Thread: Imagine how stupid you will look in 40 years

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

You were wrong; that's not the primary issue at all. But homosexual behavior is abnormal.

What is it that you see as "homosexual behavior"?

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

You were wrong; that's not the primary issue at all. But homosexual behavior is abnormal.

Ok, so what is the primary issue?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Why do you ask questions that have been answered over and over again? From a historical perspective, since the time of Augustus Caesar the State has offered financial incentive to producing the next generation of citizens thereby creating the concept we debate today known as legal marriage.

To use your crude lingo, putting your pecker one place results in that benefit to the State and no where else is the benefit to the State equal to the benefit of continuing through time.

So we have a population shortage? We need to make sure we produce more babies since we won't have enough to populate the earth? The state needs to entitle hetero citizens with more rights then gays to encourage baby production. Well the state should always get what it wants right?
So a state baby making policy is going to encourage gays to make babies? Since they are not making babies they should have less rights ... hmmmmmm sound logic.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Ok, so what is the primary issue?

The compelling interests of the state.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

My position is well documented on this site: it is the State's compelling interest to have a male citizen be married to a female citizen, since historically this produces the highest level of financial and emotional stability for each. It has also been found to be the best arrangement for raising children.

Once again the state arises and what the state wants. The state wants financial and emotional stability. Are gays broke? Are they more emotionally stable when forced into relationships they don't desire to be in emotionally and would probably find physically disgusting? As to the parenting ... who says gays can't parent? Many parents have left hetero relationships already having raised children and their ability wouldn't be questioned until being gay?

I find it strange to think the state should decide a minority should not be equal so they can make more babies for the state ... as if our sexuality exists for the convenience of the state.

Originally Posted by michael h

Once again the state arises and what the state wants. The state wants financial and emotional stability. Are gays broke? Are they more emotionally stable when forced into relationships they don't desire to be in emotionally and would probably find physically disgusting? As to the parenting ... who says gays can't parent? Many parents have left hetero relationships already having raised children and their ability wouldn't be questioned until being gay?

I find it strange to think the state should decide a minority should not be equal so they can make more babies for the state ... as if our sexuality exists for the convenience of the state.

The level of income isn't the issue; the long-term financial stability of the family is.

And the state serves the people, not the other way around. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

The level of income isn't the issue; the long-term financial stability of the family is.

And the state serves the people, not the other way around. *shrug*

How many gays have children? Have divorce rates gone up from homosexual marriage?

Its still what the state wants? Now we are over populated and using up the planets resources ... I assume nobody will be upset when heterosexual marriage is outlawed in the interests of the state. Homosexual marriages only will be introduced for population reduction. In vitro fertilization for those who have been selected for reproduction.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

You've been asked to prove this allegation previously and failed. Yet you repeat it.

LOL, seriously?
You got a pastor in NC that wants to exterminate gays, you think gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage by opening the door to polygamy (so what?)
The amendment changes nothing, the exact same number of legal gay weddings will take place in NC this year as took place last year.
So what was it's purpose? Obviously, to stir up emotions, to work up the hicks into a rage for the benefit of a certain political faction.
Just like Hitler had the Jews to blame things on, the GOP has Gay Marriage, undermining the fabric of society.....

Originally Posted by micheal h

As to the parenting ... who says gays can't parent? Many parents have left hetero relationships already having raised children and their ability wouldn't be questioned until being gay?

I’ve pondered that question before and here is what I came up with.

I have no doubt in my mind that gay couples can be good caring parents that can love and nurture children. And I think most reasonable people would agree with me.

That said, when a young male child is raised by two lesbians [or vice a versa] who does he look to as a male role model? Maybe traditional father-figures [or mother figures] are less important than we think they are. Then again, maybe they are important. The point is no one knows. Though some will certainly claim to.

In my own anecdotal experience with gay couples I find that they, perhaps somewhat ironically, end up mimicking traditional gender roles in their own subtle ways; that is, one of the partners is less or more feminine than the other---for lack of a better way of saying it.

What effect would that have on the development of a male child [or substitute female child raised by two gay men]? I can’t help but think it would lead to a kind of confusion---in at least some instances.

Where am I wrong?

Originally Posted by michael h

As to the parenting ... who says gays can't parent?

Biology. Why do you keep pretending their behavior and the results of their behavior is the same as heterosexuals?

Originally Posted by michael h

How many gays have children? Have divorce rates gone up from homosexual marriage?

Its still what the state wants? Now we are over populated and using up the planets resources ... I assume nobody will be upset when heterosexual marriage is outlawed in the interests of the state. Homosexual marriages only will be introduced for population reduction. In vitro fertilization for those who have been selected for reproduction.

Wow get out the tin foil hat for you.

Originally Posted by goober

LOL, seriously?
You got a pastor in NC that wants to exterminate gays, you think gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage by opening the door to polygamy (so what?)
The amendment changes nothing, the exact same number of legal gay weddings will take place in NC this year as took place last year.
So what was it's purpose? Obviously, to stir up emotions, to work up the hicks into a rage for the benefit of a certain political faction.
Just like Hitler had the Jews to blame things on, the GOP has Gay Marriage, undermining the fabric of society.....

1. 1,317,178 voted FOR the NC Marriage Amendment. That's one homophobe that you found. Now you've only got 1,317,177 to go.
2. So now we're "hicks". Looks like that Massachusetts bigotry rearing its ugly head again.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

1. 1,317,178 voted FOR the NC Marriage Amendment. That's one homophobe that you found. Now you've only got 1,317,177 to go.
2. So now we're "hicks". Looks like that Massachusetts bigotry rearing its ugly head again.

Why put an amendment on the ballot (that changes nothing), in the state where the Democrats will hold their convention?
Because it's a practice run, identify all the homophobes , get them organized to demonstrate outside the convention, pure political theatre.

Why would a person who was not a homophobe vote for the amendment?