I now realize you get all of your information from some obscure right wing site that promotes a return to traditional family values pray the gay away intelligent design ideology.[/quote]
One more cliche from the left. Did I mention anything about praying? DID I? DID I? Idiot.
Yet, you cannot prove that. Oh well…on your merry way gobbling up all the lefty talking points.
Yet, that has never been proven. “gulp…gulp…gulp” What is that sound? You swallowing all of the lefty talking points coming from your favorite liberal media elite.
Brian you have to learn to pay attention. I never said it was a choice did I? But you only know how to respond to what you think conservatives believe. It is a choice to act on it yes, but not a choice to be attracted. I was implying by the studies that there are things that happen in a homosexuals childhood which may lead them to homosexuality. Paying attention is not your strong suit.
They, not society has separated them from the rest. And that group is in fact tiny. Now tell me about all of the productive benefits that gay marriage brings to that society. Can you do it? And can you tell me why marriage between one man and one woman is important to society? Come on Brian put on your little liberal thinking cap.
You think I’m wrong because I disagree with all those liberal talking heads that you worship?You claim I am wrong yet you are unable to answer even the most basic question, or give even a shred of evidence as to why I’m wrong.
You think gay marriage is good because “Dog gone it they love each other and it’s only fair sniff sniff…”
Did I mention anything about you praying? Reading comprehension is kicking your ass. If I said you bought your shoes at a “dance shoe store” did I say you are a dancer? Did I say you plan to dance? Nope. Man it must be tough to always be looking for a fight, on the internet that is, I don’t know what your parents did to you but it’s never to late for therapy, I’m sure you’re still salvageable.
My favorite quote of yours from this garbled response you provided was this regarding homosexuality “It is a choice to act on it yes, but not a choice to be attracted.” Congratulations!! I am assuming you have only had sex for procreation (the kindness of women, in your case can never be overstated), if you can explain why consensual sex between two same sex adults is wrong (and just because you think it is “icky” doesn’t count) and how their marriage threatens yours (this would be a gem to read I’m sure) I will give you all the attention you deserve.
Being loud and insulting is awesome you are excellent at it, unfortunately the part you truly suck at is proof.
Did I mention anything about you praying? Reading comprehension is kicking your ass.
BrianHanson wrote:
I now realize you get all of your information from some obscure right wing site that promotes a return to traditional family values pray the gay away intelligent design ideology.[/quote]
You implied which is close enough as I never once mentioned it. You think you can walk that thin of a line around here and not get called out on it. You know the bias that you walk around with each day. And you want me to fit into that little image you have.
Thinking is kicking your ass.
Very poor analogy. You implied that I have “pray the gay away intelligent design” mentality when it was never even mentioned. Fess up lefty…you tried something and it didn’t work.
And I’m sure you’d rather resort to this nonsense than to actually answer the many questions that I’ve put before you. And that is because you…and the left have no answers other than “it would be so nice if two men who love each other could get married…” Weak!
You mean from the intelligent post that I provided that you cannot understand.
Yawn–That all you got?
Out of all the lefty’s that I’ve debated on this and many other topics you absolutely bring the most cliche’s to the argument. Do you realize that I never mentioned that I was against consensual sex between any two adults? That has nothing to do with gay marriage–NOTHING. But that doesn’t stop you from mentioning it. Just like the “pray the gay away” comment. You want me to live up to all your biases against what you think conservatives are but you’re wrong little man. And if you were on this forum longer than two minutes before you thought you new everything you’d know that I am for freedom. And if two guys want to have sex in the privacy of their own home it’s none of my business! It’s when they want to change a 5000 year old institution then it becomes my business. Got it Einstein?
You’re starting to turn into a joke around here. So please stay we need another ass clown just in case Pittbull decides to leave.
If it changes the institution of marriage and also parental rights it effects me because (are you ready?) it effects society. But we’ve already discussed that aspect in this thread and many others. But it’s okay you don’t have to actually read the thread to participate you are a lefty wonder boy and whatever you say is just marvelous!
Said the man who has proven NOTHING!
Where are all your studies which prove that gay’s adopting kids will not harm the kids long term? Don’t bother looking they don’t exist!
In fact, you’ve posted nothing in the way of a study. Did you think that just because you walk around thinking that you’re awesome, and are open to any wacky idea that pops into some knit wits head on TV that you don’t need proof anymore?
You should really open your eyes liberal ideas have failed and you are just too flat out stupid to see it.
…the left have no answers other than “it would be so nice if two men who love each other could get married…” Weak!
[/quote]
Also cis male, cis female, bigender, pangender, trigender, gender queer, third gender etc. Let’s not start getting all transphobic now zeb. It’s the L.G.B.T.Q. community remember?
…the left have no answers other than “it would be so nice if two men who love each other could get married…” Weak!
[/quote]
Also cis male, cis female, bigender, pangender, trigender, gender queer, third gender etc. Let’s not start getting all transphobic now zeb. It’s the L.G.B.T.Q. community remember?[/quote]
Good point my friend. And we must not forget the polygamous couples who, dog gone it, deserve the same rights as anyone else.
And what about incestual couples?
Why should we cast a frown on their relationships? Don’t they deserve love and happiness too?
Hey just what is marriage anyhoo? Let’s just say that everyone is married to whomever or whatever they want? That way no one will be left out and no one can declare that they are not getting equal rights. Why not do it before some kool aide drinking PC liberal pushes for it anyway?
THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS MAAAAAAAAAN!!
Okay I got a little emotional because I so want everyone to have every little wish that their heart desires…
nice job of lumping polygamy, incest and homosexuality together, perhaps you could move on to marrying your dog or perhaps pedophilia as well. You have some serious intellectual depth.
…the left have no answers other than “it would be so nice if two men who love each other could get married…” Weak!
[/quote]
Also cis male, cis female, bigender, pangender, trigender, gender queer, third gender etc. Let’s not start getting all transphobic now zeb. It’s the L.G.B.T.Q. community remember?[/quote]
Good point my friend. And we must not forget the polygamous couples who, dog gone it, deserve the same rights as anyone else.
And what about incestual couples?
Why should we cast a frown on their relationships? Don’t they deserve love and happiness too?
Hey just what is marriage anyhoo? Let’s just say that everyone is married to whomever or whatever they want? That way no one will be left out and no one can declare that they are not getting equal rights. Why not do it before some kool aide drinking PC liberal pushes for it anyway?
THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS MAAAAAAAAAN!!
Okay I got a little emotional because I so want everyone to have every little wish that their heart desires…:([/quote]
Yes, and many blue states already have gender identity legislation. People don’t realise that they are supporting positive rights legislation for a plethora of sexual subgroups - many of which are classed as mental disorders - e.g. “Gender identity disorder” is classed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. The WHO lists “sexual maturation disorder” as a “psychological and behavioural disorder.” A disorder, that amongst other things makes the victim “more likely to be at risk of experiencing suicidal thoughts, and to engage in highrisk activities, such as unprotected sex and alcohol and drug abuse.” Not to be confused with “ego-dystonic sexual orientation” which is also classed as a mental disorder.
nice job of lumping polygamy, incest and homosexuality together, perhaps you could move on to marrying your dog or perhaps pedophilia as well. You have some serious intellectual depth.[/quote]
Really now, you think that homosexuals marrying is unique? Once the the vows of marriage are expanded to allow two homosexuals what’s to stop the rest from filing in? You want to draw the line after gay marriage and someone else will want to draw it after Polygamous marriage. Another person after incestual marriage.
So I guess you are against those things — Big deal what does that mean? Your line is just more conservative than someone else’s.
What little logic you had might have abandoned you.
…the left have no answers other than “it would be so nice if two men who love each other could get married…” Weak!
[/quote]
Also cis male, cis female, bigender, pangender, trigender, gender queer, third gender etc. Let’s not start getting all transphobic now zeb. It’s the L.G.B.T.Q. community remember?[/quote]
Good point my friend. And we must not forget the polygamous couples who, dog gone it, deserve the same rights as anyone else.
And what about incestual couples?
Why should we cast a frown on their relationships? Don’t they deserve love and happiness too?
Hey just what is marriage anyhoo? Let’s just say that everyone is married to whomever or whatever they want? That way no one will be left out and no one can declare that they are not getting equal rights. Why not do it before some kool aide drinking PC liberal pushes for it anyway?
THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS MAAAAAAAAAN!!
Okay I got a little emotional because I so want everyone to have every little wish that their heart desires…:([/quote]
Yes, and many blue states already have gender identity legislation. People don’t realise that they are supporting positive rights legislation for a plethora of sexual subgroups - many of which are classed as mental disorders - e.g. “Gender identity disorder” is classed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. The WHO lists “sexual maturation disorder” as a “psychological and behavioural disorder.” A disorder, that amongst other things makes the victim “more likely to be at risk of experiencing suicidal thoughts, and to engage in highrisk activities, such as unprotected sex and alcohol and drug abuse.” Not to be confused with “ego-dystonic sexual orientation” which is also classed as a mental disorder.[/quote]
Yawn–Homosexuality was also classified as a mental disorder by the APA. And did you know why it was removed as a mental disorder? Not for the reasons that you may think.
Time moves along and today’s mental disorder is tomorrows need for special rights.
"Yawn–Homosexuality was also classified as a mental disorder by the APA. And did you know why it was removed as a mental disorder? Not for the reasons that you may think.
Time moves along and today’s mental disorder is tomorrows need for special rights."
Your arguments all stink of the same elitist message, you think liberalism is a mental disorder, you think homosexuality is a mental disorder, I get it, if it’s different from you it must be wrong, because clearly you are the norm. If people like you had always been in charge of this country people would still be the property of other people, there would be no labor laws (Unions are bad, right?), no environmental laws (climate change is a liberal hoax) no hate crime laws (because all crimes are hate crimes) and of course gays would not be able to marry.
You are wrong, your arguments suck and you are too closeminded and uptight to do anything but parse a paragraph in an attempt to deconstruct it’s meaning and subsequently reduce it to meaninglessness a parlor trick played out by right wing clods over and over to refute words without refuting meaning.
If you can demonstrate a negative to gay marriage feel free to do so, as of yet all you have done is play word games and name call.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
"Yawn–Homosexuality was also classified as a mental disorder by the APA. And did you know why it was removed as a mental disorder? Not for the reasons that you may think.
Time moves along and today’s mental disorder is tomorrows need for special rights."
Your arguments all stink[/quote]
Wow, you’re a real intellectual. Not.
Nice straw man argument. Claiming that I would be for slavery? I would be offended if someone said it that I actually had a modicum of respect for but in your case–who cares? This is what you do. You set up straw men and then knock them down. And at the same time side stepping my real arguments. Tell me B r i a n… do your friends tell you how smart you are? (eye roll)
Straw man…
Straw man…
Straw man…
Hey…you quoted something that I actually said! Wow…Yes I am against gay marriage which, by the way has NOTHING to do with the laundry list of straw men that you propped up. You pathetic little man you…
There you go again throwing around your intellectualism… Ha ha…Oh by the way if my arguments are so bad how come you can’t defeat them? No wait…you won’t even address them anymore. You simply set up straw men and knock them down making yourself feel better.
I don’t have to do that. What you have to do is explain why gay marriage should be allowed. You see you want to change the system so get busy and tell us all how it will better our society as a whole.
Can you do it B r i a n?
Come on little man give it a shot. Don’t run away from this argument the way you ran away from liberals not being able to erase or even reduce poverty after spending trillions since the mid 60’s. You’ve ducked that one for …how many posts now?
You are really a very bad representative from your end of the poliictal spectrum. If you want your side to win you should shut up and sit on the side lines.
Still not one reason, remarkable. So essentially you are saying there is no reason other than your prejudice to be against it. Very compelling, you should go into law.
Still not one reason, remarkable. So essentially you are saying there is no reason other than your prejudice to be against it. Very compelling, you should go into law.[/quote]
You are aware that this entire thread and another has page after page of the arguments you are looking for?
Or are you just special enough that you get to skip reading all of them and simply declare that we hit the reset button on ths topic?
I’m looking for a real reason, not an opinion based on theology or political ideology, I’m not special I just need facts.[/quote]
Then read the threads, which contain innumerable posts on the rational case against gay marriage as public policy, instead of pretending like they don’t exist. You’ll find everything you say you are looking for.
I read the threads and sadly there is not one cogent argument against gay marriage but there are a lot of awesome “marry your horse” posts. Great job on having thoughts guys, too bad the thoughts are absolutely useless.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I read the threads and sadly there is not one cogent argument against gay marriage but there are a lot of awesome “marry your horse” posts. Great job on having thoughts guys, too bad the thoughts are absolutely useless.[/quote]
Okay, I am certain I never mentioned marrying horses. How about you take one of the statements from me, Sloth, or thunderbolt and tell us where it is wrong. Should be easy, as you’ve already read through over 1000 posts over two threads and have seen us say the same thing again and again and again over the course of those 1000+ posts.
"…But that isn’t the purpose, it hasn’t changed. We don’t want to “maximize the number of intact homes for children” without first deciding what kind of home we want. And we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better.
And, no, LGBT couples are not just as capable. You meant to tell me you think that a child raised by his/her biological parents in an intact home are exactly as well off as on who isn’t (regardless of the arranagement)?"
your argument fails on two levels (at least) the first and most obvious being that in an ideal world children would all be cared for by their loving, capable, living, biological parents. Obviously we do not live in an ideal world. An intact home does not guarantee, even slightly, a positive parent child relationship. Secondly, loving parents come in all shapes and sizes, children raised by LGBT couples have very similar (and depending on region of the country) often superior outcomes. Having a child and wanting a child are two different things.
and of course
“…infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own.”
I would expect a better example after all the “Go read the thread” nonsense you and your comrades typed. Lets start at the beginning:
“…infertile couples support the model that we want”
who is “we” exactly? Do you mean you and your fellow right wingers? Clearly the hetero marriage model is superb, it results in a 51% failure rate. Would you fly an airline boasting such succesful standards? Would you eat meat 49% free of harmful bacteria?" I think not. I think you believe that since this is the way people have recently viewed marriage then that is the way it should be. That is not an argument, that is a vision, they are not the same.
“It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow.”
Clearly we want an institution where it fails more than half the time and has rates of infidelity and domestic violence as high as 60% (some people hang around even after the beating and cheating).
“It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own.”
-This is in fact, no different than a gay couple getting married and living a productive, normal, boring life, maybe the gays will adopt one or two of the nearly 450,000 children in foster care, maybe they’ll raise those children in a loving, caring same sex household ( once adopted children are nearly 230% more likely to go to college and nearly 400% more likely to avoid prison), I’m thinking gays sure can role-model just like heteros and in some cases probably better.
