Thread: Imagine how stupid you will look in 40 years

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. This is not a subjective matter but a matter of scientific fact, a matter of biology.

Lungs were designed to exchange gas, from the internal process of life with the atmosphere. If someone were to fill their lungs consistently with a poison, like cigarette smoke, that would be degenerate behavior and I would not support public funding to support it. This is true even if the public were funding such exchanges due to some reasonable context (like they have lung cancer due to some military weapon and the poison is some form of chemotherapy). Such outlandish analogies necessarily come up once your premise is accepted, that we ought to treat equally behavior that is not equal.

To use your analogy.... what you are advocating is banning cigarette smoking... whilst allowing very similar cigar smoking to remain perfectly legal. It's banning one freedom simply because you personally find it more distrurbing than another very similar freedom.

You can insist for the rest of your life that this denial of equal legal protection is valid because one couple can accidentally have a baby, whilst the other couple has to actually prepare and work to have a baby.... but the truth is that both couples are perfectly capable of having and raising babies. You know it... and everybody who has had to read your invalid arguement over and over and over again knows it.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

To use your analogy.... what you are advocating is banning cigarette smoking... whilst allowing very similar cigar smoking to remain perfectly legal. It's banning one freedom simply because you personally find it more distrurbing than another very similar freedom.

There is a difference between being legal and being subsidized. I never advocated making cigarettes or homosexuality illegal.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You can insist for the rest of your life that this denial of equal legal protection is valid because one couple can accidentally have a baby, whilst the other couple has to actually prepare and work to have a baby.... but the truth is that both couples are perfectly capable of having and raising babies.

That is just not true. Homosexual couples cannot make a baby unless they act in non-homosexual ways.

You want equal entitlement for unequal benefit to society/State and you are so perverted as to say not doing so is a violation of equal protection. The feminist slogan for decades was equal pay for equal work but when it comes to homosexuality and entitlements, you want equal pay for unequal work - and everyone who reads these posts knows it.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

There is a difference between being legal and being subsidized. I never advocated making cigarettes or homosexuality illegal.



That is just not true. Homosexual couples cannot make a baby unless they act in non-homosexual ways.

You want equal entitlement for unequal benefit to society/State and you are so perverted as to say not doing so is a violation of equal protection. The feminist slogan for decades was equal pay for equal work but when it comes to homosexuality and entitlements, you want equal pay for unequal work - and everyone who reads these posts knows it.

No.... you just advocate making it illegal for homosexual couples to have equal legal protection.

And now you want to claim that IVF and adoption are somehow heterosexual in nature? Why do you want to deny so many children equal legal protection as well?

They do have equal protection, provided homosexuals behave equally, which by definition, they don't.

Children do not have equal protection as they are "victims" of age discrimination. They can't vote, buy alcohol or marry.

I'll disregard your Strawman that IVF and adoption are heterosexual in nature as I said non-homosexual behavior is what produce children (adoption does not produce children but merely redistributes them).

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

They do have equal protection, provided homosexuals behave equally, which by definition, they don't.

Children do not have equal protection as they are "victims" of age discrimination. They can't vote, buy alcohol or marry.

I'll disregard your Strawman that IVF and adoption are heterosexual in nature as I said non-homosexual behavior is what produce children (adoption does not produce children but merely redistributes them).

If you are so pathetically shallow that you believe the only reason to sanction a committed loving relationship between two human beings is to facilitate breeding, then you have missed the better part of being a thinking, feeling human being, and I feel sorry for you.

It is the only reason to legally sanction it. The problem with Liberals is that results do not matter. This is why their ideology leads to inevitable failure such as abdicating sovereignty via debt.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Again, this is not about your sexual perversions. If it makes you feel better, since I know that you libs are all about what feels good, it's not about my sexual perversions either (or lack of).

Perversion seems to change with time. It might have been when you were commanded to the missionary position or all the positions you were commanded not to do, or what skin color you could sleep with. In either case its been based on an enforced morality of what is corrupt ... what you can force others to do.

How is it that perversion perception has changed over time? Is it because people demanded their liberty to keep others out of their bedroom?

Originally Posted by Wagner

It has nothing to do with him though.

There is a biological reason why sexual intercourse feels good and that doesn't simply go out the window because Democrats are looking to distract from the economy and focus on gay marriage.

I've no doubt its a distraction from the economy. Sometimes people are freed from being treated as second class humans for ulterior motives. Obama may empathize with gays ... does not translate to him giving them equal rights.

Biology is secondary to the individual. The individual determines their path in life ... not biology. This doesn't simply go out the window because the majority forces its will on the liberty of a powerless minority.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

There is a difference between being legal and being subsidized. I never advocated making cigarettes or homosexuality illegal.



That is just not true. Homosexual couples cannot make a baby unless they act in non-homosexual ways.

You want equal entitlement for unequal benefit to society/State and you are so perverted as to say not doing so is a violation of equal protection. The feminist slogan for decades was equal pay for equal work but when it comes to homosexuality and entitlements, you want equal pay for unequal work - and everyone who reads these posts knows it.

Once again you tout unequal benefit to society. How so? You have shown nothing about how its an unequal benefit. You have brought up child birth ... an expense on the state and taxpayer the last I looked.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is the only reason to legally sanction it. The problem with Liberals is that results do not matter. This is why their ideology leads to inevitable failure such as abdicating sovereignty via debt.

Is this an explanation for free trade?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is the only reason to legally sanction it. The problem with Liberals is that results do not matter. This is why their ideology leads to inevitable failure such as abdicating sovereignty via debt.

Liberty and choice mean nothing against the prejudices and self righteousness of history. You don't sanction liberty ... you either have it legally or have it stolen by force.

Fact is the American people will not normalize Homosexuality in forty years we will still find it abnormal.

Originally Posted by michael h

Once again you tout unequal benefit to society. How so? You have shown nothing about how its an unequal benefit. You have brought up child birth ... an expense on the state and taxpayer the last I looked.

This is where Liberalism is truly disturbing, seeing life as a negative, a liability not an asset.

How do you propose the State continue through time without children? To the extent child birth is an expense on the state and taxpayer, the problem is with socialism and social engineering.

Originally Posted by michael h

Is this an explanation for free trade?

How do you get to free trade from child bearing being the only reason for legal marriage?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Fact is the American people will not normalize Homosexuality in forty years we will still find it abnormal.

For a hetero ... in a 1000 years homosexuality will not be normal.
For a homo ... in a 1000 years heterosexuality will not be normal.