Thread: Homosexuals and polygamy

Originally Posted by LJ2

Your inability to read...

...to one of smearing people.

Indeed...

I say that homosexual apologists use public schools to mainstream homosexuality. Letfreedomring says he's "glad" that they do and Steve says it doesn't happen. Better go back to smearing people, something you agree on.

Yeah, God forbid people have the nerve to make different comments concerning the same issue.

That's the problem with right-wing-gay-haters: They only spew what they're told to spew, and wouldn't dream of offering up an original thought.

The fact of the matter is that it's not happening in the public schools I'm familiar with. There's no reason to believe that the public schools I'm familiar with are the only ones where it's not happening...

It amazes me that many people seem so emotionally invested in this issue on both sides. On one hand, I cannot fathom one single, legitimate reason to ban people from entering same sex marriages. I've heard about a thousand reasons spouted, but not one that I would consider legitimate. But on the other hand, I don't agree with the argument that bans on same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Where did I get the idea? From this:



How are you going to 'grow' a society if it's not based on choice?

How do you know that homosexual marriages would destroy society? Did the end of slavery destroy it? Did allowing women to vote destroy it? Did allowing interracial marriages destroy it? Nope, society grows as we grow and allowing homosexuals to marry cannot destroy society.

I'm still not following how you came up with the idea that I think homosexuality is a choice that the homosexual makes but, frankly, that's neither here nor there.

I've been over this other stuff too, M. Ending slavery didn't harm society nor did condoning interracial marriage. Your question implies that any and all changes a society makes are "good" and that just isn't the case. An example I used before is that over the past 20 or so years there has been a societal trend against smoking. Such a trend, should it continue, won't kill society but is likely to make it stronger. Likewise there has been a trend to entertain children in front of the television and feed them junk food. That trend has led to a significant increase in childhood obesity and a decrease in attention span. This is bad for society and shouldn't be condoned, revered, given preferential status.

That is all that this debate is about. It is a debate about whether homosexual marriage warrants preferential status in society. It isn't a referendum or judgment against any particular homosexual. It is not a judgment that no homosexual couple could ever be a good parenting pair. Those are side issues to the overarching position of what most benefits society.

So far the only arguments I have heard from the pro gay marriage side are:
1. We can do that too
2. We love each other
3. You guys have relationships that suck too
4. You just hate gays

I may have missed something and I'm sure that someone will fill in any blanks I left.

Here's the deal. Homosexual relationships can and do hurt society. Kids, for example, that live in a household with homosexual parents are going to be limited in the friendships and associations they are willing to make. It's tough enough being a 14 year old but to throw the burden of having to explain to a prospective friend that you live in a household that is not generally accepted in society throws another level of complication on the matter. Laws aren't going to change that. You can't legislate away bigotry. It's the same principle as for kids that come from alcoholic families or drug addicted families or even poor families. There is a stigma against these things and the kids tend to suffer.

Our society doesn't condone or reward alcoholism or drug use. We DO reward poverty and, unfortunately, that has contributed to a growing culture of "entitlement". My concern is that if we treat homosexual unions the same as heterosexual unions we will create or expand upon a culture of compromise where it becomes the norm to cater to more and more sympathetic causes instead of trying to accommodate those causes in a way that does not confer "acceptance".

Originally Posted by LetFreedomRing

Homosexuals sweep up the mistakes that heterosexuals make.

i.e. the 510,000 foster children in the United States.

That is their purpose in society and those children deserve married homes.

I've had experience with homosexuals and foster children/adoptees before. It's not all peaches and cream there, buddy.

Originally Posted by lutherf

That is all that this debate is about. It is a debate about whether homosexual marriage warrants preferential status in society.

I think only the people on your side are debating that. The opposition is arguing that homosexual marriage warrants equal status in society.

It isn't a referendum or judgment against any particular homosexual. It is not a judgment that no homosexual couple could ever be a good parenting pair. Those are side issues to the overarching position of what most benefits society.

This is too collectivist for me. I can't reconcile placing nebulous and frankly, questionable benefits to society over tangible benefits to real individuals.

Here's the deal. Homosexual relationships can and do hurt society. Kids, for example, that live in a household with homosexual parents are going to be limited in the friendships and associations they are willing to make. It's tough enough being a 14 year old but to throw the burden of having to explain to a prospective friend that you live in a household that is not generally accepted in society throws another level of complication on the matter. Laws aren't going to change that. You can't legislate away bigotry. It's the same principle as for kids that come from alcoholic families or drug addicted families or even poor families. There is a stigma against these things and the kids tend to suffer.

So your argument against greater societal acceptance of homosexuality is that society doesn't accept homosexuals?

Our society doesn't condone or reward alcoholism or drug use. We DO reward poverty and, unfortunately, that has contributed to a growing culture of "entitlement". My concern is that if we treat homosexual unions the same as heterosexual unions we will create or expand upon a culture of compromise where it becomes the norm to cater to more and more sympathetic causes instead of trying to accommodate those causes in a way that does not confer "acceptance".

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the premise that homosexuality is inherently destructive or somehow unworthy of acceptance. I think that if you want others to accept your arguments as valid, you must first demonstrate this premise to be valid.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I'm still not following how you came up with the idea that I think homosexuality is a choice that the homosexual makes but, frankly, that's neither here nor there.

I've been over this other stuff too, M. Ending slavery didn't harm society nor did condoning interracial marriage. Your question implies that any and all changes a society makes are "good" and that just isn't the case. An example I used before is that over the past 20 or so years there has been a societal trend against smoking. Such a trend, should it continue, won't kill society but is likely to make it stronger. Likewise there has been a trend to entertain children in front of the television and feed them junk food. That trend has led to a significant increase in childhood obesity and a decrease in attention span. This is bad for society and shouldn't be condoned, revered, given preferential status.

That is all that this debate is about. It is a debate about whether homosexual marriage warrants preferential status in society. It isn't a referendum or judgment against any particular homosexual. It is not a judgment that no homosexual couple could ever be a good parenting pair. Those are side issues to the overarching position of what most benefits society.

So far the only arguments I have heard from the pro gay marriage side are:
1. We can do that too
2. We love each other
3. You guys have relationships that suck too
4. You just hate gays

I may have missed something and I'm sure that someone will fill in any blanks I left.

Here's the deal. Homosexual relationships can and do hurt society. Kids, for example, that live in a household with homosexual parents are going to be limited in the friendships and associations they are willing to make. It's tough enough being a 14 year old but to throw the burden of having to explain to a prospective friend that you live in a household that is not generally accepted in society throws another level of complication on the matter. Laws aren't going to change that. You can't legislate away bigotry. It's the same principle as for kids that come from alcoholic families or drug addicted families or even poor families. There is a stigma against these things and the kids tend to suffer.

Our society doesn't condone or reward alcoholism or drug use. We DO reward poverty and, unfortunately, that has contributed to a growing culture of "entitlement". My concern is that if we treat homosexual unions the same as heterosexual unions we will create or expand upon a culture of compromise where it becomes the norm to cater to more and more sympathetic causes instead of trying to accommodate those causes in a way that does not confer "acceptance".

Using the "kids will be harmed" logic, then alcoholics or drug addicts shouldn't be allowed to marry. Oh, and neither should poor folks. Also using that logic, interracial marriages should be illegal because "you can't legislate away bigotry" and children resulting from interracial marriages might suffer.

Come on luther, can't you come up with better reasons to keep homosexual marriages illegal? You're just making this far too easy!

Originally Posted by lutherf

You can't legislate away bigotry.

Certainly not with the way you cling to it anyway.

Bigot, hater, homophobe

Such is the language of those who cannot cope with intellectual debate.

If those are the words used to describe people who are open minded enough to accept the natural law as found in the sciences of anatomy and physiology, then what do we call those who prefer legalization of disembowlement, dismemberment and decapitation of homosexuals?

Since Death Roe there have been somewhere around 50-52 million abortions in the USA. For numbers sake, we'll use 50 million. Lot's of people try to say how many homosexuals there are in America and the estimate is from about 2-10%. Let's use 5%.

Using those numbers means 2,500,000 homosexuals have been killed by abortion. I wanted them protected by law and wish they were alive. My detractors, who claim to defend homosexuals, are very content to leave the laws in place that permitted their death. More that that, some even want to pay their mothers to kill them.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Bigot, hater, homophobe

Such is the language of those who cannot cope with intellectual debate.

Have you ever actually looked up the definition of "bigot?"

It's a negative label for a logical reason.

It seems that you are incapable of arguing on scientific terms since you reject all scientific arguments that are laid before you.

I've seen these kinds of cognitively biased attempts at exempting oneself from the uncomfortable label of prejudiced before, and it's rather amusing to me.

If those are the words used to describe people who are open minded enough to accept the natural law as found in the sciences of anatomy and physiology, then what do we call those who prefer legalization of disembowlement, dismemberment and decapitation of homosexuals?

Natural law? According to who? You?

There is no such thing as "natural law" or "natural order" or anything as you see as natural as only things that you approve of.

Fact of the matter is that homosexuality is thoroughly documented behavior in hundreds of species.

That said, it seems that you are incapable of distinguishing between behavior and identity. A homosexual is homosexual even if he or she is a virgin.

Since Death Roe [sic] there have been somewhere around 50-52 million abortions in the USA. For numbers sake, we'll use 50 million. Lot's of people try to say how many homosexuals there are in America and the estimate is from about 2-10%. Let's use 5%.

Using those numbers means 2,500,000 homosexuals have been killed by abortion. I wanted them protected by law and wish they were alive. My detractors, who claim to defend homosexuals, are very content to leave the laws in place that permitted their death. More that that, some even want to pay their mothers to kill them.

The abortion issue is completely separate from the issue of two people marrying, and it's not one that I care about in case you did not read my first post.

Originally Posted by LJ2

A homosexual wedding vow:
I Pierre, take thee Pepe, to be my lawfully wedded wife. I promise to love you, cherish you, and not have sex with strangers.

Research done by San Francisco State University has revealed that 50% of homosexuals in pretend marriage engage in sex outside the "marriage" with the full consent and approval of their "marriage" partner. "None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it."

I don't want to leave the impression that their "marriage" is entirely fraudulent. No, "they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers...“

What? No sex with strangers? You mean no cruising public restrooms? No anonymous meetings at the bathouse? No tap dancing underneath bathroom stalls at the airport? With such burdensome expectations, how will homosexual "marriage" survive?

These guys don't want a marriage. They want an endorsement. They want something from society that nature cannot give, evidence that they belong together.

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret - NYTimes.com

Hence my reason for not personally embracing the gay lifestyle and openly endorsing gay marriage. And if I don't embrace and support it, I have every right to do so. I'm not going to allow myself to be pressured and insulted into conformity, either.

Now, if I'm tolerating something, it doesn't quite mean that I'm going to embrace it. Nor does it mean that I agree with it. It just simply means that I acknowledge it exists and that I won't be hostile towards it. And that's the way I feel about the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. I certainly don't embrace it, but I'm not going to be hostile or ridicluling, either.

If and when gay marriage advocates get their day in the sun, I won't be on a personal crusade to have the verdict appealed. And honestly, I'm not on a personal crusade to prevent it from happening. As long as nobody is trying to push their views upon me and force me to embrace something I don't support, we'll have no problems. But if I were to have to vote for or against gay marriage, I would cast my ballot against. I would have every right to do so, just as much as the next person would have every right to vote for it.

But once this whole thing is settled in court, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, though. Regardless of the outcome. I will have to move on with my life and worry about more important matters.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Using those numbers means 2,500,000 homosexuals have been killed by abortion. I wanted them protected by law and wish they were alive. My detractors, who claim to defend homosexuals, are very content to leave the laws in place that permitted their death. More that that, some even want to pay their mothers to kill them.

Just think: You've been denied two and a half million more people for you to launch your hatred towards.

No wonder you're pissed...

Originally Posted by panteth4H2o

But if I were to have to vote for or against gay marriage, I would cast my ballot against. I would have every right to do so, just as much as the next person would have every right to vote for it.

The rest of your post I can respect.

But this bit here is sickening to me. What makes you think you have the right vote somebody else's rights away? What if a majority of people voted to segregate schools or reinstitute slavery? A majority of Americans were behind those institutions too once upon a time.

When 51% of people get to vote on anything, minorities have no inalienable rights, and although you'd rather not think of gay people as human beings, American citizens, they have their rights along side your own.

Newsflash: People you don't personally approve of still enjoy equal protection under the law as per the 14th Amendment, whether you like it or not, and even if 99.999% of Americans disapproved.

Originally Posted by LetFreedomRing

The rest of your post I can respect.

But this bit here is sickening to me. What makes you think you have the right vote somebody else's rights away? What if a majority of people voted to segregate schools or reinstitute slavery? A majority of Americans were behind those institutions too once upon a time.

When 51% of people get to vote on anything, minorities have no inalienable rights, and although you'd rather not think of gay people as human beings, American citizens, they have their rights along side your own.

Newsflash: People you don't personally approve of still enjoy equal protection under the law as per the 14th Amendment, whether you like it or not, and even if 99.999% of Americans disapproved.

Ah, I see. So if I don't agree with something, but don't wanna come across as hateful, I'm supposed to vote for it.

BTW, as an ethnic minority, I personally think it's laughable to equate a sexual lifestyle with color of skin (i.e. your comparison to slavery and segregation).

I never said that gays weren't human beings. If that were true, I would be hostile towards them, ridiculing of them, disrespectful towards them, or maybe violent toward them. That was a good stretch, on your part, though. Nice try.

Anyways, that's my stance. So be it.