there is a huge difference on informing children on sex and pushing a agenda trying to influence into an abnormal and detrimental behavior.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I put all sexual immorality in the same class, but sorry doggy-style is not sexually immoral. but cheating on your partner, being a whore (male/female), pressuring the not completely willing. these are all signs of a bigger issue.
[/quote]
I actually agree with you that cheating on your partner and pressuring the not completely willing are terrible, immoral behaviors. However, what do those actions have to do with completely consensual sex between adults where both people derive pleasure and act in an ethical manner toward each other?
This is why I am putting gay sex on the same side as doggy style. 50 years ago, doggy sex was considered perverted and deprave. There was even a survey showing (you can find the info in “The Naked Ape”) that less than 10% of couples ever engaged in it. However, while it was considered immoral in a way, no one can prove that those engaging in it aren’t acting toward each other in an ethical manner. This could also be said about any sexual kink that others might find perverted (such as anal in general). You might be grossed out hearing about it, but you can’t assume anything about the people who do it and whether or not they care about each other, treat each other ethically, and both derive mutual pleasure and satisfaction from the situation. In many cases, gay people do care, are ethical, are extremely consenting, and are getting more sexual satisfaction than they possibly could in any other situation. They don’t judge you for your kink, why do you judge them?[/quote]
Your problem, Olee, is you want to make this discussion about sex. It’s not. None of your comparisons with doggy style sex, and its “progressivism” are relevant. It’s not what two people do sexually behind closed doors that makes gay marriage impractical, untenable, useless and dumb, it’s the other things that have been mentioned over the past few days.[/quote]
Yes I’m off topic and yes the topic I’m on currently doesn’t have much to do with the rest of the thread.
It is not the sex, it is the pushing of the preferential push of the abnormal lifestyle.
I guess immoral was a bad word choice since I am looking at it not from a religious standpoint, but merely from the scientific and statistical side.
Of course look at what guides my morality and I do not agree with sexual immorality, but not even from that standpoint, merely from one we can both argue towards, it is abhorent to push it onto others as normal behavior (not the sex act itself, but habitual lifestyle), when it clearly is not. Even in other animal models, males may immitate sex acts as a sign of dominance, but for males to engage in a homosexual lifestyle, show me. Females will pleasure each other to prepare for intercourse, but for a lifestyle, no. Even these basic creatures understand it is not a normal lifestyle for the propogation of their species and is detrimental on the individual and society level.
Not even to mention from the moral perspective that braking these moral boundaries, is a sign of a much deeper problem, look at all those who think they can borrow money without having to pay it back, lie, cheat steal. No a man having anal sex with another man in the privacy of their home without pushing it on others will not kill the society. But concept of relativism will. That there is no right or wrong, moral or immoral, normal or abnormal. once anything goes there is no longer the constraint that allows for the voluntary interactions within society.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is not the sex, it is the pushing of the preferential push of the abnormal lifestyle.
Not even to mention from the moral perspective that braking these moral boundaries, is a sign of a much deeper problem, look at all those who think they can borrow money without having to pay it back, lie, cheat steal. No a man having anal sex with another man in the privacy of their home without pushing it on others will not kill the society. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “push it on others”. Do you mean they force other people to do it? Are they trying to turn other people gay?
Once again, I’m not seeing the correlation between two men buttfucking (or two straight people buttfucking, for that matter) and credit problems, lying, cheating, and stealing. Most people I know who like buttfucking don’t do any of those things any more than the next person (The same number of them lie, steal, and cheat as straight people.)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ask your gay friend how he feels about it.
thunderbolt23:
That’s completely irrelevant. The standard is not and has never been “what if this hurts someone somewhere’s feelings?”. [/quote]
Yep, exactly right - in the course of the discussion, that’s exactly right. What was relevant is what should/should not be taught in schools. My friend’s opinion (and isn’t) relevant to that discussion.
My friend also thinks we should add sexual discrimination to the list of classifications that get protection under federal law. His opinion is irrelevant were we to discuss that here as well, unless he chose to pipe in and provide it as part of the debate.
My friend’s opinion was (and is) relevant to the mission of refuting the “everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage is motivated by bigotry!!!” because his opinion acts as direct evidence that that ridiculous claim is not true. That’s the only reason I brought him up - he’s not an authority on whether gay marriage should or should not exist any more than the rest of sus - and then I fielded more questions because people asked questions about him.
Wise up. Or perhaps a better question: can you wise up? Or is this as good as it gets?[/quote]
I misinterpreted your intent, then. I apologize.
Haven’t read the whole thread(thank god) but I don’t think the 1%(or whatever it is) of gays in the society really threat to ruin or even affect what the rest of us are doing. IMO it’s the wrong perspective to think that they can be responsible for negative changes in culture, marriage stats, etc. Your fears are way off.
Behind all the BS, most arguments seem to boil down to whether we accept their wishes and allow them to be happy using the same rights(NOT privileges), recognise them as couples or say “fuck them, that’s too dangerous and unpredictable for our society, don’t wanna deal with it right now etc.”
So allow them or fuck them? I say look at the facts and allow.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is black and white, there is right and wrong. [/quote]
Prove it. : )[/quote]
Well the black and white is easy. they are of course colors.
As for the right and wrong, without right and wrong, there is nothing stopping me from putting a gun to your head and ending the debate. After all right and wrong don’t exist according to you.
Would it be right of me to persecute someone who is sexually immoral and displays abnormal tendencies, of a psycho-sexual nature, like homosexuality; no. But can I call the behavior for what it is; yes. Is it wrong of some politically active minority to to try to force us to redefine what is normal and acceptable behavior and use the violent extortion of the government to subsidize and force this movement on the rest of us yes. Is it wrong for them to think they should be able brainwash our children all under the guise of some anti-bullying scheme. Is wrong for them to force their ideas on our children; YES. [/quote]
Nothing stopping you except the consequences of those actions, and your personal preferences. You haven’t proven a right / wrong exist, you’ve pointed to a situation with obvious consequences and implied that the undesirability of that situation is due to it being “wrong”. You haven’t proven that there is a wrong.
This is like me giving you “proof” that batman exists, by stating that “without Batman, there is nothing stopping me from putting a gun to your head and ending the debate. After all Batman doesn’t exist according to you”. “Wrong” doesn’t stop you from shooting me anymore than Batman stops me from shooting you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?
Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?
I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?
Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]
I’m neither for, nor against polygamy. There are pros, and cons, and the legal complications increase exponentially with each additional partner. If I were going to argue against it, I’d say I do not believe that marriage scales well for the individuals involved, and there is the potential for gender imbalances (i.e. males having difficulty to find a mate) that have negative implications for the rest of society. In Canada, this would be argued via the reasonable limits clause. I’m unsure what is(or if there is) a U.S. equivelent.
Arguing for it, many of the same arguments for gay marriage do indeed aply.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is black and white, there is right and wrong. [/quote]
Prove it. : )[/quote]
Well the black and white is easy. they are of course colors.
As for the right and wrong, without right and wrong, there is nothing stopping me from putting a gun to your head and ending the debate. After all right and wrong don’t exist according to you.
Would it be right of me to persecute someone who is sexually immoral and displays abnormal tendencies, of a psycho-sexual nature, like homosexuality; no. But can I call the behavior for what it is; yes. Is it wrong of some politically active minority to to try to force us to redefine what is normal and acceptable behavior and use the violent extortion of the government to subsidize and force this movement on the rest of us yes. Is it wrong for them to think they should be able brainwash our children all under the guise of some anti-bullying scheme. Is wrong for them to force their ideas on our children; YES. [/quote]
Nothing stopping you except the consequences of those actions, and your personal preferences. You haven’t proven a right / wrong exist, you’ve pointed to a situation with obvious consequences and implied that the undesirability of that situation is due to it being “wrong”. You haven’t proven that there is a wrong.
This is like me giving you “proof” that batman exists, by stating that “without Batman, there is nothing stopping me from putting a gun to your head and ending the debate. After all Batman doesn’t exist according to you”. “Wrong” doesn’t stop you from shooting me anymore than Batman stops me from shooting you.[/quote]
wow you have some messed up logic man. That is like saying there is no wind because you can’t measure it directly, you can only measure the effects. Good luck with life man.
I can see the density in people’s understanding of how society functions. It is not the sexual act in and of itself, we have emphasized that many times, but you can’t get past that.
Do they teach critical thinking to people anymore?
I am done, I have seen there is no logical argument to someone with an agenda.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?
Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?
I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?
Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]
I already answered this. Go back a few pages.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I can see the density in people’s understanding of how society functions. It is not the sexual act in and of itself, we have emphasized that many times, but you can’t get past that.
Do they teach critical thinking to people anymore?
I am done, I have seen there is no logical argument to someone with an agenda.
[/quote]
You still haven’t answered how allowing gay people to marry is a great inconvenience to you. It’s not like you’re going to have to pay more for a marriage license, or your kids are going to be forced into gay sex. That’s where your comparison to accommodating the obese breaks down. If an airline makes “fat seats”, your ticket will reflect the price of them. Also, accommodating a person who steals or cheats means less money for you. Accommodating men who like fucking other men just means more women for you. It wont affect your pocket book or any other aspect of your personal life.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?
Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?
I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?
Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]
I already answered this. Go back a few pages.[/quote]
No, I don’t believe you did. [/quote]
Are we really that hard up for an argument? Take your ass back a few pages. I really did.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sooooo…I take it all the gay marriage proponents are going to bail on my question of Steve, Adam and Evelyn?
Olee, even you are a chicken shit when it comes to answering?
I will repeat it again. Are those of you in favor of gay marriage willing to support Steve, Adam and Evelyn’s desire - in fact, their “right” - to get legally married?
Step up to the plate, people.[/quote]
I already answered this. Go back a few pages.[/quote]
No, I don’t believe you did. [/quote]
Are we really that hard up for an argument? Take your ass back a few pages. I really did.[/quote]
For someone who is always chomping at the bit to bicker I find it amusing that you are now reticent to reiterate your view.
Will YOU defend the so called “right” of Adam, Steve and Evelyn as passionately as you are defending Adam’s and Steve’s right to hitch up? [/quote]
I actually answered this twice. I have no argument with it according to law except that it’s hard to deal with from a numbers perspective. But I’m sure that wouldn’t be impossible to get around.
Truthfully, if Mary, Sally, Tod, and Steve all want to get married, it doesn’t affect me personally and as a result, I don’t think I really have a right to make a decision for them.