The Homosexual Dilemma

[WorldWatcher]

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.

Well that's false.

In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.

So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.


>>>>

Yet California passed a law banning same sex marriage and when that was overturned by a state court they passed another law amending the state constitution. That too was overturned by a federal court. It seems that you people know you can't win hearts and minds so you need black robed activists to cudgel the American people with your sick agenda.

saintmichaeldefendthem: "Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman."

WorldWatcher: "In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature."​

Your response about California has nothing to do with what yo
u said and is an obvious attempt at deflection. You said that changing societal attitudes "never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage" the 2012 General Election proves you wrong.

As a matter of fact Maine passed a Civil Marriage ban on SSCM in 2009 and that ban was repealed in the 2012 election.

In the face of undeniable facts, are you read to retract your statement?


**********************************************

ETA: BTW Prop 22 passed in California in 2000 with a 22% margin of victory, by 2008 Prop 8 squeaked by where a change of only 2.5% would have changed the outcome. Further indication that societies attitudes have been changing.


>>>>

 

[hipeter924]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.

Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.

Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.

I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood. The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile. A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing. A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead. Get the difference now?

And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation. In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted. NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda. Congratulations!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In the face of undeniable facts, are you ready to retract your statement?





>>>>

Yes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the face of undeniable facts, are you ready to retract your statement?

>>>>

Yes.

Commendable.

May don't have the testicular fortitude to do that. Thank you.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

 

[hipeter924]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.

Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.

I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood. The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile. A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing. A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead. Get the difference now?

And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.

It does mean something when x claims that gay people are the equivalent of pedophiles in any moral or legal sense.

It isn't 'academic' when there are no scientific grounds to justify the position, as it is based purely out of ignorance of the difference between the biology of two adults, and the biology of a child.

If there are any 'fine lines' in USMB rules, then the premise of this thread is on it already. I haven't warned anyone on USMB, and don't intend to. That you are threatening to warn people doesn't improve your arguing position.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.

Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.

I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood. The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile. A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing. A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead. Get the difference now?

And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.

It does mean something when x claims that gay people are the equivalent of pedophiles in any moral or legal sense.

It isn't 'academic' when there are no scientific grounds to justify the position, as it is based purely out of ignorance of the difference between the biology of two adults, and the biology of a child.

If there are any 'fine lines' in USMB rules, then the premise of this thread is on it already. I haven't warned anyone on USMB, and don't intend to. That you are threatening to warn people doesn't improve your arguing position.

Good. Moving on....

 

[bodecea]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.

Sir, I am not the one waving all this info about NAMBLA around. I am not the one repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the very clear differences between consenting adults and an adult sexually abusing a child. That is NOT me.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

 

[bodecea]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation. In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted. NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda. Congratulations!

And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.

 

[hipeter924]

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation. In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted. NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda. Congratulations!

And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.

I never claimed expertise on anything. I'm a well educated man who knows that lawyers go with proven strategies, which should be obvious. Why would NAMBLA choose a legal strategy at variance with the one that met with such great success for the gay movement?

 

[bodecea]

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

Oh? So, gays have no protected civil rights? Is that your assertion?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?

So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"? Gays pay taxes too. We are citizens. We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state. You may not like it, but there it is.

Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.

Oh? So, gays have no protected civil rights? Is that your assertion?

No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.

Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments. How does it feel to be so incompetent?

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation. In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted. NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda. Congratulations!

I am claiming your true defeat. You have had nothing to offer that made sense. 12 year olds? NAMBLA? You arguments are absurd and are recognized as absurd.

Yes, you have truly lost to a more principled crowd who offered nothing more than equality to be treated as all adults to marry the person they love.

What is clear about the future is that the younger ones in the families on your side are going to castigate their parents: "you stupid shits, wasting time on this instead of spreading the gospel."

Yes, you stupid shits.