The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

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.

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

Wow.

Mark

It's not our fault that people like you called children "bastards" and held it against them.

Lol. If you were even close to answering what I stated...

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Science has established that Nature designed the human being with two complimenting genders. Therefore it logically follows that Marriage is designed by nature, which requires that Marriage is the natural joining of one man and one woman.

Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?

I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.

Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.

80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.

Sorry, I don't follow..

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's your head versus my wall. Knock yourself out, literally.

I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?

Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious. In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected. It's over and done with now.

No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Oh but it is. No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn. The rest are well aware of which side won.

Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled. Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.

 

[80zephyr]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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.

Problem: Some of us believe that The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, is fictitious and the ancient Arab stories that lay out the rules of The Jewish God are no more binding than the suggestions proposed in "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy".

Now what?

Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!

So... LOL! That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.

And there he goes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well. Happy now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

The statement was: "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what was said.

>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're FOR Divorce?

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

I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?

I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.

Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.

80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.

Sorry, I don't follow..

Mark

The relevant contributor had conceded to your point. I was merely letting you know. It's a well established courtesy that when someone concedes to your point, that ya duly note such and accept it.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?

Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious. In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected. It's over and done with now.

No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Oh but it is. No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn. The rest are well aware of which side won.

Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled. Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.

We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.

Mark

 

[Carib Gyal]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well. Happy now?

I like it. The gardener will make the same as the doctor who's gone to college for 8 years. Course they'll both be fucking your wives and husbands because you'll all be married.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

Nope. They didn't want you fucking around because it was immoral, period.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious. In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected. It's over and done with now.

No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Oh but it is. No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn. The rest are well aware of which side won.

Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled. Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.

We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.

We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is, which is why you are fighting the over and done with. Society is moving on, and leaving you in the past where you belong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

That is incorrect. Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then. It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children. My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

99% of all human sexual intercourse occurs for reasons other than reproduction.

By your logic, that makes 99% of all human sexual intercourse unnatural,

which is, of course, nonsensical on its face. As are you.

 

[Carib Gyal]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

That is incorrect. Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then. It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children. My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.

I'm sure watching you jerk off and finger yourself leaves a bad taste in her mouth and requires a shot of tequila.