted Left weren't so infatuated with appearances they would understand this.

Tell us, how do you tell the actual gender of a human being? Are XYs always males, and XXs always females?

 

[80zephyr]

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done. As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.

Mark

Not at all. There is a lot that goes in to a well done study vs. a poorly done study - sample size, accounting for variables, etc etc.

Yep. UNTIL they don't jibe with a belief, then it is really easy to dismiss.

My area of expertise is construction. After 9/11 I watched engineers on both sides claim that the towers were either knocked down by these airplanes or by bombs. And the "experts" on both sides are adamant in their conclusions.

And that is a single occurrence. And now you are telling me that a "well done" study is more believable?

Nope. Its not.

Mark

 

[Carib Gyal]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.

Need anything else?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.

Need anything else?

Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it. No wonder you are such a dumbass.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?

Is there an option?

All behavior brings consequences... you act a if there's a choice.

But to provide you the courtesy of considering your appeal... what would BE such an option?

Sure there is!!!

Stop believing and see what happens.

So you cannot actually provide a viable alternative.

You concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FTR:
I tried it... catastrophe.

Changed my mind. Turns out that rejecting the laws of nature can be HARD ON YA!

 

[Carib Gyal]

Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet. After we do, onward. You'd like it, it's Biblical.

Dumb ass. I didn't ask you how many people it is now. Answer the fucking question:

Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?

 

[hipeter924]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.

How would you know, did you date him?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

There is NOTHING natural about marriage. Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.

Marriage is a vital component of a strong, thriving, and perpetuating society. Animals cannot form the complex communities that humans can. Gazelles will forever run from predators, humans would find a way to kill them and form defenses against them. We don't have 5 or 6 children because at least a few of them will be eaten by something. The apparatus of society has its bedrock on strong families, which are only made possible by marriage.

We can't be compared to animals because we're not animals. Imago Dei, we are superior to them and create superior institutions. Marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet. After we do, onward. You'd like it, it's Biblical.

Dumb ass. I didn't ask you how many people it is now. Answer the fucking question:

Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?

We won't, after we fix it for all two people first. You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't. And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is. So, are we?

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.

Mark

Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.

Facts that do not comport with reality are not to be believed. Anyone who feels that a child doesn't benefit from influence of both genders didn't do the study correctly.

Reality matters.

Mark

 

[Carib Gyal]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.

How would you know, did you date him?

He's gay. He doesn't like girls.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Facts that do not comport with reality are not to be believed. Anyone who feels that a child doesn't benefit from influence of both genders didn't do the study correctly.

Even if true, it doesn't fucking matter. How long before you get that?