What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[kaz]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

With the high infant mortality rate, high rate of death in childbirth, short life expectancy, it is wasteful for the state to encourage/allow formal relationships that are not aimed at procreation. And since there is little to no machinery in out not far removed from hunter-gatherer society, it makes more sense to have an economic union where the woman, who is generally weaker and, when pregnant, not useful for strenuous physical activity assumes the gender role of taking care of the household.

So for those reaosons, homosexual relationships should be discouraged. Of course, to enforce that we'll have to call it the will of God and then we'll be unable to change it even when all those reasons are no longer valid.

So when government passes morality laws like gay sodomy and the gays ignored it, the problem was that government wasn't explaining that it's in the interest of the State for them not to have gay sex? That they would have listened to?

 

[jillian]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

what "perks" do you think gay people get that others don't?

1% against you is 100% against you, ay toots?

There are 60 other gay threads covering that, that isn't what this one is about.

that doesn't even make sense.

Try again.

you lied. and can't prove that gays get anything we don't.

now run along little one.

 

[pinqy]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

With the high infant mortality rate, high rate of death in childbirth, short life expectancy, it is wasteful for the state to encourage/allow formal relationships that are not aimed at procreation. And since there is little to no machinery in out not far removed from hunter-gatherer society, it makes more sense to have an economic union where the woman, who is generally weaker and, when pregnant, not useful for strenuous physical activity assumes the gender role of taking care of the household.

So for those reaosons, homosexual relationships should be discouraged. Of course, to enforce that we'll have to call it the will of God and then we'll be unable to change it even when all those reasons are no longer valid.

So when government passes morality laws like gay sodomy and the gays ignored it, the problem was that government wasn't explaining that it's in the interest of the State for them not to have gay sex? That they would have listened to?

The purpose of laws is not to stop a behavior, but to discourage and regulate it. Early Hebrew law was all explicitly religious law. When Christianity came around, and some of the Jewish morality was adopted, a kind of reverse process took place and religious law becaume explicit civil law.

The problem is that once you call something "God's law," the underlying reasons become irrelevant (the Leviticus dietary laws are good advice in a pre-refrigeration Middle Eastern environment, but serve little purpose in the modern world).

And that's what I'm saying about sodomy laws and prohibitions against same-sex marriage. The initial reasons were sound laws for the benefit of society, but nowadays are pointless.

 

[jillian]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

And the representative of the Left is lying. All the Special Snowflake Social Justice Warriors of the Left bully anyone who says something they don't like with "Trigger Warning" accusations.

nice rant.

 

[Edgetho]

And the representative of the Left is lying. All the Special Snowflake Social Justice Warriors of the Left bully anyone who says something they don't like with "Trigger Warning" accusations.

From Ace of Spades HQ on a discussion of something similar to this.

dimocrap scum need to understand this. They really, really, really do

And when the justice system has failed or become merely a procedural sham what then?

It's a common conceit among lawyers that our legal system is the justice system - which is not fully true: It's 'a' justice system and a pretty good one at that but it's not the only system of justice. So there's an assumption that if the legal system is manipulated and even blocked, then there's simply no recourse at all for those on the receiving end of this treatment and so they'll just accept it. Which is clearly what the above people and their allies seem to believe. Well out of inertia of trust in the system this is true up to a point - but only up to a point.

But when that trust that justice will actually be delivered is finally broken, stoic acceptance of the jiggered results of a broken system can no longer be counted upon either. Instead you will see a reversion to the older, rougher justice delivery firmware that's embedded in our DNA and it will be ugly. But not necessarily unjust.

Given that people have had their lives destroyed for merely making a bad joke on social media, wearing the wrong shirt, answering a hypothetical question about catering incorrectly, and using the wrong ordering of words in a phrase, not to mention threatened with jail for the act of committing politics, I see no reason that Chisholm, Kluka, Lerner, and Machen who have done far worse should be able to walk the streets and go through life comfortably and carefree.

Don't blame me for this - I wasn't the one who deliberately subverted and broke the system of justice that we had.

 

[kaz]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

what "perks" do you think gay people get that others don't?

1% against you is 100% against you, ay toots?

There are 60 other gay threads covering that, that isn't what this one is about.

that doesn't even make sense.

Try again.

you lied. and can't prove that gays get anything we don't.

now run along little one.

Another liberal who can't read, if I had a nickle...

 

[kaz]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

With the high infant mortality rate, high rate of death in childbirth, short life expectancy, it is wasteful for the state to encourage/allow formal relationships that are not aimed at procreation. And since there is little to no machinery in out not far removed from hunter-gatherer society, it makes more sense to have an economic union where the woman, who is generally weaker and, when pregnant, not useful for strenuous physical activity assumes the gender role of taking care of the household.

So for those reaosons, homosexual relationships should be discouraged. Of course, to enforce that we'll have to call it the will of God and then we'll be unable to change it even when all those reasons are no longer valid.

So when government passes morality laws like gay sodomy and the gays ignored it, the problem was that government wasn't explaining that it's in the interest of the State for them not to have gay sex? That they would have listened to?

The purpose of laws is not to stop a behavior, but to discourage and regulate it. Early Hebrew law was all explicitly religious law. When Christianity came around, and some of the Jewish morality was adopted, a kind of reverse process took place and religious law becaume explicit civil law.

The problem is that once you call something "God's law," the underlying reasons become irrelevant (the Leviticus dietary laws are good advice in a pre-refrigeration Middle Eastern environment, but serve little purpose in the modern world).

And that's what I'm saying about sodomy laws and prohibitions against same-sex marriage. The initial reasons were sound laws for the benefit of society, but nowadays are pointless.

OK, that makes more sense

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus was celibate (allegedly).

Was he born that way? Was it natural? Or was it some sort of abnormal pervesion he acquired?

I think it was a carpenty accident. It's well known that Jesus, though trying to follow in Joseph's footsteps, was just a terrible carpenter.

Either Jesus was abnormal, or the use of terms like abnormal, with derogatory implications, are meaningless when referring to sexual preference choices.

 

[Syriusly]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over.

 

[Seawytch]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

what "perks" do you think gay people get that others don't?

1% against you is 100% against you, ay toots?

There are 60 other gay threads covering that, that isn't what this one is about.

Then why did you bring it up in your OP? You mentioned perks gays get straights don't. What are they? What do gays get that nobody else "gets" (besides fantastic sex and great fashion sense)?

 

[kaz]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over.

Um...wow. You have not yet begun the path to self actualization, grass hopper

 

[Syriusly]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

And the representative of the Left is lying. All the Special Snowflake Social Justice Warriors of the Left bully anyone who says something they don't like with "Trigger Warning" accusations.

LOL....and of course you are lying- I would accuse all 'Conservatives' or 'Libertarians' or whatever of doing that- all of the 'Special Snowflake Totalitarian Stormtroopers of the Right"- but that would be just as much of a lie.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

You folks seem to not grasp that.

 

[Syriusly]

Another secret I wish I was gay thread?

You all embarrass yourselves with this stupidity

I'm actually sexually attracted to men, try again.

This isn't your thread you stupid fuck.

Ps. No one gives a fuck about your sexual desires loser. And yes, only losers proclaim their sexuality to strangers on an Internet forum.

Wow- that whole post screams "Grampa Murked" is a loser".....

 

[Syriusly]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over.

Um...wow. You have not yet begun the path to self actualization, grass hopper

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over

 

[kaz]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

what "perks" do you think gay people get that others don't?

1% against you is 100% against you, ay toots?

There are 60 other gay threads covering that, that isn't what this one is about.

Then why did you bring it up in your OP? You mentioned perks gays get straights don't. What are they? What do gays get that nobody else "gets" (besides fantastic sex and great fashion sense)?

Um...I said what the thread is not. To say what the thread is not is to bring it up and say that is what the thread is about?

The militant left, you accept nothing but total capitulation, do you?

As for what gays get, gay men sure get fashion sense, but the gay women seem to be pretty far behind the straight women. I guess they need it to make up for us straight men

 

[kaz]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

And the representative of the Left is lying. All the Special Snowflake Social Justice Warriors of the Left bully anyone who says something they don't like with "Trigger Warning" accusations.

LOL....and of course you are lying- I would accuse all 'Conservatives' or 'Libertarians' or whatever of doing that- all of the 'Special Snowflake Totalitarian Stormtroopers of the Right"- but that would be just as much of a lie.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

You folks seem to not grasp that.

You didn't understand her post. Liberals seriously are functionally illiterate. You see the words, but you can't put them together and comprehend what they mean together

 

[kaz]

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over

You have posted this multiple times. Read it and think about it. But don't hurt yourself. You're not used to it, do lots of stretching first.

Wow, liberalism, stupidity you can't make up...

 

[Syriusly]

If two people:

- are (or do anything)
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care?

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

Amazing over generalization- you aren't intelligent enough to discuss any issue without prevarication and you just repeat yourself over and over.

Um...wow. You have not yet begun the path to self actualization, grass hopper

More specifically- you started what is a surprisingly thoughtful thread for you, but rapidly descended into your usual pattern of labeling any you disagree with as 'unintelligent' and attacking entire groups of people because they have a different political point of view.

 

[Syriusly]

Why doesn't the left extend this concept of the right to be left alone to those who disagree with them?

As the representative for the entire "Left", I can say we don't.

We had a meeting last night and reached unanimous agreement.

So if two people
- disagree with me
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

I don't really care- though I reserve the right to criticize their opinion.

The left isn't intelligent enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement, you just repeat each other

And the representative of the Left is lying. All the Special Snowflake Social Justice Warriors of the Left bully anyone who says something they don't like with "Trigger Warning" accusations.

LOL....and of course you are lying- I would accuse all 'Conservatives' or 'Libertarians' or whatever of doing that- all of the 'Special Snowflake Totalitarian Stormtroopers of the Right"- but that would be just as much of a lie.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

You folks seem to not grasp that.

You didn't understand her post. Liberals seriously are functionally illiterate. You see the words, but you can't put them together and comprehend what they mean together

I understand.

You are a liar and an idiot. Your kneejerk reaction is to lie and attack all liberals.

I understand that fully.

 

[Syriusly]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

what "perks" do you think gay people get that others don't?

1% against you is 100% against you, ay toots?

There are 60 other gay threads covering that, that isn't what this one is about.

that doesn't even make sense.

Try again.

you lied. and can't prove that gays get anything we don't.

now run along little one.

Another liberal who can't read, if I had a nickle...

Not our fault you don't have a nickle.