The Homosexual Dilemma

[Syriusly]

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care.

Others do.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

I don't make that choice. You assume that because I can I would. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'-

Marriage: Public.

Sex: Private.

Nothing complex about it.

Marriage: the Joining of one man and one woman; PUBLIC

Homosexuality: Abnormal Sexuality caused by abnormal reasoning; PUBLIC.

But, what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home with a goat, a midget, a unicycle, a gerbil, a case of Quakerstate and a shower curtain, is their PRIVATE BUSINESS... until the video is published on the web. Then it's public.

 

[Syriusly]

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

But if you choose, you clearly can.

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.

It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.

A heterosexual who chooses to be attracted to women and chooses not to be attracted to men is probably a bisexual.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'-

Marriage: Public.

Sex: Private.

Nothing complex about it.

Marriage: the Joining of one man and one woman; PUBLIC

Homosexuality: Abnormal Sexuality caused by abnormal reasoning; PUBLIC.

But, what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home with a goat, a midget, a unicycle, a gerbil, a case of Quakerstate and a shower curtain, is their PRIVATE BUSINESS... until the video is published on the web. Then it's public.

More Batshit crazy crap from Keys.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care.

Others do.

I called you a pussy.

I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so. If others do care, it's their problem.

 

[Skylar]

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

But if you choose, you clearly can.

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.

It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.

A heterosexual who chooses to be attracted to women and chooses not to be attracted to men is probably a bisexual.

It's a heterosexual that knows what he chooses. To be bisexual, by definition, I'd have to be attracted to men. I'm not by choice. So much for your foolish claim.

 

[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.


>>>>

If you don't understand the concept by now, another post probably will not help you.

Mark

You made the claim that "You cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate." concerning homosexuals (which of course is false since just because one is homosexual does not mean that person is infertile).

I'm sorry you don't understand that "requirements" of marriage are those listed in Civil Law as it pertains to Civil Marriage. If you are going to make claims about the law, don't be upset when someone makes a call out asking for proof of your claims.

On the other hand if you don't understand the concept of "requirements" under the law being applicable to the functioning of a law, another post probably will not help you.



You inability to back up your claim in duly noted.


>>>>

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.


>>>>

Nonsense:

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "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": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

 

[Syriusly]

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?

 

[Conservative65]

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

But if you choose, you clearly can.

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.

There are a lot of things I don't do by choice. Based on your reasonsing, I could be defined as all of them simply because I made a choice related to them.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.

Not surprising.


>>>>

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "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": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7 points of batshit crazy.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care.

Others do.

I called you a pussy.

I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so. If others do care, it's their problem.

See here on the boards thats fine.

But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.

Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?

So what?

Who could possibly care?

If you were a baker and so offended... as a Baptist, I'd probably just leave. OR... more likely, engage you in debate, record it and humiliate you eternally through the magic of youtube... THEN leave.

 

[Conservative65]

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.

What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake? That's a message.

What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?

There lies the problem. A Christian baker can be offended by the message yet be required to bake the cake. The homo can be offended and nothing else is said about it nor is he forced to bake the cake. It's not a matter of something being offensive, it's a matter of WHO claims to have been offended. If the Christian baker is required to bake the cake, then homo should have the same requirement.

 

[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?

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.

Not surprising.


>>>>

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "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": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7 points of batshit crazy.

OH! How positively sweet of you.

An unsolicited concession!

Duly noted and summarily accepted!

(Thank you again... that was a wonderful demonstration of the Freudian propensity for sub-conscious honesty.)

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care.

Others do.

I called you a pussy.

I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so. If others do care, it's their problem.

See here on the boards thats fine.

But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.

Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.

So you get to define what being an asshole means? Sorry, you don't.

 

[Skylar]

It should be noted again... due to the obtuse nature of evil, that race is GENETIC... and not sexual.

Race is a social construct based loosely on general physical characteristics. The physical characteristics are genetic. The construct around them is invented. And its as real as say, any given language.

The SCOTUS did not proclaim in its finding that Race could not be used as a means to prevent a man and a woman of distinct races from being married that marriage was open to people of the same gender.

That is because they had no reason to do so. And why did they not have a reason to do so?

They had no reason to do so because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, without regard to the melatonin content of their skin; meaning that race is irrelevant to marriage.

Marriage, like race, is a social construct. And it is whatever we decide it is. It carries with it a variety of legal benefits, privileges, and immunities. If you're going to deny those benefits, privileges and immunities to a couple, you'll need a valid reason.

And in the case of gay marriage bans, no such reason exists. Nor any compelling State interest.

This in contrast to GENDER... and VOLUME... which are CENTRAL to marriage, as such requires that only TWO PEOPLE can enter into such and that each of those must represent the distinct genders, One male, One Female... .

Actually, marriage has included polygamy in many cultures. Most commonly, one man and multiple women. The meaning of marriage is flexible like that. It means whatever we decide it does.