Why gay marriage is wrong!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Unless your brother dies and doesn't leave an eldest son to leave the farm to, so the living brother must have sex with his dead brothers wife, until they have a male heir...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yet they are not married...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and woman. At least in the overwhelming majority of the country.

 

[Skylar]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Says you. Our laws say differently. You keep telling yourself that same sex marriage isn't marriage. And gays will continue to gain legal recognition for their marriages.

Looks like we have a perfect win-win scenario here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You do realize that AIDS is overwhelmingly a straights disease?

Absolutely false.

Absent a homosexual in the mix... meaning that a homosexual was either having sex with someone you had sex with, or was using a needle with someone you're either having sex with, or with whom you're sharing a needle with... or has given the blood that you're being transfused with... you've NO CHANCE of contracting the HIV.

And by none I mean that your chances of contracting the HIV absent a homosexual having tainted the sexual partner with whom you're having sex or the needle your sharing, or the blood your accepting... the odds of you contracting The HIV are roughly that of you being hit by a train the moment you hit the Powerball.

 

[Mr.Right]

Perpetuated in part by the irresponsible sharing of needles by drug addicts and equally irresponsible sexual practices by heterosexuals; the notion that homosexuals are 'solely responsible' for HIV/AIDS is as anachronistic as it is wrong.

Again the would-be 'contributor' comes to advance deceit as truth. In point of FACT... absent a homosexual in the mix, there is virtually NO CHANCE of a human being contracting the HIV (The Virus the causes AIDS). the odds of such are roughly that of getting struck by a train the moment you learn that you hit the Powerball.

Says you. But then you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about:

Heterosexual spread in the general population is the main mode of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa,which remains the most heavily affected region, with 67% of the global burden.

http://www.lwwpartnerships.com/assets/files/HIVAIDS/Global_epidemiology_of_HIV.4.pdf

So 67% of all new infections are through heterosexual sex. But there's virtually no chance with a gay person in the mix?

Huh. I don't think 'virtually no chance' means what you think it means.

You do realize that Africa does not have adequate testing or medical facilities, right? And do you know how many of those victims were born with the disease? That accounts for a good percentage of new cases. Do some honest research, and quit embarrassing yourslf.

You do realize that AIDS is overwhelmingly a straights disease? That most with the disease are straight. That the overwhelming majority of new infections are through heterosexual sex?

And we're supposed to deny say, a lesbian couple the right to marry because of this?

I don't get it.

Once again, most of those are because they are a population that is poor and uneducated. Heterosexual sex is not the reason we have aids. We have it simply because some sexual deviant thought a monkey was sexy. Then he spread it to the gay community, assuming he himself wasn't gay. Then bisexuals and iv drug users continued the process. it was sexual deviants who were responsible for the initial spread of this disease. That is something you can't deny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

Says Nature.

 

[hipeter924]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Looked at Maryland laws lately? Maryland voted with a firm majority to allow same-sex marriage, but according to your logic millions of voters don't exist - if they don't vote the way you want them too, lol.

 

[Mr.Right]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Says you. Our laws say differently. You keep telling yourself that same sex marriage isn't marriage. And gays will continue to gain legal recognition for their marriages.

Looks like we have a perfect win-win scenario here.

Slavery used to be legal too. I suppose, if you were alive then, you would have no problem with it. Right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Looked at Maryland laws lately? Maryland voted with a firm majority to allow same-sex marriage, but according to your logic millions of voters don't exist - if they don't vote the way you want them too, lol.

If Maryland law said that you can step off the edge of a 20 story building and flap your arms that you will fly... do you actually believe that the FORCE OF LAW would IN ANY WAY ALTER THE LAWS OF NATURE?

The same principle applies to the laws of nature regarding human behavior.

Therefore: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Says you. Our laws say differently. You keep telling yourself that same sex marriage isn't marriage. And gays will continue to gain legal recognition for their marriages.

Looks like we have a perfect win-win scenario here.

Slavery used to be legal too. I suppose, if you were alive then, you would have no problem with it. Right?

Gay marriage isn't slavery, nor anything close to it. So your entire analogy falls apart.

 

[Skylar]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Looked at Maryland laws lately? Maryland voted with a firm majority to allow same-sex marriage, but according to your logic millions of voters don't exist - if they don't vote the way you want them too, lol.

If Maryland law said that you can step off the edge of a 20 story building and flap your arms that you will fly... do you actually believe that the FORCE OF LAW would IN ANY WAY ALTER THE LAWS OF NATURE?

There is no marriage in nature. There is fucking. They aren't the same thing. Marriage is our creation, and we define it. And if we define to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, that definition is as valid as only one man and one woman.

You keep arguing for some inherent definition of marriage. And there is none. You've imagined it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Y

It is ultimately destructive to society.

How? Gay guys hold hands and....what? How is society 'destroyed'?

Look at our AIDS ecademic.

Most AIDS suffers are straight. And of course, there's almost no HIV among lesbians. If the threat is inherent to same sex unions, wouldn't it be ANY same sex union?

There's nothing inherently wrong with same sex couples. Why then would we exclude them from marriage? It makes no sense.

And if you were genuinely concerned about multiple sex partners and the spreading of AIDS, wouldn't the monogamy of marriage be something you'd *encourage* rather than oppose?

You are a ignorant fool!

• In 2010, gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among men and 63% of all new infections although they comprise only 4% of the U.S. male population.
  
  
• Then you have bisexuals, who spread it to the heterosexual community. AIDS is a homosexual disease. They own it, lock, stock and barrel. If it wasn't for sexual immorality, AIDS wouldn't be a problem. That is a cold hard fact.

Again, just as subjective religious dogma can't be used to 'justify' discrimination against gay Americans, so too that gay Americans are most likely to be victims of HIV/AIDS is not 'justification' to seek to deny them their rights.

You hate gay Americans, and you have every right to do so, however wrong. hateful, and ignorant; and no one is attempting to compel you to stop hating gays – but your unwarranted hatred of gays cannot be used to condone denying gay Americans their civil rights, as you wish to do.

 

[Skylar]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Looked at Maryland laws lately? Maryland voted with a firm majority to allow same-sex marriage, but according to your logic millions of voters don't exist - if they don't vote the way you want them too, lol.

Exactly. Keyes gives lip service to antiquity of perception....unless he doesn't like it. Then he ignores it.

He gives lip service to 'nature'. Unless he doesn't like it. Then he ignores it.

He gives lip service to the will of the people. Unless he doesn't like it. Then he ignores it.

The only standard Keyes has is his own subjective opinion. And he'll gladly ignore anything to cling to that. Even if what he ignores are his own sources and his own standards.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again, just as subjective religious dogma...

Religion is axiomatically objective. Absent objectivity, religion does not exist. Which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that Islam is not a religion.

 

[Skylar]

Again, just as subjective religious dogma...

Religion is axiomatically objective.

Which religion? Remember, there are thousands. And they almost all contradict one another. What objective value would thousands upon thousands of mutually exclusive, mutually contradicting 'objective' standards have on this conversation?

And of course, religion isn't axiomatically objective. Its hopelessly subjective. As its open to interpretation. You can ignore any book you don't like, prioritize any passage you do like, 'interpret around' virtually any law or commandment there is. All to make your religion match what you already believe.

The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.

The Founders only for sodomy.

Modern Christians, neither.

Did God 'change his mind'? Or did your 'axiomatically objective' standard come to three different conclusions?

Its one or the other. And either obliterates your claims. Your 'objective' standards aren't. And whenever this is pointed out, you run. Which begs the question; why bother with such nonsense when even YOU won't stand behind it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again Reader, you're seeing in the would-be 'contributions' from the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is the addled species of reasoning OKA: Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And it through that that you can understand why in the United States and throughout Western Civilization that justice is getting nearly impossible to find... and that is why those who CONFESSED to multiple FELONIES in national Television, wherein she admitted to abusing the power of the Executive Branch... to usurp the rights of innocent people to form effective political opposition to the Cult of Sexual Deviancy... is not at risk of any kind that she or her conspirators, will be prosecuted for those crimes....

And that is why we're here debating the LUNACY that people of the same gender are suitable for Marriage, which nature itself designed as the Joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

And that is why all over the Western World, "SCIENCE!" is 'informing' government that "Some Children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'.

And RELATIVISM is why the would-be president of the US is working hard to license the most wicked, mass-murdering cult on earth, to build their own nuclear warhead... it is RAW, UNADULTERATED EVIL!

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Again Reader, you're seeing in the would-be 'contributions' from the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is the addled species of reasoning OKA: Relativism.

And when pressed with specific examples of how your claims are blithering nonsense, asking you questions you can't possibly answer.....

.....you mechanically flee to your 'relativism' block post. Something you wouldn't have had to do if your claims had actual merit.

Again, Reader.....Keyes shows us where he knows his argument is weakest by where he chooses to run. When pressed for how an 'axiomatically objective' standard could produce wildly different conclusions, he knows that he has no rational answer. As there is none.

His 'axiomatically objective' standard is itself relativistic. Subject to culture, society, history and personal context. And it changes as these relativistic standards change.

And worse for his fallaciously 'objective' standard, his religious beliefs are but one among thousands and thousands of such beliefs. Most of which are mutually exclusive. Most of which contradict one another. It can't, for example, be both Jesus AND a Greek Pantheon of Gods.

Nor does it need to be either. Or any. He subjectively chooses one, subjectively chooses his interpretation, subjectively chooses his priorities, subjectively chooses what he'll ignore, and then declares his beliefs 'axiomatically objective'.

Which of course is just silly. Subjective is not objective. Which Keyes knows....as he'll run from any conversation where he is confronted with this simple fact. Exactly as he's doing right now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again Reader, you're seeing in the would-be 'contributions' from the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is the addled species of reasoning OKA: Relativism.

And when pressed with specific examples of how your claims are blithering nonsense, asking you questions you can't possibly answer.....

.....you mechanically flee to your 'relativism' block post. Something you wouldn't have had to do if your claims had actual merit.

Again, Reader.....Keyes shows us where he knows his argument is weakest by where he chooses to run. When pressed for how an 'axiomatically objective' standard could produce wildly different conclusions, he knows that he has no rational answer. As there is none.

His 'axiomatically objective' standard is itself relativistic. Subject to culture, society, history and personal context. And it changes as these relativistic standards change.

And worse for his fallaciously 'objective' standard, his religious beliefs are but one among thousands and thousands of such beliefs. Most of which are mutually exclusive. Most of which contradict one another. It can't, for example, be both Jesus AND a Greek Pantheon of Gods.

Nor does it need to be either. Or any. He subjectively chooses one, subjectively chooses his interpretation, subjectively chooses his priorities, subjectively chooses what he'll ignore, and then declares his beliefs 'axiomatically objective'.

Which of course is just silly. Subjective is not objective. Which Keyes knows....as he'll run from any conversation where he is confronted with this simple fact. Exactly as he's doing right now.

And with that, the Reader can see why the above cited, would-be 'contributor' has been sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE... (save these little bouts of parole I grant when it serves the debate) with its never ending litany of irrational drivel, wherein it claims in response to the natural fact that the individual is intrinsically subjective... that "Religion" is subjective, only to prove such by pointing to the individual... who is, as was pointed out in the argument, inherently subjective and who learns objectivity only through its religious faith.

Understand Reader, there is nothing about secular-humanism that is not subjective and the consequences of such bears out it's evil foundation, as such has never resulted in anything beyond chaos, calamity and catastrophe; the consequences which are exclusive to "EVIL" and evil alone.

And that is all we're truly discussing here in these endless discussions wherein the Left is pleading to allow people to behavior in ever greater destructive ways. It's EVIL, plain and simple... and nothing good has EVER come from it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Meh. Most Americans are over gay marriage now, especially in my own state.

Only the bible belt that gets all wound up over it, as in the hypocritical bible belt that places brothels near churches - so they can sin and then ask for forgiveness without walking far.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to where you happen to be standing, assuming that you're standing upon earth, of course.

Says you. Our laws say differently. You keep telling yourself that same sex marriage isn't marriage. And gays will continue to gain legal recognition for their marriages.

Looks like we have a perfect win-win scenario here.

Slavery used to be legal too. I suppose, if you were alive then, you would have no problem with it. Right?

Actually, I think this is an interesting question.

We have slavery in modern-day America. We call it migrant workers but its pretty much slavery.

A related question - would "you" have been part of the Underground Railroad? Or how about the resistance during WWII?

What I think is that those who are favor of equality now would have been in favor of it then. And, of course, those who are against equality now would have always been against it.

Needless to say, there's the question of nature vs nurture, how you would likely have been raised in different times of our history but, given the givens, there have always been haters and RWs. At one time, they were called Democrats but now they're Republicans.

The OP is wrong. If the United States is what we say we are, marriage equality is not wrong. You're free to hold a different opinion but that's all it is - an opinion, and maybe you should move to Russia where they share your fear and hatred.

 

[Nosmo King]

Keys,

Know this: your premise that homosexuality is a "mental disease that presents as sexual deviancy" has been rejected as groundless. Psychiatry rejects it. Individuals with personal but not sexual relationships with homosexuals reject it. A growing majority of American society rejects it. Your premise fails to hold water and therefore will be rejected.

It flies against the basic tenets of Americanism which holds that all men are created equal and have the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexuals have proven themselves to be responsible, sober, loyal and beneficial citizens. And, as such, should never bear the repression, subjugation and vitriol espoused by you and whatever few followers of your peculiar beliefs under law, commerce, and opportunity you would impose.

Our civic morality has evolved from times during which 'the other', no matter who that 'other' might be rejected and repressed to the point where the 'other is accepted and welcomed as they bring their talents and gifts to society. There is no sound, rational and reasoned purpose to further repress homosexuals under law, commerce or civic comportment.