The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

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.

Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark

Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering.

No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).

By the way, your "age of consent is lower in Bible belt states" statement was yet another lie. That's not the trend at all. Stop lying, Leftists!

Alabama16
Alaska16
Arizona18
Arkansas16
California18
Colorado15
Connecticut15
D.C.16
Delaware16
Florida16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia16
Hawaii14
Idaho14
Illinois16/17
Indiana16
Iowa18
Kansas16
Kentucky16 - [1]
Louisiana17
Maine16
Maryland16
Massachusetts16/18
Michigan16
Minnesota16
Mississippi16 - [2]
Missouri17
Montana16
Nebraska16
Nevada16
New Hampshire16/18
New Jersey16/18
New Mexico17
New York17
North Carolina16
North Dakota18
Ohio16
Oklahoma16
Oregon18
Pennsylvania16
Rhode Island16
South Carolina14/16
South Dakota16
Tennessee18
Texas17
Utah16/18
Vermont16
Virginia15
Washington16
West Virginia16
Wisconsin18
Wyoming16
Puerto Rico18

Age of Consent - by State

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Great. Then government should also recognize the marriage of Ms. Slut to the Denver Bronco football team. After all, you set the standard to "consenting adults".

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Now, you are splitting hairs. EVERY marriage included both sexes, correct?

Mark

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark

The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There are a very 'special' subset of bigots- homophobes-

There is literally, no such thing as a homo-phobe. As the word literally means an irrational fear of one's self. So even if someone HAD an irrational fear of themselves... that would in NO WAY be relevant to one recognizing that sexual abnormality cannot be 'normal'; this being due to it being ABNORMAL; Deviant, distinct from that which is NORMAL.

... who always try to spread the message homosexual= pedophile.

Homosexual= sexual deviancy
Pedophile= sexual deviancy.
Apple= the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh; fruit that never falls far from the tree.

See any similarities that?

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I see you've found a new word Jake. Sadly, you are using it wrong.

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

poor wytchey. so angry, so conflicted, so confused. Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.

You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.

I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly marry. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full marriage)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?

your anger and confusion are very evident. If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.

As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.

So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.

You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are you confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?

I post on threads on many subjects. I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.

You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else. So lets move on. I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs, but so am I.

In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views. The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.

And the point of this thread. It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here. Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people. But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution. Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.

They aren't the victims anymore. Far from it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The basis of marriage is contract law...

ROFLMNAO!

Oh GOD! That is precious... Show a lawyer a dipstick and it see's itself; everything boils down to law... and lawyers, around which the universe orbits.

 

[Conservative65]

[Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.

Mark

The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it. It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse. But you already know that.

So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?

Straw man fallacy.

Marriage law currently accommodates same-sex couples, which is not the case for siblings marrying.

Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in doesn't 'change' marriage, marriage remains the same, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Only to you hypocrites that argue equality of marriage then deny it when you don't like it.

Two fags marrying will never be the same as mine.

If you think so, strawman.

I know so faggot lover.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark

The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.

Wrong. The state doesn't define marriage. Biology does. They can pass a law stating Clayton is an asshole, it will not make it so.

Mark

 

[Conservative65]

poor wytchey. so angry, so conflicted, so confused. Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.

You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.

I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly marry. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full marriage)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?

your anger and confusion are very evident. If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.

As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.

So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.

You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are you confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?

I post on threads on many subjects. I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.

You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else. So lets move on. I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs, but so am I.

In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views. The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.

And the point of this thread. It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here. Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people. But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution. Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.

They aren't the victims anymore. Far from it.

Yet let a gay refuse to do business with someone they don't like and it's perfectly OK to those who tout anti discrimination laws. They either think it's OK due to a double standard or . .. That's pretty much it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

 

[80zephyr]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

Ok. So now you are mixing immigration into this. Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage. And lets keep it realistic.

If its possible, its realistic. Polygamy would make it possible.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

In FACT: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. This as a direct result of the intrinsic design common to human physiology; wherein distinct, but complimenting genders represent the means by which the species is propagated and through which the viability of the species is promoted through the ensuing civilization. This produced as a result of the security inherent in the institution as the progeny are trained and nurtured by the distinct traits of the respective genders.

It's not even a debatable point, with the subjective need of the deviants to debate it... notwithstanding.

 

[80zephyr]

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.[sic]

Arbitrary?

It follows the natural design of the species. Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>

Procreation is the natural order. Marriage is an artificial socio-political-religious construct. Arbritrary given how it varies and it's changed.

Wrong. Nature "forces" a man to join with a woman to create life, hence the "marriage". Now, if that combination wasn't necessary, you would have a point. We didn't create marriage. Nature did. We simply named the process.

Mark

 

[hipeter924]

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

The law can call it a ham sandwich. The law doesn't define marriage. Biology does.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

What science don't we care about? Biology?

Mark