Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior.
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
The “orientation” being that it’s okay to have homosexual desire, but not okay to act on it?
I am sincerely asking.
Yeah-that’s what I heard.
[/quote]
The desire is not what makes it wrong, it’s when it’s acted upon. We all have desires to do things that are hurtful, wrong, and deviant. But we don’t act on it.
More thanks to rational people like me, as opposed to the saying-it’s-so-makes-it-so people like you, ZEB.
Your postiion is political. It is not based upon rationality at all. Many of your brehtern have also been shown as lacking any sort of logic when the issue of gay marriage comes to the surface.
It seems that you are just one more.
Rational people like you who will not wait for scientific studies to demonstrate exactly how or why people become gay to begin with?
Do you know for a fact it is 100% genetic? NO!
Do you have any long term studies to demonstrate that a child placed into a gay home will not be somehow psychologically harmed? NO!
Do you have any studies, or for that matter even thought about the social impact that gay marriage would have on society? NO!
Are you aware what “reparitive therapy” is? NO!
(This thereapy has in fact turned, in one study, over 200 people who called themselves homosexual, into heterosexuals!)
I am willing to change my postion if studies prove that being gay is totally genetic.
I am further willing to state that I think anyone should be able to designate another as their “significant other.” Giving that person certain rights such as hospitalization visits.
Are you willing to change your position if any or all of the long term studies prove to be negative for your side?
WMD said: “There is nothing that will change my mind about gay people being able to marry each other.”
Are you like her, stating that you don’t care about the facts?
It seems that is the case!
You JimmyTango are indeed part of the “saying so makes it so” social liberals. You are so blinded by your political agenda that facts, mean nothing to you.
Now get busy and post more of your “transgender bender” points.
Funny stuff…keep it coming
[/quote]
Good work ZEB. The b.s. just never ends. Keep talking… yawn You are officially boring… zzzzzzzz…
Good work ZEB. The b.s. just never ends. Keep talking… yawn You are officially boring… zzzzzzzz…[/quote]
Jimmy Tango
11/29/05
02:52 PM
I know when I’ve finished saying everything that I’ve come to say. At this point, my posts will simply become various exercises in copying and pasting previous posts.
So, good luck everyone!
You must have been mistaken! You do have more to say. I welcome you back to the debate Mr. JimmyTango.
I have all of next week off too and the weather is not so good around here, so I’ll be on the forum quite a lot. Hopefully you will stay a while longer and tell us more about transsexuals and all of that other enlightened stuff.
No really, you were just starting to get my attention…
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior.
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
The “orientation” being that it’s okay to have homosexual desire, but not okay to act on it?
I am sincerely asking.
Yeah-that’s what I heard.
The desire is not what makes it wrong, it’s when it’s acted upon. We all have desires to do things that are hurtful, wrong, and deviant. But we don’t act on it.
I am gay. I think that gives me way more expertise on the subject than you. I was not raised to be gay, I was not encouraged to be gay, it is just what I am and have always been. Who I sleep with, who I marry, how i live my life is none of your business and should in no way be affected by your religious beliefs or anybody else’s. I am a citizen of this country. I served in the armed forces, I vote and I pay my taxes. Therefore, I should have the same freedom to choose and marry the same sex partner of my choice as a straight citizen has to choose an opposite sex partner.
The links I posted were designed to show we know more about the results of gay parenting than you recognize. Never said there was a vast body of research on a subject that new.
I am sorry you feel intimidated by me. Maybe some more biblechins are in order?
[quote]Furthermore, we don’t even know how people become gay in the first place! Is it nature or nuture or a combination of both?
NO ONE KNOWS! Stop pretending to know in order to push your liberal agenda[/quote] Actually I have firsthand information. Quit making stuff up to push your religious agenda.
Was he aiming at you? ;p
You should put some lotion on that.
[quote]My personal understanding is that it is a natural variation in sexual preference much like variation in eye color or blood type. Less of a choice than religion, that is for sure.
Your personal understanding? Is it me or is this argument getting more ridiculous (on your part, of course).[/quote] So my personal experience is ridiculous to you? Nope, nothing personal there.
Ooo, more mockery and derision. Nice. Actually if you were “playing” you would actually provide some peer reviewed studies rather than one of your “nutball” websites. Hey, you used the word to denigrate my links.
[quote]That means that if it was proven conclusively that gay parents harmed children (not saying they do) you would not care about those children.
You are one social liberal who cares not about children, society or anything else. As long as your political agenda is realized!
Absolutely dispicable! [/quote]
Ooo, moral typification. Cool. It will never be proven conclusively that gay parents harm children. This is a conservative Christian boogeyman tactic. So I am not worried about the children. They’ll be better adjusted and happier than most other kids are today. Heck, they’ll be better adjusted than you.
Your most underhanded method is to characterize any and all arguments presented in favor of gay marriage as silly, ridiculous, bad, stupid, foolish, etc. You also mock and deride anyone who disagrees with you and you present yourself as some sort of paragon of virtue and reason. When that doesn’t work you simply resort to repetition.
Now that is the gayest thing you do.
You should get some rest. Your arguments are tired.
Where were you guys when they decided to make it easy to get a divorce? With all the talk of protecting the family unit, etc., I would imagine that if your concern REALLY was in protecting the strength of the institution, the very thing that drags it down and destroys it should be addressed with some measure of concern.
But not a peep out of you guys.
But let’s bring in something that challenges your sexuality and insecurities, and you’d think that the liberals who think “why not? gay marriage, no big deal…” were going around stepping on puppies and beating up grandma or something.
“OH WE CAN’T HAVE THIS… THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!! HOW DARE YOU ASSHOLE LIBERALS TRY TO LET TWO FAGS oops I mean gay people DEFILE OUR HOLY SACRED RELIGIOUS THING!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!”
Yes, it was criminal in the highest degree of me to accept two loving homosexuals as a decent representation of a family and a desirable thing to uphold and recognize. What was I thinking?
And when I throw up my arms in exaperation at y’all’s inability to see gays as normal and cool enough to do their own thing, I resort to underhanded tactics like belittling the reasons why y’all have these insecurities and deranged worldviews in the first place. What a mistake. Are you guys homophobic/homorepugnant (just a little or a lot)? DUH, yes. Are you letting some book justify your insecurities instead of facing them with courage, and using your own good personal judgment at discriminating who is and who is not truly an asshole and doesn’t deserve equal treatment? DUH, yes.
Those very good reasons for encouraging change in our societal standards have been mentioned several times by me and other posters. You guys conveniently forget these posts and say “you guys don’t have any reasons why we should change society’s standards.” It’s like talking to a complete idiot. Sorry, but it is.
But do I hate your religious beliefs? I hate when they transform you guys from normal, rational, free-thinking dudes into insecure goofballs, that’s for sure. I like how your religion helps you think of the big picture, and helps you to think less selfishly sometimes, but dammit it really messes you guys up about some issues… abortion, stem cell research, evolution… it messes some of you guys up really bad. I would call your religion a double-edged sword.
This does not make your beliefs terrible or anything, it just means that when I or someone else who isn’t hindered by belief in the supernatural steps into these forums, we have to be prepared to deal with folks who can quite earnestly and wholeheartedly be completely fucked in the head and not even know it. And when you add a guy like me who is an incurable smart-ass about stuff, and I’m not too keen on necessarily respecting things that seem ridiculous… then we have a recipe for disaster.
So, sorry about this thread being so fucked. My debate opponent(s) have delighted in saying that there is no good reason to accept a societal change. I wonder if they have a good reason to NOT accept this… besides fear, hate, insecurity, and ignorance, I mean.
And if you bring up changing 5000000+ year old institutions, ZEB, you better explain why fast track divorces didn’t even register on the meter. Explain why those things which really DO weaken marriage are commonplace laws in almost every state, and didn’t bring the uproar and self-righteous fury that this one issue did.
You are consistent, I’ll say that for you.[/quote]
I’ll take that as a compliment.
I think that is very courageous of you to write these words. We disagree on only one aspect of the above (marriage).
We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. For the multitude of reasons I have already given.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
I’m not the least intimidated by you. However, I see you are back to your standard insult routine.
[quote]Furthermore, we don’t even know how people become gay in the first place! Is it nature or nuture or a combination of both?
NO ONE KNOWS! Stop pretending to know in order to push your liberal agenda Actually I have firsthand information. Quit making stuff up to push your religious agenda. ;)[/quote]
Because you are gay does not necessarily mean you know “how” you became that way.
Your personal experience is no better or worse than my own. And certainly not valid in putting forth an argument for such a societal change.
I question your sources and you call it mockery and derision? Yet, you call me a “fucktard” and that just fits right into the debate right? LOL
If nothing else I think we can both agree that you can find a link to back up just about anything you want to try to prove. It’s the Internet.
[quote]That means that if it was proven conclusively that gay parents harmed children (not saying they do) you would not care about those children.
You are one social liberal who cares not about children, society or anything else. As long as your political agenda is realized!
Absolutely dispicable!
Ooo, moral typification. Cool.[/quote]
And well deserved if you stand by your very cold statement!
And you “type” me once again. Actually, you and I do not know exactly what will be proven and what will not be proven. It was a hypothetical question.
[quote]So I am not worried about the children. They’ll be better adjusted and happier than most other kids are today. Heck, they’ll be better adjusted than you.
[/quote]
More personal attacks. But you did do a little smiley face so you are at least learning from lothario.
[quote]Your most underhanded method is to characterize any and all arguments presented in favor of gay marriage as silly, ridiculous, bad, stupid, foolish, etc.
[/quote]
Actually that’s not at all underhanded. If one is not given “Valid” arguments in favor of something it would be disengenuious to in fact claim that they are valid.
I simply give you my opinion on the topic. You like or you don’t. Nothing underhanded about it.
Underhanded: deceit, indirect, shifty, sneaky.
I think I have been very much forward and direct with my arguments.
[quote]You also mock and deride anyone who disagrees with you and you present yourself as some sort of paragon of virtue and reason. When that doesn’t work you simply resort to repetition.
[/quote]
You are doing a good job of changing the topic to “me” as you are losing the gay marriage debate. Unfortunately for you, that won’t work.
I have always said that when the social liberals lose the debate on facts they shift to personal attacks. You have proven me right once again!
[quote]ou should get some rest. Your arguments are tired.
[/quote]
Tired? At least I have arguments. Your ran out lady!
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
[/quote]
‘Seems’… you seem to be missing links to teenage runaways/dysfunctional families/child abuse etc, …
Your only merit Zeb is you don’t cringe away from the fire like the original thread poster HOrris447 - and the typical neo-con.
Other than that you come of as person who seems to smugly think he looks cool in polyester disco pants.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
‘Seems’… you seem to be missing links to teenage runaways/dysfunctional families/child abuse etc, …
Your only merit Zeb is you don’t cringe away from the fire like the original thread poster HOrris447 - and the typical neo-con.
Other than that you come of as person who seems to smugly think he looks cool in polyester disco pants.
[/quote]
That because there is no perfect environment for children, does not mean that a gay couple would provide one. What sort of logic is that?
It’s the old “marriage isn’t perfect now anyway so what’s the difference” argument switched over to children.
Makes no sense.
Alos, I thank you for further proving my point: Which is, when social liberals run out of facts they always resort to personal attacks!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
And if you bring up changing 5000000+ year old institutions, ZEB, you better explain why fast track divorces didn’t even register on the meter. Explain why those things which really DO weaken marriage are commonplace laws in almost every state, and didn’t bring the uproar and self-righteous fury that this one issue did.[/quote]
This is true. They now hand out divorce papers at your wedding. They hide it in the cake.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
And if you bring up changing 5000000+ year old institutions, ZEB, you better explain why fast track divorces didn’t even register on the meter. Explain why those things which really DO weaken marriage are commonplace laws in almost every state, and didn’t bring the uproar and self-righteous fury that this one issue did.
This is true. They now hand out divorce papers at your wedding. They hide it in the cake.
[/quote]
Thats what that was!
People often jump into marriage too quickly and jump back out too quickly.
I don’t think it is a good thing, but I would hate to see some politicians plan to change it.
These are the problems of a free and open society.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
‘Seems’… you seem to be missing links to teenage runaways/dysfunctional families/child abuse etc, …
Your only merit Zeb is you don’t cringe away from the fire like the original thread poster HOrris447 - and the typical neo-con.
Other than that you come of as person who seems to smugly think he looks cool in polyester disco pants.
That because there is no perfect environment for children, does not mean that a gay couple would provide one. What sort of logic is that?
It’s the old “marriage isn’t perfect now anyway so what’s the difference” argument switched over to children.
Makes no sense.
Alos, I thank you for further proving my point: Which is, when social liberals run out of facts they always resort to personal attacks![/quote]
No. The real issue is that there’s really no evidence that children of homosexual parents will ultimately be worse off than many children today. Homosexual partnerships occur and will occur anyhow. And many do and will successfully adopt kids. The only thing allowing civil unions does is give those people the rights they legally ought to have and teach our children that our society believes in equality, liberty, and equal rights for all non-criminal citizens, even if we may not condone or approve of their behavior.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
[/quote]
Children don’t thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman. Children thrive in a home where there parents are in a loving and committed relationship and are a good example. Also where they make there kids their priority and teach them respect and proper values. There are plenty of marriages that don’t come close to approaching this. And there appear to be homosexual partnerships that do. I don’t deny that the kids will have battles and get teased and face their share of discrimination. But that in itself doesn’t mean civil unions should be banned. With proper guidance [parental and otherwise], those kids could come out stronger than anyone, with a better perception of life, morality, and fairness.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
About changing a 5000+ year old institution:
Where were you guys when they decided to make it easy to get a divorce? With all the talk of protecting the family unit, etc., I would imagine that if your concern REALLY was in protecting the strength of the institution, the very thing that drags it down and destroys it should be addressed with some measure of concern.
But not a peep out of you guys.[/quote]
That’s not necessarily true. And more importantly has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage debate. Because something is not perfect is not an argument for extending rights to gays to marry. And you must know this by now…
You are now using hyperbole. I never stated or implied any such thing. The problem is that gay marriage has become a sacred cow to the left and anyone who questions its validity is attacked. Note the personal attacks on this very thread!
More hyperbole, I never said any of that. It’s what your sterotype of someone who opposes gay marriage says. It’s in your head my friend!
I do accept them and I already gave you examples of how I have accepted them in my life. It’s not about personal acceptance, it’s a much larger issue than that.
The above argument deserve’s belittling, but I’ll pass. I think that you know none of that applies to me in any way.
Those reasons have been refuted one by one with logic and very plausable arguments. That you refuse to accept them speaks to the emotion that is poured into your cause by those who want gay marriage regardless of any potential negative consequences
More sterotyping…tell me do all gay men like pink and carry a purse? (See how foolish it sounds when it comes back to you?)
Once again the use of “you guys” is a sterotype. (Refer to example above.)
By the way how do you know how I feel about either stem cell research or eveolution? I have never (to my recollection) expressed my views on those two topics on this forum. Once again, you are lumping classes of people together who may share some, but not all beliefs.
Please think about it.
Are all homosexuals “fucked in the head?” You have to stop sterotyping It never works out well for anyone.
Two points here:
You have been far tamer than the majority of your like minded brothers and sisters. You show wit, and if nothing else that’s fun to read.
As far as this comment: “I’m not too keen on necessarily respecting things that seem ridiculous” once again turn it around!
What if I constantly threw out unkind remarks about certain behaviors of some homosexuals, as you do Christians?
For example: “What a bunch of fairy’s and fruit cakes.”
You cannot justify your intolerance for others religious beliefs simply because you find them “ridiculous.” If you get nothing else out of this thread please walk away with that.
We cannot disrespect others beliefs, whether it be in God or two men having sex together and ever come to a mutual middle ground.
Stop disrespecting those of us who believe in God! You wouldn’t want it done to the beliefs of your “gay friends.” Ridicule has it’s place, but not when it comes to race, religion, someones sexual preference or gender. (I bet I missed a few…)
Does it make sense to want respect, but refuse to give it in return?
Please consider this point.
Allow me to correct you: I have no fear, hate or insecurity regarding the issue of gay marriage. And while you may disagree with my position I am certainly not ignorant either.
Again, you are relying on liberal talking points regarding conservatives. And to be quite honest I think they do fit some conservative friends of mine. On the other hand they don’t fit very well with many of them.
Stop sterotyping.
This is where we began. I’m not sure if that issue didn’t attract a firestorm. However, either way it is illogical to link that issue with the gay marriage issue. One has nothing to do with the other.
Remember, that’s the “marriage is bad anyway so why not allow gay marriage” flawed argument.
Prejudice against christians? Who is trying to influence the way you live? Feel free to whorship Jehova all you want!
Can christians not join the US military? Are there people that consider "christian- bashing " a sport?
Islamists, perhaps?
My favorite bible verse is thus:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.” And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals … Now did the Lord say, “First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
And if you bring up changing 5000000+ year old institutions, ZEB, you better explain why fast track divorces didn’t even register on the meter. Explain why those things which really DO weaken marriage are commonplace laws in almost every state, and didn’t bring the uproar and self-righteous fury that this one issue did.
This is true. They now hand out divorce papers at your wedding. They hide it in the cake.
Thats what that was!
People often jump into marriage too quickly and jump back out too quickly.
I don’t think it is a good thing, but I would hate to see some politicians plan to change it.
These are the problems of a free and open society.[/quote]
True enough, but still it’s not a valid argument for gay marriage.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
‘Seems’… you seem to be missing links to teenage runaways/dysfunctional families/child abuse etc, …
Your only merit Zeb is you don’t cringe away from the fire like the original thread poster HOrris447 - and the typical neo-con.
Other than that you come of as person who seems to smugly think he looks cool in polyester disco pants.
That because there is no perfect environment for children, does not mean that a gay couple would provide one. What sort of logic is that?
It’s the old “marriage isn’t perfect now anyway so what’s the difference” argument switched over to children.
Makes no sense.
Alos, I thank you for further proving my point: Which is, when social liberals run out of facts they always resort to personal attacks!
There have been no long term studies to demonstrate this, one way or the other. Shall we do a “link war?” I hope not, but my links are ready
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
Children don’t thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman. Children thrive in a home where there parents are in a loving and committed relationship and are a good example. Also where they make there kids their priority and teach them respect and proper values. There are plenty of marriages that don’t come close to approaching this.[/quote]
I agree.
There have been no long term studies to back up your assertion. It is mere wishful thinking and some aecdotal eveidence at this point. I don’t want to gamble with our children. Why not wait and do the research?
I don’t that is the paramount issue either. But it is a consideration of sorts.
And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman.
‘Seems’… you seem to be missing links to teenage runaways/dysfunctional families/child abuse etc, …
Your only merit Zeb is you don’t cringe away from the fire like the original thread poster HOrris447 - and the typical neo-con.
Other than that you come of as person who seems to smugly think he looks cool in polyester disco pants.
That because there is no perfect environment for children, does not mean that a gay couple would provide one. What sort of logic is that?
It’s the old “marriage isn’t perfect now anyway so what’s the difference” argument switched over to children.
Makes no sense.
Alos, I thank you for further proving my point: Which is, when social liberals run out of facts they always resort to personal attacks![/quote]
You’ve actually now been weighed, measured, and found wanting!
Alas, if the proof is in that a gay marriage that would include children shows statistically to have less problems [child abuse/neglect/runaways etc.,] than in a non-gay marriage, you’d absolutely have no problems with such unions since you have been consistently bubbling over ‘the sake of children’ issue.
Or now are you going to backtrack like your buddies, Bush,Cheney, Rumsfe…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
And if you bring up changing 5000000+ year old institutions, ZEB, you better explain why fast track divorces didn’t even register on the meter. Explain why those things which really DO weaken marriage are commonplace laws in almost every state, and didn’t bring the uproar and self-righteous fury that this one issue did.
This is true. They now hand out divorce papers at your wedding. They hide it in the cake.
Thats what that was!
People often jump into marriage too quickly and jump back out too quickly.
I don’t think it is a good thing, but I would hate to see some politicians plan to change it.
These are the problems of a free and open society.
True enough, but still it’s not a valid argument for gay marriage.
[/quote]
No, but possibly an argument against marriage period. The value of the words “I do” has fallen to about the amount one would pay to sleep with 1960’s Playmate of the Year tonight. Then again, perhaps she is well maintained.
