The Homosexual Dilemma

[Skylar]

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

And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.

I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.

Mark

Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.

Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.

But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. Tell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal. I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.

If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.

 

[Skylar]

We can "say" it is marriage, but if we are using commonly accepted terms that have certain definitions, we would be lying.

With 55% approving of gay marriage, your 'accepted terms' angle doesn't seem to be working. And remember, interracial marriage didn't receive majority public support until the mid 90s.

Are you telling us that interracial marriage wasn't 'real marriage' until say, the Clinton Administration?

Marriage is whatever we say it is. And in 36 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex unions.

 

[80zephyr]

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

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

Sure it does. Consent is a requisite of any marriage. An actual requirement of the union. Anyone or anything that can't offer consent can't join the union.

Gays can offer consent. And can meet every requirement of marriage. Demonstrating the uselessness of your claims.

Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"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.

Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so. You don't like it, but oh well.

Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.

Mark

Isn't it wonderful how not a single culture, throughout human history, that has embraced "Homosexuality" has so much as survived, let alone prospered... yet the Left in their individual and collective delusion pretend that such is an immutable fact.

If you really want to have some fun, ask the next Leftist who advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality to provide you with a current example of a culture that embraced Homosexuality, more than say... oh I dunno... say a couple of centuries back, that still exists today.

Several possible outcomes. First they'll conflate the query, pointing to a culture that existed at the start of the deadline which as SINCE embraced homosexuality and which exists today.

Second, they'll ignore the query entirely...

Third, they'll just make shit up! (Which is my personal fave, but everyone doesn't have to enjoy that one as much as I do...)

 

[80zephyr]

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

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.

I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.

But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

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

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.

I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.

But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.

Mark

The law has certainly expanded the meaning of marriage. Just as they did in Loving V. Virgnia. As before that ruling, interracial marriage wasn't considered 'real marriage' in many states. Go back far enough and it wasn't recognized as 'real marriage' in any state.

But all the previous uses of the term still apply. That's why opposition to gay marriage is so silly; its not like the marriages of straights are in any way effected by gay marriage. Or that we're gonna 'run out of marriage'. There's plenty for gays and straights.

 

[80zephyr]

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

And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.

I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.

Mark

Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.

Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.

But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. Tell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal. I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.

If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.

Old men and women having sex is perfectly normal. Like I stated earlier, the sex drive is second only to self preservation in evolution.

Tell me, do normal people usually go a day or two(at least) before thinking about "having fun" again? Why do you think that is?

Mark

 

[hangover]

Like Kinky Friedman said, "Gays should be able to marry, so they can be as miserable as the rest of us."

 

[Skylar]

Isn't it wonderful how not a single culture, throughout human history, that has embraced "Homosexuality" has so much as survived, let alone prospered... yet the Left in their individual and collective delusion pretend that such is an immutable fact.

Laughing...and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.

Legally valid?

Depends upon what you mean by valid.

If you mean that the legality is in sync with soundly reasoned morality, then no.

If you strip the essential morality from legality, holding only to the legislative threshold met to pass such, then in a tiny minority of the states, yes. But where you include in such the subjective judicial decrees which overturn the valid legislation to the contrary, then No.

Stripping morality from legality has always lead to planetary catastrophe... with the Nuremberg trials pointing to the moral deprivation common to the otherwise PERFECTLY LEGAL practice common to 'the final solution'.

Such will inevitably come as the end to the would-be LEGAL-RIGHT to Abortion... as such represents the same fatally flawed amoral construct.

 

[Skylar]

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

And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.

I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.

Mark

Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.

Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.

But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. Tell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal. I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.

If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.

Old men and women having sex is perfectly normal. Like I stated earlier, the sex drive is second only to self preservation in evolution.

And how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'? Explain it to us. As their sex is as reproductively fruitful as any same sex couple.

You said any sex that doesn't serve 'nature's plan' is illogical and abnormal. How do old people serve 'nature's plan'. Or the infertile having sex? Or anyone on birth control? Or the celibate? Or masturbation? Or oral sex?

You've painted yourself into a corner, Mark. As there are all kind of unproductive sexual activities that serve a litany of logical, completely normal purposes. But you've left yourself no room to wiggle in, forced to ignore every single one of those purposes by your past rhetoric.

So explain it to us. Just don't step on any of the wet paint.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.

So you feel that despite the probabilities for survival being bleak.... that a culture should ratchet up the odds of it doom by adopting policy which can only assure such?

ROFLMNAO!

Did I TELL YA THAT THIS WOULD BE A BLAST?

There's nothing even REMOTELY reasonable about these clowns... they're a collective river of raw insanity... in intellectual terms, as 'flaming rivers' go... they're a classic Cuyahoga analogue.

 

[Skylar]

Legally valid?

Depends upon what you mean by valid.

The dictionary definition will be fine.

If you mean that the legality is in sync with soundly reasoned morality, then no.

Unless we don't accept you as a valid arbiter of morality. In which case your argument has no value.

And again, use the dictionary definition of 'valid'. It works fine for in both cases.

 

[Skylar]

... and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.

So you feel that despite the probabilities for survival being bleak.... that a culture should ratchet up the odds of it doom by adopting policy which can only assure such?

Laughing......the eternal America, never to fall ever in the hundreds and millions and billions of years to come? That seems rather unlikely, don't you think?

Civilizations fall if they embrace homosexuality. They fall if they don't. When the 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your supposed 'cause', clearly your cause isn't.

Making your entire argument moot. As you have yet to establish causation.

 

[Coyote]

1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.

Really now? No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it. Hyperbole much?

2. You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.

No. You can say what you want. However there is such a thing as manners. You may lack them.

3. It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.

Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.

4. Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.

Like what?

5. You think being a freak is normal. When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.

I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural. Inside it are real people with feelings. And they aren't hurting you any. So if you can't stomach it - change the channel. I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists. So I change the channel. UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.

1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.

Like black folks "demanded" that judges "make law" and end antimiscegenation laws? Court after court has overturned same sex marriage bans and they've represented a variety of judges.

2. No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.

People say offensive stuff all the time. It's not illegal, it's just a display of bad manners. Expect to have the same dished back. You guys sure are a bunch of whiners.

3. I meant even SPEAK to her.

Then put your daughter in an all girls private school. Situation solved.

4. Guess you don't know how the term originated.

Sure I do. Then he became a religious rightwing hero solely because he performed religious observances on the playing field.

5. There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature. Sounds as if you may be one of them.

They're people. They aren't hurting you or anyone else. So leave them alone dude. Are they making you question your masculinity or something?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'?

False equivalence... Sexual normality serves the propagation of the species. Without regard to who is doing it.

Just as abnormal sexuality which does not promote such... .

This is a very simple equation, why do you suppose you seem to be having such a problem working your way though it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.

Mark

Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?

What about State laws that require a couple be INFERTILE and therefore unable to procreate?

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[80zephyr]

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

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).

Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.

I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.

But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.

Mark

The law has certainly expanded the meaning of marriage. Just as they did in Loving V. Virgnia. As before that ruling, interracial marriage wasn't considered 'real marriage' in many states. Go back far enough and it wasn't recognized as 'real marriage' in any state.

But all the previous uses of the term still apply. That's why opposition to gay marriage is so silly; its not like the marriages of straights are in any way effected by gay marriage. Or that we're gonna 'run out of marriage'. There's plenty for gays and straights.

And one more time. Marriage was NOT expanded in the "Loving" case.

As to gay marriage being a threat to marriage and family, I don't agree. We heard the same leftist chants concerning divorce. We heard the same leftist chants concerning single motherhood and welfare.

Lets just say that your track record as to what you believe does not impress me.

Does gay marriage affect straight marriage? It could. I don't know of even one study that shows gay men to be monogamous. Not one. So, if it is "OK" for a married gay couple to cheat, why not everyone else? And, before you "pooh-pooh" the thought, it is a fact that peoples marriage affect other people marriages. Our divorce rate proves that.

Its sick. And its the reason half of Americas kids grow up in one parent homes.


Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Laughing......the eternal America ...

First America was not at issue, yet there ya are setting it as first in your responding priorities.

Now I wonder why that is?

Can you explain that?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

I can...

Let me help ya through it.

All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.

Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise. AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.

Feel better?