| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| need some clarification |
| ||
|
Still waiting for a response.
I witnessed a former gay person say this to a gay person. Seriously, I did. It was in a public place on a college campus and the two people were arguing about homosexuality. And the gay guy challenged her by saying, "You don't know what it's like to be a homosexual." To which the now straight lady said, "Yes, I do, because I was a lesbian." It dropped like a bombshell on the argument because none of us knew that about her past. The homosexual guy was so stunned he was speechless. We were speechless too.[/quote][/quote] What do you mean there is no such thing as an ex gay person? Are you saying she never was a lesbian? If so, are you saying she was actually a heterosexual all along even though she did lesbian acts? If so, then who or what is a homosexual? Is it only a mindset or orientation or does it have to involve actual homosexual acts? Or are you saying that she will always be a lesbian since she did homosexual acts, even if it was only once and she did not "enjoy" it? If so, does that always make her bisexual if she then marries and has a kid with a guy? Or are you saying that all people are neither hetero- nor homosexual, and that it doesn't really matter what sex acts they've done because we're all the same? We just do different things? What are you saying?[/quote] |
| a guy |
| ||
Excellent analogy. No, that's not normal behavior. When Anna Nicole Smith married that old rich guy, every comedian in the country joked about that endlessly because it's not normal behavior. I don't remember anyone castigating the comedians by saying, "Stop being so intolerant, that's just beautiful romantic love." And so if a kid in health/sex ed class asks the teacher (in all seriousness, not as a joke or prank), "There's this hot 80 year old widow on my street. How do I go about dating her?" Is it intolerant if that kid is cautioned not to pursue that? Or is the teacher expected to encourage such behavior as a beautiful expression of romantic love? But if a boy expresses romantic love towards another boy, that's now considered normal and it would be intolerant to caution such a kid against pursuing that.[/quote] It's not about whether its normal or not, it's about whether its legal or not. Nobody said that Anna Nicole Smith should be barred from marrying. If you don't like gay people, whatever. It's still not right to deny them a right that doesn't affect you in any way. |
| A Slightly More Credible Hulk |
| ||
Well, isn't that a brilliant reason to deny a basic human right to 5% of the population? Because of "how you feel". |
| serious question. |
| ||
Yes, it is about whether its normal because that's what is taught in the public schools. Legalizing gay marriage normalizes homosexuality to the point that any criticism of it is considered hate speech. If you want your son to be taught that it's ok for him to be homecoming queen, well, more power to you. But don't expect my son to be his date. |
| Mr. Fister |
| ||
How do you think if feels for the gay kid to only be taught about straight relationships? Your kid is going to be gay or not gay no matter what he or she is taught in school. It's hardwiring in the brain.[/quote] QFE It's not something 'taught.' He or she is who he or she is. To deprive this person of understanding their particular orientation just leads to unhappiness and a lack of fulfilment. There shouldnt be some natural sexual orientation society deems suitable. You are completely ridiculous to think that keeping your child away from the idea is a solution when in fact you could possibly be robbing your child of the healthy happy feelings a person should feel in their proper relationship. You cant deny the inevitable. You're merely delaying the situation. |
| id |
| ||
|
The person I feel sorry for with gay marriage is the parents. I can't imagine anything worse for a Dad than having to walk your son down an aisle & delivering him to another man while your friends & family watch. Who plays the role of the bride? Who walks down the aisle & who waits up front? Who wears the dress? |
| Conjugal vs Revisionist |
| ||
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299550/marriage-and-presidency-ryan-t-anderson# " The Historic View Marriage as a comprehensive union: Joining spouses in body as well as mind, it is begun by commitment and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed in the acts by which new life is made, it is specially apt for and deepened by procreation, and calls for that broad sharing of domestic life uniquely fit for family life. Uniting spouses in these all-encompassing ways, it also calls for all-encompassing commitment: permanent and exclusive. Comprehensive union is valuable in itself, but its link to children’s welfare makes marriage a public good that the state should recognize, support, and in certain ways regulate. Call this the conjugal view of marriage. The Revisionist View Marriage as the union of two people who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life: essentially an emotional union, merely enhanced by whatever sexual activity partners find agreeable. Such committed romantic unions are seen as valuable while emotion lasts. The state recognizes them because it has an interest in their stability, and in the needs of spouses and any children they choose to rear. Call this the revisionist view of marriage. President Obama has made it clear that he favors the second view. He hasn’t offered any arguments for it, merely pointing to his feelings and those of his children. — Now that the president has disclosed his view, he — like all revisionists — must confront some tough questions. And he, like they, will run into a problem. Something must set marriages as a class apart from other bonds. But on every point where most agree that marriage is different, the conjugal view has a coherent explanation — and the revisionist has none. — The president has now created a platform for this very discussion; and it is a discussion we look forward to having. For as Obama himself implied, this is not a dispute featuring “bigots” on one side, any more than it has “perverts” on the other. It is a debate of reasonable people of goodwill who disagree about the nature of the most basic unit of society. In saying that he supports letting states decide the definition of marriage for themselves, Obama indicated that this issue shouldn’t be settled by judicial fiat. On this, we agree. Our national conversation shouldn’t be brought to an undemocratically abrupt end. But as it continues, advocates on all sides must contend with, and answer, the central question in this debate, without which we can’t know the what or the why of legal recognition, much less what justice demands: What is marriage?" |
| Egor the Terrible |
| ||
|
The cornhole was not designed to be penetrated by the penis. On this basis alone proves that gay activity goes against nature and gay marriage should not be allowed. |
| dsf45 |
| ||
Fixed it for you. |
| 28er |
| ||
So basically you are saying that marriage is a union designed for procreation. Welp, sorry to break it to you but you can have kids without getting married and you can get married without wanting or ever having kids. You can also adopt kids and so not procreate with your spouse but still raise a kid. We generally assume that when people get married they will have kids, but there is nothing about marriage that is directly tied to having kids, which is your whole basis for trying to say that marriage is only between men and women. Marriage is simply a commitment of love in the the eyes of the law. It has nothing to do with love itself or children. It is a legal thing that affects legal matters. |
| here we go again |
| ||
Marriage is simply a legal matter indicating commitment? Then why not legalize incest? Why not legalize polygamy? Why have age restrictions on marriage? |
| noticer of irony |
| ||
I find it highly ironic how often gays hurl the term homophobe as an insult when they themselves don't like to be ridiculed with insults and pejorative terms. |
| Racehorse |
| ||
Oppressed? Right. Try again, brother. |
| hmmmmmmmmmm |
| ||
Ummmm this one has be gone over a thousand times on letsrun... 1. Why not legalize incest.... well incest can have negative health consequences from reproduction. Homosexual couples can't have children so that makes NO SENSE to compare the two. 2. Why not legalize polygamy? hmmmmm why not? Two, three, or four CONSENTING adults coming to a legal agreement to be together. Why should we stop them? So yes we should also legalize polygamy. Why have age restrictions on marriage? Really? This one is still being brought up. This is like the same statement as saying well are we going to allow people and animals to marry next. THE KEY WORD IS CONSENTING ADULTS. Why is the government or people trying to tell what two consenting adults can do. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
Here we go...
Read my posts, moron. |
| 28er |
| ||
|
incest causes genetic problems, we want to protect children from having such problems. Also incest is about sex, not marriage. Our culture says that relationships should be monogamous, and so we say polygamy is not part of the legal structure of marriage (again, because marriage is a legal commitment). We have age restrictions on marriage to protect youth (just like anything else: drinking, smoking, R rated movies, joining the military, etc). Adults marry adults. In no way does discriminating against gay adults protect anyone, it only hurts people. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence if you still do not understand why all groups of people deserve the same rights. By denying a group of people rights we fail to live up to the ideas upon which our nation was founded. So, sadly, we still fail to live up to what this nation was supposed to be an example of from its very foundation. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
Bullcrap. My job requires an understanding of QFT. What you state there is a lie. You may disagree with what I am saying, but you CANNOT accuse me of being unintelligent or illogical. Hold on a second... I just looked back a few pages. I thought I recognized that username. You're the guy I had to correct for completely misunderstanding what I said about swearing (under md5). Be careful who you accuse of not being bright before taking a look at yourself!
1. I explained what I meant by instinctively immoral. 2. I proceeded to list isomorphic cases as analogies 3. I explained the morality classification of a function of two factors, genetic and environmental. Why are you telling me something I just wrote? |
| wha huh |
| ||
|
Hate isn't inbred, it is taught.
|
| carrot onion |
| ||
Go back a few pages. We already had a discussion on this. For incest with vasectomies, what is wrong with it? Nothing. (Also putting "NO SENSE" in all caps doesn't make it any more true.) |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
I don't hate anyone except those who harm others. Tell me, where did you get this idea? |