The Homosexual Dilemma

[Coyote]

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Marriage is open to everyone.

I've been married to my wife for 35 years. And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest. We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.

Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage. But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... . While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.

And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.

The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture. And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is... that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.

There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.

Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?

ROFLMNAO!

"We'll scratch your eyes out!"

Adorable!

Nah. I'll just bite you in the butt.

 

[Coyote]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Hey...the racial standard applied equally too. Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.

 

[Coyote]

1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.

UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong

Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.

‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.

‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’
​

2. Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.

Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.

You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.

Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.

5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.

Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.

Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.

There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.

Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.

Mark

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy... however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.

Read the second to the last line of his post: an appeal to a slippery slope.

The Slope relevant to the Normalizing of Sexual Abnormality is steep and makes wet ice look like a well treated drag strip (They're covered in adhesive, thus incredibly sticky.)

Kudos to you for awesome imagery.

HOWEVER...let's examine this particular slope.

Allowing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of "perversions" in marriage.

Will it?

The common denomenator between same sex marriages and hetero marriages in the US is what? (yes, there is one). It is between consenting adults, there is no coercion and no adverse effect to either the individuals involved or to public welfare.

Typical pervisions thrown up by the anti-pervert lobby:

"people will demand to marry their dogs" -- no consenting adults, dogs can't consent, and it is coercive.
"pedos will marry children" -- same argument and add to it is damaging to the child
"people will want to marry their siblings" -- consenting adults are possible, however it can be argued to be damaging to the public welfare if children are produced and this becomes an acceptable norm.

I'm not seeing a slippery slope but rather well sanded stairs with one exception - polygamy. I can't come up with any good arguments against polygamy.

Remember, in the 80s when the "Movement" was really getting traction, in public debate after debate, the advocates proclaimed that 'it was ludicrous to claim that if the US Culture just accepted the individual homosexuals and dropped the sodomy laws, that homosexuals would inevitably demand to be married; declaring THEN that the claim that such was inevitable was 'a slippery slope fallacy'.

Nope.

Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.

[/quote]

Suggestion - take off the dark glasses and you'll see well defined stairs.

 

[Coyote]

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Really? See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.

 

[Carib Gyal]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

 

[Coyote]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

 

[Coyote]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Now isn't it sad that a group is so devoid of reason that they can't look at that equally enforced and essential standard, and not demand that they be included, despite their failure to rise up and meet that standard.

Do you know why I am not a starting linebacker for the Miami Dolphins?

It's because I do not rise to the standard required by that position. Now is that fair?

Yes... its entirely fair.

And why is it fair?

It's fair because if Miami put me in as a starting linebacker, I'd be seriously injured within the first 2 minutes... and prior to that, Miami's offense would be in a seriously deficient state, injuring their means to effectively march down the grid iron, taking ground from their opposition.

Because my skills do not meet the minimal threshold required.

That my self esteem would be 'improved', that I may feel more legitimate... at least during the pre-game week, taking the Interviews and reading my name in print: "Old Fat Guy Suits Up for Miami" is irrelevant.

Because of my deficiencies, I will never BE a legitimate linebacker for Miami. It's never going to happen.

BUT! Let's assume for the sake of argument that it does... There I am in my shiny new uniform, all slumped over from the weight of those professional pads and helmet... the lights shining down glistening off my brand new Nike cleats. Then the first snap... I get smashed into a sack of shattered bones and blood... and because I was accepted, they bring in my fat-assed replacement... who, on the second snap is subsequently rinsed off the field, then the third and so on, until somewhere toward just after the start of the first qrtr, it becomes obvious to everyone that Miami is no longer a legitimate team... and because of Miami's mistake to accept me, other teams are being forced to accept illegitimate 'players' and because of that... the NFL is thoroughly delegitimized and the sport of professional football is in RUINS! And No one of any discernible self respect wants anything to DO with it anymore... .

Unless and until the 'fairness doctrine' is shutout of the culture and the standards essential to the legitimacy of the sport, are re-established.

Now... my position is that there's no reason to ruin my means to move my arms and legs and the National Football League, just to prove that I am not a suitable candidate for the NFL. And the same goes for those who are not suitable for marriage.

See how that works?

 

[Carib Gyal]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?

Because that's how nature designed the species...

That automatically is discrimminatory.[sic]

Yes, it is discriminatory. That's what standards do, they discriminate. It's why we create them: TO DISCRIMINATE.

Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

Yep... It pays to be a winner!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.

Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.

To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today. God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys. To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.

Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.

To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today. God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys. To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.

To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.

Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.

To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today. God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys. To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.

To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.

ROFLMNAO!

A CLASSIC example of how foolish is was to shut down the asylums... Ya let them out and the next thing ya know, they're standing in the town square screamin' their heads off about deviant souls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where are my keys does have to rise to the standard of fairness.

Another false appeal to the absurd with the Miami example: doesn't work.

Where's self-esteem means nothing to this OP.

See how that works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where are my keys does have to rise to the standard of fairness.

Another false appeal to the absurd with the Miami example: doesn't work.

Where's self-esteem means nothing to this OP.

See how that works?

 

[Coyote]

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

An arbritrary definition. Procreation is between one man and one woman.

Now isn't it sad that a group is so devoid of reason that they can't look at that equally enforced and essential standard, and not demand that they be included, despite their failure to rise up and meet that standard.

They aren't inlcuded...equally.
Heteros can choose to marry the one they love.
Homos can not.

Do you know why I am not a starting linebacker for the Miami Dolphins?

It's because I do not rise to the standard required by that position. Now is that fair?

so...here we have a person who equates marital bliss with full contact pro-football. Just not sure what to say here....

Yes... its entirely fair.

And why is it fair?

It's fair because if Miami put me in as a starting linebacker, I'd be seriously injured within the first 2 minutes... and prior to that, Miami's offense would be in a seriously deficient state, injuring their means to effectively march down the grid iron, taking ground from their opposition.

This is where I feel the need to remind you that had you sufficient Cabury intake you would be a prime linebacker. I'm sure! I'd vote for you. Yessiree!

Because my skills do not meet the minimal threshold required.

What skills are required for marriage beyond the ability to say "I do"?

That my self esteem would be 'improved', that I may feel more legitimate... at least during the pre-game week, taking the Interviews and reading my name in print: "Old Fat Guy Suits Up for Miami" is irrelevant.

Because of my deficiencies, I will never BE a legitimate linebacker for Miami. It's never going to happen.

But...no one is telling you that you can not try out for it.

BUT! Let's assume for the sake of argument that it does... There I am in my shiny new uniform, all slumped over from the weight of those professional pads and helmet... the lights shining down glistening off my brand new Nike cleats. Then the first snap... I get smashed into a sack of shattered bones and blood... and because I was accepted, they bring in my fat-assed replacement... who, on the second snap is subsequently rinsed off the field, then the third and so on, until somewhere toward just after the start of the first qrtr, it becomes obvious to everyone that Miami is no longer a legitimate team... and because of Miami's mistake to accept me, other teams are being forced to accept illegitimate 'players' and because of that... the NFL is thoroughly delegitimized and the sport of professional football is in RUINS! And No one of any discernible self respect wants anything to DO with it anymore... .

oh sweetie...you are stretching it way thin here....marriage requires only consent and substandard performance on your marriage would have no effect on mine (and vice versa).

Unless and until the 'fairness doctrine' is shutout of the culture and the standards essential to the legitimacy of the sport, are re-established.

I understand that to some...marriage is a sport...but...

Now... my position is that there's no reason to ruin my means to move my arms and legs and the National Football League, just to prove that I am not a suitable candidate for the NFL. And the same goes for those who are not suitable for marriage.

See how that works?

Are you sure you are suitable to the trauma and potential risks of marriage?

 

[Coyote]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been redefined as one woman/one man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.

Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.

To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today. God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys. To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.

To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.

ROFLMNAO!

A CLASSIC example of how foolish is was to shut down the asylums... Ya let them out and the next thing ya know, they're standing in the town square screamin' their heads off about deviant souls.

Anyone who disagrees with you is insane? You prove you are deviant.

Son, you are not the standard bearer of light, only that of a dark light of self-glorification.

 

[Carib Gyal]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been redefined as one woman/one man.

And now we are redefining it again, to mean (as always), whatever we want it to mean. Do you really want to discriminate against the rights of thousands of consenting adults to marry each other? How very....close-minded of you.

What if one little Mexican wants out of the marriage to the old gay guy, but wants to remain married to the other homosexual members of the group marriage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another argument to the absurd.