[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]
Did you follow the thread?[/quote]
It seems like a larger portion of the arguments have been directed towards the male-male marriages.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
BUT if the state arbitrarily bestows “rights” it becomes a question of fairness.
[/quote]
Those poor blind folk. When will we license them to drive?[/quote]
When they can do so without endangering others.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Take note, libertarian actually stumping for a widened governmental presence (even wider, since he’d deny no imaginative arrangement of consenting adults a state recognized marriage) within the population. And, get this, in the name of ‘fairness.’ [/quote]
Poppycock.
If the government bestows rights, one law for all.
We would rather have them stay out of it though.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh I see you mean that you don’t understand that I was referring to divorce among those who are homosexual skyrocketing. Even though I explained that in the post that you already quoted.
Do you still not understand?
Here let me say it a different way. Long term homosexual unions are usually NOT monogamous. Oh I know forlife will say that he and his partner are exclusive. And for the sake of argument let’s say that he’s not lying this one time. But over all the statistics on homosexual monogamy are bleak. I’ve posted many stats on this on other threads. And I’d be glad to dig them up again if you like (in fact now that I think of it I will post some of those statistics just for the young men who might be reading this and have not yet formed an opinion - thanks for reminding me). Homosexual men are not meant for marriage, they just are not. And if a couple million of them are allowed to marry the divorce rate will sky rocket. Now you can follow that right? Subject: Gay men. Divorce rate for (come on you can do it) GAY MEN.
Okay, talk to you soon Mak.
Bye[/quote]
That’s not how you worded it, and you know it.
That aside, what does it matter that divorce among 1% of the population, among couples who are apparently not like you, will “skyrocket”?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. ( Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978) .
And this is regardless of whether they were in a “committed” relationship. Quite the promiscuous bunch. But then again men are more promiscuous than women (as a rule) and since these men are looking for other men, apparently there is no one to say the word “no”.[/quote]
This just in, men like sex. More at 11.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Gay marriage also includes females marrying females.
Why has all the attention been towards men marrying men?
Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]
It is.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Take note, libertarian actually stumping for a widened governmental presence (even wider, since he’d deny no imaginative arrangement of consenting adults a state recognized marriage) within the population. And, get this, in the name of ‘fairness.’ [/quote]
Poppycock.
If the government bestows rights, one law for all.
We would rather have them stay out of it though.
[/quote]
Ok, so the blind can drive. Children can marry. Toddlers can down some shots and have a cig.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]
Did you follow the thread?[/quote]
It seems like a larger portion of the arguments have been directed towards the male-male marriages.[/quote]
No, they’ve been directed towards homosexual marriage. Which, hold on to your seat, includes lesbians.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. ( Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978) .
And this is regardless of whether they were in a “committed” relationship. Quite the promiscuous bunch. But then again men are more promiscuous than women (as a rule) and since these men are looking for other men, apparently there is no one to say the word “no”.[/quote]
This just in, men like sex. More at 11.[/quote]
What kind of bizarre response is that? Is this really how low you’ve sunken in your atheism? You’d just say “hey, men like sex” as if with a shrug of the shoulders? This is your new world? What the heck happened to you, Mak? What have you gotten into to that makes stats like those seem so ho-hum tame to you? I mean, did you even look at the numbers here? I gotta tell you, I know I’m on the right side of a position when I see you on the opposite side. You’re not doing ANYONE, homosexual or otherwise a service here. Cripes! Take an inventory, man.
So, to wrap up my participation…
We observed both species of gay marriage supporter in this thread.
The fad follower. These folks had zero response when questioned about how’d they manage to avoid their own bigotry and intolerance, and their own ‘consenting adults’ mantra when they assure us that our slippery slope arguments are fallacies. When confronted that in the course of slamming the door shut behind homosexuals, they then put their own reasoning to the sword…well, they vanished. Poof, gone. Fad followers without any substantive thought put into it.
The, “I hate state action” crowd. Meh, they’re predictable. Make state marriage unruly and meaningless, starting with homosexuality. “Fairness” = Any arrangment of consenting adults. Chaos and meaningless.
Later.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Take note, libertarian actually stumping for a widened governmental presence (even wider, since he’d deny no imaginative arrangement of consenting adults a state recognized marriage) within the population. And, get this, in the name of ‘fairness.’ [/quote]
Poppycock.
If the government bestows rights, one law for all.
We would rather have them stay out of it though.
[/quote]
Ok, so the blind can drive. Children can marry. Toddlers can down some shots and have a cig.[/quote]
If you leave us the choice between that and an overbearing government, yes, we would probably choose that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, to wrap up my participation…
We observed both species of gay marriage supporter in this thread.
The fad follower. These folks had zero response when questioned about how’d they manage to avoid their own bigotry and intolerance, and their own ‘consenting adults’ mantra when they assure us that our slippery slope arguments are fallacies. When confronted that in the course of slamming the door shut behind homosexuals, putting their own reasoning to the sword, they vanished. Poof, gone. Fad followers without any substantive thought put into it.
The, “I hate state action” crowd. Meh, they’re predictable. Make state marriage unruly and meaningless, starting with homosexuality. “Fairness” = Any arrangment of consenting adults. Chaos and meaningless.
Later.[/quote]
If you need the state to bestow “meaning” on your marriage you are already fucked anyway.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Gay marriage also includes females marrying females.
Why has all the attention been towards men marrying men?
Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]
This is Grneyes. I pointed this out in my first post. Still waiting for the answer…
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Gay marriage also includes females marrying females.
Why has all the attention been towards men marrying men?
Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]
This is Grneyes. I pointed this out in my first post. Still waiting for the answer…[/quote]I answered for me. You won’t care but it IS my answer.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]Not for me. Romans 1:24-27 [quote]24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.[/quote] Women are mentioned first and then “likewise” the men.
Tribulus, has anyone ever told you that you quote posts weird?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. ( Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978) .
And this is regardless of whether they were in a “committed” relationship. Quite the promiscuous bunch. But then again men are more promiscuous than women (as a rule) and since these men are looking for other men, apparently there is no one to say the word “no”.[/quote]
This just in, men like sex. More at 11.[/quote]
What kind of bizarre response is that? Is this really how low you’ve sunken in your atheism? You’d just say “hey, men like sex” as if with a shrug of the shoulders? This is your new world? What the heck happened to you, Mak? What have you gotten into to that makes stats like those seem so ho-hum tame to you? I mean, did you even look at the numbers here? I gotta tell you, I know I’m on the right side of a position when I see you on the opposite side. You’re not doing ANYONE, homosexual or otherwise a service here. Cripes! Take an inventory, man.[/quote]
The point is that men like sex. The idea that two men in a relationship are likely to have sex outside the relationship is not groundbreaking news. Hell, let’s find out how many males in unmarried pairings have sex with people other than their partners.
And read the wording of the study. “Claimed to have”. Sounds like a stand up study, because men never inflate their numbers to boost their ego. Hey I know! Let’s find out average penis size and let men self-measure. That’ll work out, right?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Tribulus, has anyone ever told you that you quote posts weird?[/quote]
You mean <<>>?
It’s his way of dissecting questions so he can cleverly avoid answering the point.
“LOL hay look guise I answered everything I quoted!”
I’m just popping in to make a tangential point for the argument about raising children. There are LOTS of kids still in the system and LOTS of bad foster and adoptive homes (as well as lots of bad "regular homes too, or there wouldn’t be a need for state intervention in the first place). So if we step out of the ivory tower for a second, there is a distinct need here in the real world. It’s one thing to dislike homosexuals and prefer that kids be raised by heterosexual couples. It’s another thing (IMO) to hate homosexuals so much that you would prefer kids to be raised by the state or in a series of foster homes.
…
This, of course, is the one thing I love about Michele Bachmann.
Sooo, yeah, if you’re able, please foster and/or adopt.
/side rant
[quote]therajraj wrote:Tribulus, has anyone ever told you that you quote posts weird?[/quote]How so?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How so?
[/quote]
I think its all the <<<<>>>> business.
I assume it has to do with your background in database stuff.