The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.

Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.

It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.

You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.

I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..

Mark

 

[nodoginnafight]

Marriage is between ANY two consenting adults.

 

[80zephyr]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

NO ONE was being treated differently. This "discrimination" was not happening.

Mark

 

[Iceweasel]

Marriage is between ANY two consenting adults.

Wow. So a dad can marry his adult son or daughter? Or two brothers. Mother and son. You are out there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.

 

[80zephyr]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.

Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.

 

[80zephyr]

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.

Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.

Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..

Since I am not much of a religious person, I concede that Jesus might not have said that. But, I do know that the church believes it to be so.

No, the church doesn't on the first part. The OT is alive and well. And it was Paul, who never met Jesus, who let the gentiles in. Jesus was a Jew who came for the Jews, period.

While I am not much on religion, I did spend 7 years in a Catholic school. My memory maybe a bit fuzzy, but I think they disagree with you.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.

Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument is invalid.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?

That is correct.

You simply don't have a clue as how evolution works, do you?

Mark

Nope... but in fairness to them, such clues rest in reason which sets aside one's subjective need to slap and tickle.

In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others. Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!

It spreads like wild-fire from one idiot to the next. Which is why people like Marx were able to cripple entire continents with nothing more than a few books.

 

[Skylar]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

 

[Skylar]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.

Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.

Mark

On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.

The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.

There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet.

And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.

 

[80zephyr]

I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark

So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy? Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others. Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!

And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.

Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.

 

[80zephyr]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.

Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.

Mark

On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.

The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.

There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet.

And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.

Wrong yet again. The basis of marriage is GENDER, not race. Discriminating against races in marriage was clearly wrong. Now, calling two men "married" cannot make it so, biologically. Only the law can be inane enough to do that.

Mark

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.

Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.

Mark

If that were the case - then gays could marry and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of of hetero couples.

There is no need for gender to be a component of marriage.
And there is no need for anyone to try to push that down anyone else's throat.

 

[80zephyr]

In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others. Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!

And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.

Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.

There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, besides the fact that it goes against biological design in the same way any deviancy does.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.

Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.

Mark

If that were the case - then gays could marry and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of of hetero couples.

There is no need for gender to be a component of marriage.
And there is no need for anyone to try to push that down anyone else's throat.

Of course there is a need for gender in marriage. If it were not the case, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women.

It was understood then(and should be now), that the family unit is the basic building block of our society. Since gays cannot have children, the question becomes moot.

And, by allowing a group the title of "marriage" when that is not possible waters down marriage, and the family unit.

Mark

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.