The Queers are at it again!!!!!!!!

[Working Man]

Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
I'm not going to claim to be any type of medical professional, but homosexuals have a serious abnormality, whether it be through genes or choice. Either way, treatment is the way to go, not acknowledging their behavior as 'equal'.

No matter what,, people of alternate life styles are here to stay. We have openly gay entertainers, news pundents, House members, etc.. WE have shows on TV specificaly about Gays, and/or, shows that embrace the Gay point of view.

I don't agree with much of it. But, I am not homophobic either. The Producers is an example. Nathan Lane, openly gay? The movie version supports the Gay profile and stereotypes, openly. Supposedly people love this stuff, even "straight" people, so,, who knows??

I don't care for Rosie Odonell, or that other dipshit Ellen LaDegenerate. If they would rather sleep with women, that is their business. I don't care for their politics,,, but then,, look at Robert Dinero,, he might as well be a pole smoker if he is going to campaign for Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, I do know some lesbians who are pretty good folks and who I trust more than some straight people I know.. Their integrity is more valuable to me than what they do in their bedrooms.

If Americans chose to lose their moral compass, then they will pay a price some day. So be it.

 

[liberalogic]

You are correct Jimmy. Many people are born with an incredible urge to be a pedophile but they know it to be wrong so most abstain, even if queers were to be found to be born queer the whole world still knows its wrong so why encourage these sickos to engage in their bad behavior by granting them marriage rights.

Here is the reality of queer marriage issue: queers don't really want to get married, they are just looking for legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is the vehicle they are driving there.

Its as simple as that.

It's unfair to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal because of the consent factor. If two grown gay people are sexually attracted and they can both consent, there should be nothing wrong with that.

 

[mattskramer]

Hey. It’s okay if an adult human being connects with another adult human being on a deep personal intimate level even if those two people are of the same sex. I congratulate them. Some people never find such a connection.

Some would say that such a relationship is wrong because, according to popular interpretation of particular translations of certain books that people consider to be “god-given” God does not approve. One does not have to believe in God to be an American human being. People do not have to agree with those books. Those same people would probably take a step back if they were seriously confronted with other things written in those books.

Besides, it is ultimately up to each individual to answer before God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist). God will be the judge, not you.

Some argue that bestiality and pedophilia will follow. The domino theory does not always work. There are limits to some people’s sensibilities. We allow people to do some unhealthy things but not other things. We allow people to smoke cigarettes. Does marijuana follow? Perhaps. Will cocaine follow? Probably not.

Some people say that it is not natural. Many things are unnatural. It does not necessarily follow that those things are wrong. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works.

Similarly, people argue that it is wrong because marriage has always been limited to heterosexual couples. Tradition does not make something right. Slavery was practiced for a long time. For a long time, women were not allowed to vote.

Some people argue that marriage must serve a purpose. There are many things that we allow that don't really serve a purpose but entertain. Yet, marriage does serve a purpose. It influences stability. Some say that the purpose of marriage is to create children. I disagree. Even if it were true, are we to prohibit sterile people from getting married until they can prove that they can reproduce.

Some say that gay marriage is wrong because it is not popular. Just because something is not popular does not make it wrong or right – just unpopular.

I’ve knocked down these arguments and many more like them. Perhaps the anti-gay-marriage crowed has some good points. Perhaps the pro-gay-marriage crowed has some bad points. When all is said and done, I think that the good out-weigh the bad and that, all things considered, at the very least, there should be civil unions for gay couples.

 

[mattskramer]

It's unfair to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal because of the consent factor. If two grown gay people are sexually attracted and they can both consent, there should be nothing wrong with that.

It amazes me that some people still fail to grasp that – or refuse to grasp that.

There is also that old argument – as if OCA can read the mind of a gay person. Let us just imagine that gay people really want people to think that gay marriage is legitimate and that gay marriage is legalized. Just because it is legal for a gay couple to get married, does it mean that everyone will think that gay marriage is legitimate and okay? There are many legal things that I think are wrong. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right or good. Just because something is illegal does not mean that something is really wrong or bad.

 

[dilloduck]

Hey. It’s okay if an adult human being connects with another adult human being on a deep personal intimate level even if those two people are of the same sex. I congratulate them. Some people never find such a connection.

Some would say that such a relationship is wrong because, according to popular interpretation of particular translations of certain books that people consider to be “god-given” God does not approve. One does not have to believe in God to be an American human being. People do not have to agree with those books. Those same people would probably take a step back if they were seriously confronted with other things written in those books.

Besides, it is ultimately up to each individual to answer before God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist). God will be the judge, not you.

Some argue that bestiality and pedophilia will follow. The domino theory does not always work. There are limits to some people’s sensibilities. We allow people to do some unhealthy things but not other things. We allow people to smoke cigarettes. Does marijuana follow? Perhaps. Will cocaine follow? Probably not.

Some people say that it is not natural. Many things are unnatural. It does not necessarily follow that those things are wrong. The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works.

Similarly, people argue that it is wrong because marriage has always been limited to heterosexual couples. Tradition does not make something right. Slavery was practiced for a long time. For a long time, women were not allowed to vote.

Some people argue that marriage must serve a purpose. There are many things that we allow that don't really serve a purpose but entertain. Yet, marriage does serve a purpose. It influences stability. Some say that the purpose of marriage is to create children. I disagree. Even if it were true, are we to prohibit sterile people from getting married until they can prove that they can reproduce.

Some say that gay marriage is wrong because it is not popular. Just because something is not popular does not make it wrong or right – just unpopular.

I’ve knocked down these arguments and many more like them. Perhaps the anti-gay-marriage crowed has some good points. Perhaps the pro-gay-marriage crowed has some bad points. When all is said and done, I think that the good out-weigh the bad and that, all things considered, at the very least, there should be civil unions for gay couples.

Cool---accept civil unions an be done with it.

 

[CockySOB]

It's unfair to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal because of the consent factor. If two grown gay people are sexually attracted and they can both consent, there should be nothing wrong with that.

If you change the bold-faced word "wrong" to "illegal" I could agree with your statement. "Right" and "wrong" do not directly equate to "legal" and "illegal."

 

[trobinett]

Now, I could be wrong mattskramer, but I really don't think many have a problem with a "civil union", which IS quite different than a marriage. Which is where the problem presents itself.

My wife is a livestock Judge, has been for many years, we have a small goat dairy, been in the goat business for 20 plus years.

Seems to be a disportionate amount of gays in the goat business. Nothing scientific here, just my gut feeling.

My observations have been, it don't work worth a shit!

They constantly fight, seemed depressed, cheat on their "partner", and just act completely slutty.

I know, same thing in the straight world, but NOT to the extent, that I've seen in the gay community.

The troublesome part to me? They seem to be better educated, truly very friendly, and neighborly. Always being the first to volunteer their help in a emergency.

I think their chosen life style has basically screwed their brain up, and they can't maintain a long term relationship.

Of course, I suspect, long term relationships really aren't important in the gay community.

What the hell do I know?

 

[CockySOB]

Matt,

Trying to get back to the original post, what do you view to be the proper course of action for the pro-homosexual marriage advocates?

Personally I think that it should remain to the state legislatures to clarify how their individual states define "marriage" for licensing within their respective jurisdictions. In cases where a state does not have such clarification, faith and credit should allow for the understanding coming from the couple's state of residence.

Am I wrong?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder which is a learned trait. There is evidence to support the behavior, but none to support your theory that happens to support your lifestyle.

Fearing difference and/or the unknown is a natural instinct most animals and people possess.

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior whether or not it is two men or two women.

And just to quash your little theory, I'm about as alpha-male as it gets and I don't enjoy watching two women engaging in homosexual acts. Simply stating that it is wrong is hardly as sensational as "fake moral outrage."

I agree homosexuality is a learned behavior. But I disgaree that it is unnatural. People weren't genetically encoded with a sense of right and wrong or moral beliefs. Social and cultral norms define behaviors, including sexuality and sexual preference. Heterosexual monagamy is just as much a learned behavior as homosexuality.

I hardly doubt that you or anyone is against homosexual marriage because you're "naturally" against it. The institutions that influenced you dictated your beliefs on homosexuals. Whether you're personally against homosexuality or not, you can't deny that society, in general, deems two lesbian women in a sexual manner more acceptable than two men.

Screw your double-standards.

LMAO...they're not my double-standards, they're society's. Those double-standards were a learned behavior.

 

[manu1959]

gay sex is baaaaad...straight sex is goooooooood

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2115432771664151288&hl=en

 

[mattskramer]

Matt,

Trying to get back to the original post, what do you view to be the proper course of action for the pro-homosexual marriage advocates?

Personally I think that it should remain to the state legislatures to clarify how their individual states define "marriage" for licensing within their respective jurisdictions. In cases where a state does not have such clarification, faith and credit should allow for the understanding coming from the couple's state of residence.

Am I wrong?

Yeah. I suppose that I can go with that.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I'm also a proponent of Federalism and think that it should be left up to the States. I'd support a State's decision either way. But currently the Defesne of Marriage Act prohibits States from enacting their own legislation. I think that although Massachusetts's State Courts have upheld gay marriage, the ruling of the courts are not in standing with Federal Law. If I'm not mistaken, all the States passing Amendments on marriage are all trumped by DOMA and exist only as safeguards in case DOMA falls in the SCOTUS because of the equal protection or the due process clauses. Is there anyone who is against gay marriage but thinks DOMA should be repealed because of their federalist views?

 

[CockySOB]

I'm also a proponent of Federalism and think that it should be left up to the States.

Erm... isn't that an oxymoronic statement? If you are a proponent of Federalism, that means you support more power to the centralized government, and less power to the component states or provinces. So I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Annie]

Erm... isn't that an oxymoronic statement? If you are a proponent of Federalism, that means you support more power to the centralized government, and less power to the component states or provinces. So I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Nope, federalism is not 'concentrated central authority':

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/

Federalism
First published Sun Jan 5, 2003; substantive revision Thu Oct 12, 2006

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federations. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia and Europe, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodating differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common political order.

 

[CockySOB]

But currently the Defesne of Marriage Act prohibits States from enacting their own legislation. I think that although Massachusetts's State Courts have upheld gay marriage, the ruling of the courts are not in standing with Federal Law. If I'm not mistaken, all the States passing Amendments on marriage are all trumped by DOMA and exist only as safeguards in case DOMA falls in the SCOTUS because of the equal protection or the due process clauses. Is there anyone who is against gay marriage but thinks DOMA should be repealed because of their federalist views?

Actually, DOMA should be repealed as it violates State's Rights. Well, at least the section (1 U.S.C. § 7) which identifies "marriage" and "spouse" in the definitions of the US Codes. The other section (28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is actually fairly well worded to clarify that a legislative assignment in one state does not immediately force agreement or compliance in another state which does not have existing legislation regarding "marriage."

 

[OCA]

It's unfair to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal because of the consent factor. If two grown gay people are sexually attracted and they can both consent, there should be nothing wrong with that.

No, actually its completely fair.

I agree, if two guys want to fuck each other in the ass IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME go for it, but you see it really isn't being left alonr to live their lives as they CHOOSE, they want us to accept them as equals....well judging by the choices they made they ain't equal mentally by any damn stretch of the imagination.

 

[MissileMan]

Cool---accept civil unions an be done with it.

They aren't being offered as an alternative are they?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, actually its completely fair.

I agree, if two guys want to fuck each other in the ass IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME go for it, but you see it really isn't being left alonr to live their lives as they CHOOSE, they want us to accept them as equals....well judging by the choices they made they ain't equal mentally by any damn stretch of the imagination.

Neither is a kid with down syndrome, but that kid is our equal as a member of society. There is no empirical evidence for homosexuality as being a mental illness, so lets stop calling it as such. In my experience many gay people are quite sophisticated and open minded which leads me to believe they might be greater mentally in aspects. Sexual stigma and prejudice are products of fear and insecurity.

 

[dilloduck]

They aren't being offered as an alternative are they?

Depends on where you live.----beats the hell out of wanting to be called married. That's like butterfly wanting to be called a horse.

 

[Annie]

Neither is a kid with down syndrome, but that kid is our equal as a member of society. There is no empirical evidence for homosexuality as being a mental illness, so lets stop calling it as such.

Personally I think since most employers have granted the rights of couples that live together to receive benefits as do spouses, the same should be added for gays. With that said, shouldn't my father who lives with me, be granted the same? Just a thought.

Now more to the topic at hand, I said before, I think it's important that whether or not there is a sexual relationship, if I say 'so and so' should be able to visit me or make medical decisions for me if I can't, it should be thus. Give me a form to do so.

On the other hand, homosexual unions, while not 'mental illness' are deviant, in the sociological sense, as is Down's. Down's is also a medical condition, but never mind that.

My take, gays should have equal rights regarding employment, education, free from harrassment as anyone else. On the other hand, they are not a 'special group' that should have extraordinary rights. Just like I wouldn't, (yuk, phooey) marry my father, that just shouldn't be an issue for gays. Civil unions in the sense of getting fair rights, ok.

Now with that said, gays wanting to teach in schools, etc. Simple. Do NOT bring your sex life into such. Yes, there are places for Don't ask, don't tell. Know when and where to discuss such. Schools, scouts, etc., are neither the time or place for such. I would no more tell my kids about my love life at school and I'm strait. Do they ask? Yes, and I'm old enough to be their very old mother or very young grandmother. They still ask. I still just say, not appropriate.