# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  The key to defeating gay marriage and the homosexual movement is science not religion

## texmaster

There is a biological function all humans have when sexually stimulated. *The body prepares for natural procreation which requires heterosexual sex thus proving heterosexuality is genetic*.  Homosexuality has no basis in genetics because they also have the same  biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli. If their sexual preference  were genetically viable there would be no reason for them to produce  genetic material since the only method of natural delivery is through  heterosexual sex.   Because heterosexuality is genetic and proven to be  genetic it is on equal ground with race and gender 2 genetic traits  protected by law from the civil rights movement.  Homosexuality is not  genetic so it does not share that bond heterosexuality does with race  and gender.

The biological reaction to sexual stimuli in humans is the key.

And before liberals scream about procreation the facts behind the  argument is the reality that procreation proves heterosexuality is  genetic. *It does not require all married women to have children* merely to prove the genetic factual evidence of heterosexuality.

You have nothing that compares when looking at homosexuality. In fact  you have the direct opposite. Zero evidence of it being genetic which  means it cannot be equal to race or gender which invalidates any BS  claim that it is comparable to the real civil rights movement.

het·er·o·sex·u·al  (ht-r-sksh-l)
adj.
1. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.


You want more of the obvious?

_sexual intercourse
 or coitus or copulation

Act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract (see  reproductive system). Various sexual activities (foreplay) lead to  physiological changes that progress to orgasm (climax) and resolution  (see sexual response). If it is completed, semen passes from the male into the female's body.  If conditions favour fertilization, a sperm joins with an egg, and  pregnancy begins (see fertility; reproduction); contraception can  prevent this. Intercourse with an unwilling female is rape. See also  reproductive behaviour; sexuality, human; sexually transmitted disease

Sexual contact is then described in terms of the physical changes in a male and a female resulting in heterosexual intercourse._




The truth is most of us could care less about homosexuals and their  deviant behavior.  Its when they claim their sexual preference is equal  to race gender or heterosexulaity that science steps in to prove them  wrong.


*
Challenge to all gay advocates:*   Find any study, ANY STUDY  that says they have conclusively found the gay gene and have found it in  even 60% of the gays they test over 100 while eliminating any  possibility environment plays a role.

Go ahead, I've seen just about every single study on homosexuality being  genetic and the most common words found in every single one are "could  be" "suggests"  "possible"  and "scientists believe"

The Faith based argument that homosexuality is genetic or natural has  less evidence than your basic UFO special and people laugh at those who  believe in them every single day.


And let me save you some time liberals.    Cannibalism, Rape, Incest,  Murder ALL exist in nature in all species and no one is stupid enough to  claim they are natural or genetic so spare us the homosexuality has  been in history argument.    

Just because something exists in nature does not mean its natural.     

End the war on the dictionary and the war on science.   

We will not embrace your faith based belief in homosexuality.                         



*Please do not comment unless its on the topic*

----------

Bill the Dead Cat (04-07-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

Is this the reduex of your other thread?

And the key to defeating gay marriage and the homosexual movement is not in science or religion. It's in camps.

 :Cool:

----------


## Taylor

> Is this the reduex of your other thread?
> 
> And the key to defeating gay marriage and the homosexual movement is not in science or religion. It's in camps.


camps?

----------


## Network

Science is a religion.

They believe that a grand explosion out of nothing created everything.  Atheists and scientists have a secret fail handshake

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Mordent (03-29-2014),Old Ridge Runner (03-30-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> camps?


Yup. For "reeducation". Using PROVEN science and/or other "means".

 :Cool:

----------


## Taylor

> Yup. For "reeducation". Using PROVEN science and/or other "means".


You seriously think some fucked up camp can somehow pray the gay away don't you and change someones feelings for another person? God forbid you just, you know, leave people alone.

----------


## Network

Pray the Gay Away '14

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> You seriously think some fucked up camp can somehow pray the gay away don't you and change someones feelings for another person? God forbid you just, you know, leave people alone.


Fagism is a disgusting perversion. There are other "methods" than praying fagism away. Hell, they can treat rapists and pedophiles which are just as bad. 
Face it. Fags were better off when they were in the closet. It's them themselves that led up to this.

 :Cool:

----------


## Network

That's a good point liver, maybe fagism is just as much of a crime as pedophilia and deserves jailtime.

People who are attracted to children can't help it any more than people who are attracted to their own sex.  

I guess a deal needs to be struck.

----------


## texmaster

> You seriously think some fucked up camp can somehow pray the gay away don't you and change someones feelings for another person? God forbid you just, you know, leave people alone.


But that's the point Tay.   Your side isn't leaving people alone. They are trying to force an unproven sexual preference on the rest of us through forced legislation mostly through liberal judges not congress or the people  and pretending its on par with race, gender and heterosexuality which unlike homosexuality are all proven genetic traits.


We dont care how you live your life until you try and force us to accept yours as equal to the real civil rights movement which dealt with actual proven genetic traits not feelings.

----------

Archer (03-31-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Is this the reduex of your other thread?


Yep.   I'm trying to get the other side to actually look at what they are trying to force on us from a scientific perspective not an emotional one.

----------


## Taylor

> But that's the point Tay.   Your side isn't leaving people alone. They are trying to force an unproven sexual preference on the rest of us through forced legislation mostly through liberal judges not congress or the people  and pretending its on par with race, gender and heterosexuality which unlike homosexuality are all proven genetic traits.
> 
> 
> We dont care how you live your life until you try and force us to accept yours as equal to the real civil rights movement which dealt with actual proven genetic traits not feelings.


If you don't care how I live my life then you've already accepted it. The problem is that you DO care how I live my life otherwise you wouldn't want me put in a camp.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

The people of this country need people like this who have actually researched the subject and came up with good, sound solutions to the problem...




 :Cool:

----------


## texmaster

> If you don't care how I live my life then you've already accepted it. The problem is that you DO care how I live my life otherwise you wouldn't want me put in a camp.


Where did I say I want you in a camp Tay?  Show me where.

And no I haven't accepted how you live Tay.   I *tolerate* it.  That doesn't mean I'm for you changing law and forcing others who know your sexual preference insults the real civil rights movement when equated to it.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Where did I say I want you in a camp Tay?  Show me where.
> 
> And no I haven't accepted how you live Tay.   I *tolerate* it.  That doesn't mean I'm for you changing law and forcing others who know your sexual preference insults the real civil rights movement when equated to it.


 First thing they did in the UK was try to sue a church to perform a wedding against their beliefs. Churches in the US inside the Church has to watch out for them trying to act like a Christian group to rent or borrow a part of the building for things the Church is against. They will do anything to attack the Church.

----------

texmaster (03-30-2014)

----------


## Rudy2D

> They will do anything to attack the Church.


They've already won the main-line Protestants; they even have hobosexual "pastors" nowadays.  And now we can see the "blasphemy of the holy-spirit" in action.  They've crossed the bridge of no return--at their own volition.  Few will make it back, if any.

----------


## Karl

> Is this the reduex of your other thread?
> 
> And the key to defeating gay marriage and the homosexual movement is not in science or religion. It's in camps.


Well they can "Pray Away" the Gay supposedly

 @ChoppedLiver

----------


## sachem

> Yep.   I'm trying to get the other side to actually look at what they are trying to force on us from a scientific perspective not an emotional one.


No one is *forcing* anything. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex. 

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business.

----------

Devil505 (03-31-2014),Karl (03-30-2014),Rudy2D (03-30-2014)

----------


## Karl

> No one is *forcing* anything. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex. 
> 
> What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business.


Most "normal" people would agree but some people are obsessed and this obsession is often a "cover" for their own "true" desires

 @sachem

----------


## sachem

> Most "normal" people would agree but some people are obsessed and this obsession is often a "cover" for their own "true" desires
> 
>  @sachem


I'm sorry. I'm not following. Are obsessed with what? And what desires are they covering?

Are you saying some who support gay marriage are secretly homosexuals?

----------


## Karl

> I'm sorry. I'm not following. Are obsessed with what? and what desires are they covering?
> 
> Are you saying some who support gay marriage are secretly homosexuals?


 @sachem ya couldnt be more wrong and I would suggest ya re-read my post as It was in reference to the OP

----------


## Sentinel

> Well they can "Pray Away" the Gay supposedly


That doesn't work for pedophiles, why do you think it might work for sodomites?

----------


## Karl

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michel...ry?id=14048691



Exodus International, the world’s largest ex-gay therapy group, has apologized to the gay community for the harm it has caused and announced it will now close.

The apology, written by Exodus International president Alan Chambers, came in a statement issued Wednesday, June 20, under the title “I Am Sorry.”


The statement is a personal treatise on Chambers’ evolution that in the past year saw him publicly state that though he had once claimed he was cured of his homosexuality he, as a married man with kids, still has feelings for other men and recognizing that, in the vast majority of cases, a gay “cure” or, in the parlance of Exodus, “reorientation,” is not possible.


A small excerpt to give a general impression of the apology appears below:


There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.


[...]


Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.


Chasing this apology came another release just hours later announcing that, after a unanimous board of directors vote, Exodus International will now be closing its doors. The group isn’t entirely dissolving however.


The announcement also mentioned that a new ministry will be opening under the banner “Reduce Fear,” though at this stage the exact nature of the ministry remains unclear other than the given broad mission statement that it will “come alongside churches to become safe, welcoming, and mutually transforming communities.”


Exodus was founded in 1976 and functioned as an umbrella organization that spawned over 120 ministries in the United States and Canada and over 150 ministries across 17 other countries.


It advanced its mainly Protestant, somewhat literal reading of the Bible that homosexuality is sinful and that, if clients are dedicated enough, it is possible that through religious counseling they can “overcome” what they dub the choice to give in to “Same-Sex Attraction







> That doesn't work for pedophiles, why do you think it might work for sodomites?


Well @Sentinel ask the Church folk

----------


## sachem

> @sachem ya couldnt be more wrong and I would suggest ya re-read my post as It was in reference to the OP


I'm asking. I didn't understand your post.

----------


## Karl

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...e-not-religion


 @sachem this link of the original now closed thread might explain it

Give it a shot

----------


## sachem

> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...e-not-religion
> 
> 
>  @sachem this link of the original now closed thread might explain it
> 
> Give it a shot


Thanks Karl. I asked a simple question. If you won't or can't answer the question, that's ok.

----------

texmaster (03-30-2014)

----------


## Sentinel

> Exodus International, the world’s largest ex-gay therapy group, has apologized to the gay community for the harm it has caused and announced it will now close.
> 
> The apology, written by Exodus International president Alan Chambers,


Alan Chambers is a damn fag.  His therapy was based on the assumption that men are fags because they didn't get hugs from their dads.  So, he'd have fags sit around hugging each other.   It was so gay.  Fags and pedophiles need their balls cut off, or at least therapy not based on men hugging men.

Why do you defend those psychosexually disordered sh!tpackers?  Are you a homosexual who wants to be told lies that you're normal?

----------


## texmaster

> No one is *forcing* anything. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex. 
> 
> What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business.


Of course they are forcing us to accept homosexuality as equal to race and gender through law.    Why are you pretending they aren't?

----------


## texmaster

> Most "normal" people would agree but some people are obsessed and this obsession is often a "cover" for their own "true" desires
> 
>  @sachem


And I see you are once again basing your assumptions off nothing but your own theories.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Most "normal" people would agree but some people are obsessed and this obsession is often a "cover" for their own "true" desires
> 
>  @sachem


that's been worked to death hasn't it?

----------

texmaster (03-30-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> Fagism is a disgusting perversion. There are other "methods" than praying fagism away. Hell, they can treat rapists and pedophiles which are just as bad. 
> Face it. Fags were better off when they were in the closet. It's them themselves that led up to this.


Do you really think your asinine rhetoric is helpful? Holy crap.

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## sachem

> Of course they are forcing us to accept homosexuality as equal to race and gender through law.    Why are you pretending they aren't?


I'm not pretending at all. It is something people are born with and cannot change. You don't have to accept it. You have to tolerate it. You don't have to practice it.

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> They've already won the main-line Protestants; they even have hobosexual "pastors" nowadays.  And now we can see the "blasphemy of the holy-spirit" in action.  They've crossed the bridge of no return--at their own volition.  Few will make it back, if any.


Who are "the main-line Protestants"? There are a few denominations that accept homosexuality, but to describe "main-line Protestants" as pro-gay is silly in the extreme.

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## Matalese

You know people you don't have to be so damn hateful. You can get the point across that you disagree with the gay lifestyle without being so full of hate!

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> You know people you don't have to be so damn hateful. You can get the point across that you disagree with the gay lifestyle without being so full of hate!


I know. WTF?

It's time to purge these types of assholes from "conservative" circles. Conservatism doesn't have room for such hatred, and it's not winning hearts and minds, that's for sure. I swear there's something in the water.

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Do you really think your asinine rhetoric is helpful? Holy crap.


It's the truth. Something you don't seem to understand.

 :Cool:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'm not pretending at all. It is something people are born with and cannot change. You don't have to accept it. You have to tolerate it. You don't have to practice it.


people are perfectly willing to tolerate it.  They are not willing to accept it as normal.  therein lies the problem.   For them, not normal heterosexual society.

----------


## sachem

> people are perfectly willing to tolerate it.  They are not willing to accept it as normal.  therein lies the problem.   For them, not normal heterosexual society.


Again, they don't have to accept it as "normal". They have to tolerate it's existence in a (relatively) free society.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Again, they don't have to accept it as "normal". They have to tolerate it's existence in a (relatively) free society.


No one needs to tolerate it. The perversion of fagism needs to be "closeted" or quarantined.

 :Cool:

----------


## countryboy

> No one needs to tolerate it. The perversion of fagism needs to be "closeted" or quarantined.


<<<Personal Attack Removed>>>
 @countryboy....this is a warning. Personal Attacks are not permissible. You know that.  Cease and Desist.

----------


## Matalese

> No one needs to tolerate it. The perversion of fagism needs to be "closeted" or quarantined.


Someone needs to stuff your hateful ass in the closet and lock the door!

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Karl (03-30-2014),Taylor (03-30-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Someone needs to stuff your hateful ass in the closet and lock the door!


I don't hate nothing. It's just a disgusting problem that needs to be taken care of by ALL means necessary for the sake of America.

 :Cool:

----------


## Sentinel

> I'm not pretending at all. It is something people are born with and cannot change. You don't have to accept it. You have to tolerate it. You don't have to practice it.


Just because pedophiles and homosexuals rarely change doesn't mean they can't.  Regardless, the sh!teaters aren't satisfied with others tolerate it.  They want to coerce everyone to support it -- go buy a clue.

----------


## Matalese

> I don't hate nothing. It's just a disgusting problem that needs to be taken care of by ALL means necessary for the sake of America.


You sound like the fucking KKK.

----------

Karl (03-30-2014)

----------


## sachem

> Just because pedophiles and homosexuals rarely change doesn't mean they can't.  Regardless, the sh!teaters aren't satisfied with others tolerate it.  They want to coerce everyone to support it -- go buy a clue.


I have a clue. Several in fact.

Neither pedophiles nor homosexuals can change. Nor heterosexuals for that matter. 

How does one support sexual preference? I think the one in desperate need of a clue, is you.

----------


## Sentinel

> How does one support sexual preference? I think the one in desperate need of a clue, is you.


I love how liars play dumb and pretend that they don't see a point so that they don't have to defend their lies against that point.  (Playing, I hope.)

----------


## sachem

> I love how liars play dumb and pretend that they don't see a point so that they don't have to defend their lies against that point.  (Playing, I hope.)


I don't lie. I'm not dumb.  

I'm correct and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to name calling. 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

----------


## sotmfs

> I don't lie. I'm not dumb.  
> 
> I'm correct and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to name calling. 
> 
> Enjoy the rest of your day.


I would have to agree with you Sachem.

----------


## Sentinel

> I have a clue. Several in fact.
> 
> Neither pedophiles nor homosexuals can change. Nor heterosexuals for that matter.


There are ex-perverts who are living proof against your position.  And, the preponderance of the scientific evidence is that perverts can change, i.e. attraction is malleable and there's no scientific reason why this fact doesn't apply to homosexuals and pedophiles.

----------


## catfish

The whole homo debate comes down to two camps

people who are gay or have friends and family who are

and the rest of us

----------


## Sentinel

> I don't lie. I'm not dumb.


Prove it.




> I'm correct and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.


A wedding photographer photographing a wedding and photoshopping those photos is A) just tolerating or B) supporting that wedding?

I know you're a liar who plays dumb.  But, "tolerating"  is allowing homosexuals to do what they want with each other.  "Supporting" is playing a role in what they do and facilitating what they want to do.  To paraphrase Jesus, go and be a moron no more.  





> Enjoy the rest of your day.


Enjoy pretending you're fooling anyone.

----------


## Trinnity

*The thread is temporarily closed while mod staff determines a policy issue.*

----------


## Trinnity

*Okay, we - the mod team - have had a pow wow to discuss smilees, and they can be used for insults and not be considered a personal attack UNLESS they're used in some excessive way that conveys viciousness. And that is to be determined by us.

As always, use your own discretion as members and be prepared for the consequences if you make the wrong move. "Mild insults and snark" are okay. Personal attacks are not. Review the rules from time to time because you are responsible for your behavior here.

Thread is re-opened.*

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> *Okay, we - the mod team - have had a pow wow to discuss smilees, and they can be used for insults and not be considered a personal attack UNLESS they're used in some excessive way that conveys viciousness. And that is to be determined by us.
> 
> As always, use your own discretion as members and be prepared for the consequences if you make the wrong move. "Mild insults and snark" are okay. Personal attacks are not. Review the rules from time to time because you are responsible for your behavior here.
> 
> Thread is re-opened.*


 ................................. :Sign5: ................................ 

 :Cool:

----------


## texmaster

> I'm not pretending at all. *It is something people are born with and cannot change.* You don't have to accept it. You have to tolerate it. You don't have to practice it.




If you really believe that fantasy then prove it.  Can't wait to destroy it.

----------


## texmaster

> Again, they don't have to accept it as "normal". They have to tolerate it's existence in a (relatively) free society.


Actually we do when you create LAW that forces us to pretend it is equal to race gender and heterosexuality which unlike homosexuality are all proven genetic traits.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-30-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Actually we do when you create LAW that forces us to pretend it is equal to race gender and heterosexuality which unlike homosexuality are all proven genetic traits.


Nothing can force you to pretend something. The law for what would be equal marriage doesn't force or affect you in any way unless you are to benefit from the law. You have no desire to benefit from it so just keep on living YOUR life and you'll have no worries.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Actually we do when you create LAW that forces us to pretend it is equal to race gender and heterosexuality which unlike homosexuality are all proven genetic traits.


That's the part that fag lovers don't get. The difference between a trait and a disgusting perversion.

 :Cool:

----------

texmaster (03-30-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Nothing can force you to pretend something. The law for what would be equal marriage doesn't force or affect you in any way unless you are to benefit from the law. You have no desire to benefit from it so just keep on living YOUR life and you'll have no worries.


You are wrong. Again. As usual.
Fag "marriage" AFFECTS SOCIETY. Tex and I live in society. And if a disgusting perversion is allowed to fester and infest society, society is no longer healthy.

 :Cool:

----------

texmaster (03-30-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> That's the part that fag lovers don't get. The difference between a trait and a disgusting perversion.


Hey FYI I kissed a girl today, several times actually, did it hurt you? Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family? Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? Yeaaah, no, it didn't affect you one fucking bit dude. Do you focus on other peoples lives to avoid focusing on yours? Just live your life, and leave mine and others alone.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Hey FYI I kissed a girl today, several times actually, did it hurt you? Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family? Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? Yeaaah, no, it didn't affect you one fucking bit dude. Do you focus on other peoples lives to avoid focusing on yours? Just live your life, and leave mine and others alone.


You're lucky that it were not my daughter that you kissed.  They'd never find your body.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> You're lucky that it were not my girl that you kissed.  They'd never find your body.


I second that one.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> You're lucky that it were not my daughter that you kissed.  They'd never find your body.


I love how you have all that nice Christian stuff taking about the lord and love as your signature but yet you just advocated for my murder. What a wonderful parent and example you are.

----------


## Roadmaster

We are good parents and won't allow anyone to hurt our children. Tolerance you will have to be tolerant and abide by rules.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> We are good parents and won't allow anyone to hurt our children. Tolerance you will have to be tolerant and abide by rules.


And if she kisses me back, or god forbid, kisses me first?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I love how you have all that nice Christian stuff taking about the lord and love as your signature but yet you just advocated for my murder. What a wonderful parent and example you are.


Rudy can be rather Old Testamental.... :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

[or was that just 'mental'?]

----------


## Roadmaster

> And if she kisses me back, or god forbid, kisses me first?


 My kids are not messed up in the head. My daughters would beat you half to death. We don't have to put up with you.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Rudy can be rather Old Testamental....
> 
> [or was that just 'mental'?]


 isn't that the only one you recognize.

----------


## metheron

There is nothing wrong with gay. They don't need to be fixed. They just want the same freedoms other people have. The freedom to love who they want openly without discrimination. Nothing wrong with that.

They aren't asking anyone else to be gay nor are they trying to force other people into being gay. Their affection for each other has nothing to do with you. 

The fact that people are so quick to hate and so willing to try to stop discrimination because of sexual orientation acting like heterosexuals haven't fucked up America good enough reflects more on the haters than it does people that just want to not be discriminated against.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> isn't that the only one you recognize.


I'm surprised you don't think I worship Auld Hornie! :Smiley20:

----------


## Roadmaster

> There is nothing wrong with gay.


 That's your opinion not mine.

----------


## metheron

> I love how you have all that nice Christian stuff taking about the lord and love as your signature but yet you just advocated for my murder. What a wonderful parent and example you are.


Their are many people that want to voice how 'Christian' they are while being very hateful and un-Christian like. We will all be judged someday. I would rather take my chances with love and acceptance over hate and discrimination anyday.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Taylor (03-30-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Hey FYI I kissed a girl today, several times actually, did it hurt you? Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family? Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? Yeaaah, no, it didn't affect you one fucking bit dude. Do you focus on other peoples lives to avoid focusing on yours? Just live your life, and leave mine and others alone.


You're a seriously messed up kid, lol... 

I'm a libertarian and couldn't care less who you're sleeping with, or doing what with whom - but, do you have any understanding whatsoever of how societies collapse??

Did they teach you any history at all in the government school you attended?? From your inability to answer a simple question about republics and democracies I know you don't understand much of anything about governmental systems - did they teach you anything about how previous societies collapsed?? Anything at all??

I do get a kick out of you, I'll say that... but at the same time it's sad that you haven't a clue of what's coming your way.

----------


## metheron

> That's your opinion not mine.


That is true.

----------


## Taylor

> My kids are not messed up in the head. My daughters would beat you half to death. We don't have to put up with you.


Do you think that I just walk around kissing random people???? I know this wouldn't happen obviously but What if your daughter rebelled or had feelings for me or someone else?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Do you think that I just walk around kissing random people???? I know this wouldn't happen obviously but What if your daughter rebelled or had feelings for me or someone else?


 It doesn't matter if you go around random kissing others to be honest I think you know what would happen if you tried. When you think we won't defend our kids from your group trying to tell them it's normal, thinking they can go into restrooms of the opposite sex, attack our Church buildings that 's when we will fight back. No my daughters are washed in the blood.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Tay, the Kissing Bandit! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Taylor (03-30-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Nothing can force you to pretend something. The law for what would be equal marriage doesn't force or affect you in any way unless you are to benefit from the law. You have no desire to benefit from it so just keep on living YOUR life and you'll have no worries.


By that warped logic I shouldn't be against child rape because I'm not a rapist or a child so it doesn't effect me.

The people should be able to govern the way they see fit and forcing us to accept your way of life as equal to race and gender or heterosexuality and not be forced to accept a lie from liberal judges who override our right to vote.

----------


## texmaster

> Hey FYI I kissed a girl today, several times actually, did it hurt you? Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family? Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? Yeaaah, no, it didn't affect you one fucking bit dude. Do you focus on other peoples lives to avoid focusing on yours? Just live your life, and leave mine and others alone.




Hey, some child was molested in Chicago today.   several times actually, did it hurt you?  Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family?  Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? 

This has to be the dumbest argument for your side.   Just because someone isn't personally effected doesn't invalidate their opinion.

----------


## Taylor

> By that warped logic I shouldn't be against child rape because I'm not a rapist or a child so it doesn't effect me.
> 
> The people should be able to govern the way they see fit and forcing us to accept your way of life as equal to race and gender or heterosexuality and not be forced to accept a lie from liberal judges who override our right to vote.


Me kissing another girl is not a crime and there is no victim. You raping a child is a crime and does have a victim.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Hey, some child was molested in Chicago today.   several times actually, did it hurt you?  Did it change you? Did it alter your world? Did it corrupt your family?  Did America start crumbling? Did society revolt? 
> 
> This has to be the dumbest argument for your side.   Just because someone isn't personally effected doesn't invalidate their opinion.


molesting a child is a crime genius and harms someone. Me kissing another girl is neither.

----------


## texmaster

> There is nothing wrong with gay. They don't need to be fixed. They just want the same freedoms other people have. The freedom to love who they want openly without discrimination. Nothing wrong with that.


That isn't what they are forcing on us.




> They aren't asking anyone else to be gay nor are they trying to force other people into being gay. Their affection for each other has nothing to do with you. 
> 
> The fact that people are so quick to hate and so willing to try to stop discrimination because of sexual orientation acting like heterosexuals haven't fucked up America good enough reflects more on the haters than it does people that just want to not be discriminated against.


You really need to end this BS if someone is against gay marriage that means they hate gays.   Its complete bullshit.

Let me ask you this.   Why should only 2 person adult homosexual couples be granted marriage over all other sexual preferences?   Explain yourself.   Every other sexual preference on the planet could use* your exact same argument.*

----------


## michaelr

> camps?


Death camps. It the sign of a sick mind.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Taylor (03-30-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> molesting a child is a crime genius and harms someone. Me kissing another girl is neither.


How do you know?   Did you speak to the child?     How do you know they didn't like it or want it?    Explain yourself.

You really need to read the Italian court case where a sick bastard molested a 11 year old girl and the courts excused it because they said she was "in love"

----------


## Taylor

> How do you know?   Did you speak to the child?     How do you know they didn't like it or want it?    Explain yourself.


A child cant consent to being molested. Are you seriously seriously trying to compare the two arguments?

----------


## michaelr

> There is a biological function all humans have when sexually stimulated. *The body prepares for natural procreation which requires heterosexual sex thus proving heterosexuality is genetic*.  Homosexuality has no basis in genetics because they also have the same  biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli. If their sexual preference  were genetically viable there would be no reason for them to produce  genetic material since the only method of natural delivery is through  heterosexual sex.   Because heterosexuality is genetic and proven to be  genetic it is on equal ground with race and gender 2 genetic traits  protected by law from the civil rights movement.  Homosexuality is not  genetic so it does not share that bond heterosexuality does with race  and gender.
> 
> The biological reaction to sexual stimuli in humans is the key.
> 
> And before liberals scream about procreation the facts behind the  argument is the reality that procreation proves heterosexuality is  genetic. *It does not require all married women to have children* merely to prove the genetic factual evidence of heterosexuality.
> 
> You have nothing that compares when looking at homosexuality. In fact  you have the direct opposite. Zero evidence of it being genetic which  means it cannot be equal to race or gender which invalidates any BS  claim that it is comparable to the real civil rights movement.
> 
> het·er·o·sex·u·al  (ht-r-sksh-l)
> ...


I don't defend homosexuality, but I have a couple questions.

Without Google, can you tell me about the inception of the marriage license?

Are you not Christian?

----------


## texmaster

> A child cant consent to being molested. Are you seriously seriously trying to compare the two arguments?


You are the one with the moronic argument that if it doesn't effect someone it should be allowed.

BTW, we aren't talking about you kissing a girl.  We are talking about your forcing us to change law to accept gay marriage

Try being honest about the comparison.

----------


## texmaster

> I don't defend homosexuality, but I have a couple questions.
> 
> Without Google, can you tell me about the inception of the marriage license?


What is the point of the question to my argument?




> Are you not Christian?


Yes.  Once again what is your point?   Are you going to address the scientific argument or just run away from it?

----------


## Taylor

> You are the one with the moronic argument that if it doesn't effect someone it should be allowed.
> 
> BTW, we aren't talking about you kissing a girl.  We are talking about your forcing us to change law to accept gay marriage
> 
> Try being honest about the comparison.


Two women or two men getting married do nothing to you or the country. Your disgust, anger, fear, and bigotry is your driving force. Sad, so sad.

----------


## michaelr

> What is the point of the question to my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once again what is your point?   Are you going to address the scientific argument or just run away from it?


The point is simple, you just have to know what you're talking about. Said that with respect.

The marriage license came about after the civil war, it was a bad idea then, and no better today. It was designed to prevent freed slaves and white marrying. So it was based on taking away a God given right, it still is. I'm LDS, and a problem I have with my religion is they support this discrimination, this after two shooting wars with the US government over polygamy. Seems radical to me.

You're Christian yet you and others believe you have the right to judge others. Excuse me, but I was taught that while not liking something, it's God's, and only God's right to pass moral judgement.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),metheron (03-31-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> You're a seriously messed up kid, lol... 
> 
> I'm a libertarian and couldn't care less who you're sleeping with, or doing what with whom - but, do you have any understanding whatsoever of how societies collapse??
> 
> Did they teach you any history at all in the government school you attended?? From your inability to answer a simple question about republics and democracies I know you don't understand much of anything about governmental systems - did they teach you anything about how previous societies collapsed?? Anything at all??
> 
> I do get a kick out of you, I'll say that... but at the same time it's sad that you haven't a clue of what's coming your way.


No i'm quite normal, and what's coming my way exactly?

----------


## texmaster

> Two women or two men getting married do nothing to you or the country. Your disgust, anger, fear, and bigotry is your driving force. Sad, so sad.


So you want to abolish laws that ban gay marriage yet you want to hide  behind laws that ban children from getting marriage based on nothing but  your own moral judgement.    Welcome to hypocrisy.

Your inability to formulate an argument to force us into accepting your sexual preference above all others makes my point.

You can't even make an argument for yourself.  How pathetic.

BTW, stop using the word bigot if you don't even know the definition of the word.   You are no less of a bigot than I.   The difference is I have no problem admitting it.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> So you want to abolish laws that ban gay marriage yet you want to hide  behind laws that ban children from getting marriage based on nothing but  your own moral judgement.    Welcome to hypocrisy.
> 
> Your inability to formulate an argument to force us into accepting your sexual preference above all others makes my point.
> 
> You can't even make an argument for yourself.  How pathetic.
> 
> BTW, stop using the word bigot if you don't even know the definition of the word.   You are no less of a bigot than I.   The difference is I have no problem admitting it.


yes abolish laws discriminating against "gay" marriage. Marriage is between consenting adults, it doesnt matter what their gender is. As for pedophiles fuck their needs or wants, they want to fuck children. You wont see me defend that act even if you are trying to in order to win your argument.

----------


## texmaster

> The point is simple, you just have to know what you're talking about. Said that with respect.


so you can't answer my question as to how its relevant to my argument.  No surprise there.




> The marriage license came about after the civil war, it was a bad idea then, and no better today. It was designed to prevent freed slaves and white marrying. So it was based on taking away a God given right, it still is. I'm LDS, and a problem I have with my religion is they support this discrimination, this after two shooting wars with the US government over polygamy. Seems radical to me.
> 
> You're Christian yet you and others believe you have the right to judge others. Excuse me, but I was taught that while not liking something, it's God's, and only God's right to pass moral judgement.


Again, nothing to do with my argument whatsoever.    Did I even mention marriage licenses anywhere or their history?   Nope.    Try actually addressing my argument which deals in science not religion on my side genius.

----------


## texmaster

> yes abolish laws discriminating against "gay" marriage. Marriage is between consenting adults, it doesnt matter what their gender is.


Again using your moral judgement as your guide just as those you hate who are against your claims of homosexual marriage.   Welcome again to hypocracy.




> As for pedophiles fuck their needs or wants, they want to fuck children. You wont see me defend that act even if you are trying to in order to win your argument.


And people say the exact same thing about your relationship.  So for you its ok to use moral judgements as long as they are yours and you can't even formulate an argument that explains why only 2 person adult homosexuals should be allowed to marry over all other sexual preferences.

Thanks for staying predictable.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Again using your moral judgement as your guide just as those you hate who are against your claims of homosexual marriage.   Welcome again to hypocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And people say the exact same thing about your relationship.  So for you its ok to use moral judgements as long as they are yours and you can't even formulate an argument that explains why only 2 person adult homosexuals should be allowed to marry over all other sexual preferences.
> 
> Thanks for staying predictable.


youre exhausting. Anyway, here's to looking forward to gay marriage being legal in a new state year after year with more and more people realizing it's fine.  :F Cheers:  You will lose/are losing and there's nothing you will be able to do about it. The country is becoming more and more ok with it. Sucks for you and people like you, but it's true.

----------

DavoPerv (04-06-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> so you can't answer my question as to how its relevant to my argument.  No surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nothing to do with my argument whatsoever.    Did I even mention marriage licenses anywhere or their history?   Nope.    Try actually addressing my argument which deals in science not religion on my side genius.


You're right, there is no surprise. I answered according to your wish, then you, and you're not alone, pull this.

Really? Did you have to mention a license? Some of you are kinda strange. Ever get married without a license pal? No! 

You thread only deals with science, as you put it, because nothing else has worked. Not everyone who marries wants or thinks of children, or procreation. Hows that?

----------

Taylor (03-30-2014)

----------


## catfish

> youre exhausting. Anyway, here's to looking forward to gay marriage being legal in a new state year after year with more and more people realizing it's fine.  You will lose/are losing and there's nothing you will be able to do about it. The country is becoming more and more ok with it. Sucks for you and people like you, but it's true.


sadly...this is the only thing with which I agree with you ....before you start feeling all triumphant and justified know this......the majority acceptance of depravity only signals the collapse of our society...then it will suck to be you because God willing I won't be around to see it.

----------

Matalese (03-31-2014),Perianne (03-31-2014)

----------


## Sentinel

> As for pedophiles fuck their needs or wants, they want to fuck children. You wont see me defend that act even if you are trying to in order to win your argument.


I didn't expect you to a sick pedophobe bigot.  It's none of your business if a boy and a man love each other, and if you refuse to sell them a man-boy wedding cake, your ignorant ass should be thrown in prison.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> You seriously think some fucked up camp can somehow pray the gay away don't you and change someones feelings for another person? God forbid you just, you know, leave people alone.


I have no problem leaving people alone... Just leave the definition of marriage alone as well and stop trying to force society to accept that behavior as normal when it isn't.

----------

Calypso Jones (03-31-2014),ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014),Perianne (03-31-2014),Rudy2D (04-01-2014),texmaster (03-31-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

exactly.

----------

ChoppedLiver (03-31-2014),texmaster (03-31-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I have no problem leaving people alone... Just leave the definition of marriage alone as well and stop trying to force society to accept that behavior as normal when it isn't.


I'm good with that, but we still have a Constitutional issue.  "Marriage" is a religious institution and the government should butt out.  The Federal government grants 1138 Federal rights and benefits to married couples.  This is unfair to gay couples and singles like me.  We need to eliminate those benefits.  If people want to get married, have children, whatever, fine, but don't make me pay for it.

Eliminate all unConstitutional Federal and State marriage benefits.  Stop the marriage and child welfare.   Make everyone pay the same amount of taxes.  Do that, and we won't have a "gay marriage" problem.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> I'm good with that, but we still have a Constitutional issue.  "Marriage" is a religious institution and the government should butt out.  The Federal government grants 1138 Federal rights and benefits to married couples.  This is unfair to gay couples and singles like me.  We need to eliminate those benefits.  If people want to get married, have children, whatever, fine, but don't make me pay for it.
> 
> Eliminate all unConstitutional Federal and State marriage benefits.  Stop the marriage and child welfare.   Make everyone pay the same amount of taxes.  Do that, and we won't have a "gay marriage" problem.


I don't have a problem with that if we do indeed change the tax laws. If we do not then I do think that married couples, traditional marriage, should get benefits for taking on the cost of propagating our society.

----------


## Taylor

> I don't have a problem with that if we do indeed change the tax laws. If we do not then I do think that married couples, traditional marriage, should get benefits for taking on the cost of propagating our society.


and what about traditional couples that are unable to have kids for whatever reason? Are they just supposed to be passed up too and reminded by the government every year or every paycheck that they can't have children? Does at least someone need to be shamed or excluded when it comes to marriage for some of you guys? Having children is voluntary and isnt a requirement for marriage or to be an american.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't have a problem with that if we do indeed change the tax laws. If we do not then I do think that married couples, traditional marriage, should get benefits for taking on the cost of propagating our society.


We have too many people now.  If we're going to be handing out benefits to anyone, it should be those who aren't so egomaniacal as to be obsessed with replicating themselves and telling everyone else to pay for it.

----------

Taylor (03-31-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> You're right, there is no surprise. I answered according to your wish, then you, and you're not alone, pull this.
> 
> Really? Did you have to mention a license? Some of you are kinda strange. Ever get married without a license pal? No! 
> 
> You thread only deals with science, as you put it, because nothing else has worked. Not everyone who marries wants or thinks of children, or procreation. Hows that?



obviously you didn't read my op where I said the facts of procreation that prove heterosexuality is genetic does not require children to make it true.

try again

----------


## michaelr

> obviously you didn't read my op where I said the facts of procreation that prove heterosexuality is genetic does not require children to make it true.
> 
> try again


Your premise is we shouldn't allow gay marriage, right? For what ever reason, it just should not be allowed.

----------


## Katzndogz

If someone wants to consider themselves married, it's none of my business.  It crosses the line when they want ME to consider them married.  When gays can command the servitude of business people into performing acts they don't want to perform, that crosses the line.  That's what shouldn't be allowed.

----------

Mgunner (04-01-2014),texmaster (03-31-2014)

----------


## Karl

> You're lucky that it were not my daughter that you kissed.  They'd never find your body.





> My kids are not messed up in the head. My daughters would beat you half to death. We don't have to put up with you.


 @Rudy2D and @roadmaster not the best way to express yourselves 

You have a right to disagree with @Tay but comments about Hypothetical murder and beatings Is just way over the top and really says something about your personalities to everybody on this board

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> @Rudy2D and @roadmaster not the best way to express yourselves 
> 
> You have a right to disagree with @Tay but comments about Hypothetical murder and beatings Is just way over the top and really says something about your personalities to everybody on this board


I agree, that was not cool. :Sad20:

----------

Karl (03-31-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Your premise is we shouldn't allow gay marriage, right? For what ever reason, it just should not be allowed.


As I said the scientific basis of equating homosexuality to proven genetic traits isn't there.  What part of that do you not understand?

----------


## michaelr

> As I said the scientific basis of equating homosexuality to proven genetic traits isn't there.  What part of that do you not understand?


Did you read your title? You know, titles are telling, wouldn't you agree? This isn't even my fight, I don't care about gay marriage per say, its a rights issue with me.

----------


## Karl

> As I said the scientific basis of equating homosexuality to proven genetic traits isn't there.  What part of that do you not understand?


Perhaps you should read this @texmaster instead of assuming to support your Failed Notion


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday 14 February 2014

An American study has found new evidence that male homosexuality is influenced by genes – but environmental and social factors also play a role.


In the study, which was presented at a Science of Sex and Attraction event in Chicago, scientists tested the DNA of more 400 sets of gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives, to find out if some men are predisposed to being gay.


Genetic factors account for between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the research.


Scientists found that a region of the X chromosome Xq28 had an impact on male sexuality, as did a stretch of DNA on chromosome 8.


Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, Illinois, who col-led the study said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.


“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”


The work has not yet been published, but it builds on a previous study carried out in 1993 by Dr Dean Hamer from the US National Cancer Institute, who also found that gay men shared genetic signatures on the X chromosome.


However, the findings of the study raise the prospect of a genetic test that could be used to determine a bay’s sexual orientation in the womb.


“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome,” Dr Bailey said.


“Clearly parents should not be allowed to torture or kill babies. But they can currently choose to terminate a pregnancy early on, so they should be allowed to have as much information on the future child as possible.”


But Dr Alan Sanders, clinical associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study, said that identifying a specifically “gay gene” was “oversimplification” .


“We also don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not.  And whatever genes contribute to sexual orientation, you can think of it contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to variation of a trait,” he said.


Last year, Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the more likely he is to be gay.


They said this is because carrying a boy in the womb triggers an immune response in the mother, which has an impact on the unborn baby’s sexual orientation.


The more boys a woman carries, the stronger the response.


Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.


“Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social,” he said.


Richard Lane, a spokesman for Stonewall, said: "These kinds of studies come along every so often; they purport to prove the origins of sexual orientation without really backing the research up.


"If someone is gay, then they deserve respect and equality regardless."



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9127683.html

----------


## Calypso Jones

> We have too many people now.  If we're going to be handing out benefits to anyone, it should be those who aren't so egomaniacal as to be obsessed with replicating themselves and telling everyone else to pay for it.


that's quite racist of you to a degree isn't it?   We know how many obamabots take advantage of the system.  I'm sure as hell we have other races doing it although I don't see Asians doing it.

----------


## texmaster

> Did you read your title? You know, titles are telling, wouldn't you agree? This isn't even my fight, I don't care about gay marriage per say, its a rights issue with me.



How is my title different from my statement?  Can you explain yourself?

----------


## texmaster

> Perhaps you should read this @texmaster instead of assuming to support your Failed Notion
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Friday 14 February 2014
> 
> An American study has found new evidence that male homosexuality is influenced by genes – but environmental and social factors also play a role.
> 
> ...


LOL an unpublished study that has a theory.  I will be glad to debunk this junk science when I get back from opening day but since the study isn't even published you are relying on nothing but your faith and beliefs that it's factual.  They don't even list the test group, how often it was found or how they eliminated environmental factors.  Thanks for staying predictable

----------


## Karl

Being gay could be in the DNA.

Scientists have found two stretches of DNA linked to homosexuality in men.


The confirmation of the existence of a ‘gay gene’ or genes will strengthen arguments that homosexuality is a matter of biology, rather than choice.


+2


The confirmation of the existence of a ¿gay gene¿ or genes will strengthen arguments that homosexuality is a matter of biology, rather than choice.




Other studies suggests that conditions in the womb also influence sexual orientation.


For instance, the more older male siblings a man has, the greater chance he will be gay.


Scientists say the phenomenon cannot be explained by the youngest boy being babied and mollycoddled or other differences in the way they are brought up.


It is thought that carrying a male baby in the womb triggers an immune response in the mother, creating antibodies that attack part of the unborn child's brain linked to sexual orientation.


This response gets stronger the more boys a woman carries, raising the odds of homosexuality.


Exposure to hormones in the womb is also likely to be important and some argue that upbringing plays a role in sexuality.


However, it also raises the prospect of a genetic test that could be used by insurance companies to discriminate against clients or by pregnant women to abort gay babies.


In the study, Chicago University researchers analysed the DNA of more than 400 pairs of gay brothers, recruited at Gay Pride festivals at marches over several years.





More...Just how racist is Twitter? Study finds 10,000 slurs a DAY posted on social networkWill self-organising robot ANTS build your next house? Researchers reveal first 'swarm' of mechanical construction crewsIs this the iPhone 6? Pictures claiming to show Apple's big screen handset posted to Twitter


This revealed flagged up two pieces of DNA that seem to be linked to homosexuality.


It is not known which of the many genes they contain are key or how they affect the development of sexual orientation.


However, the result, revealed at a science event in Chicago, backs up a contentious 1993 study.


That research, the first to find evidence of a ‘gay gene’, created a storm of controversy, which was further fuelled when other scientists failed to find a genetic link.


Dr Michael Bailey from Northwestern University in Illinois, who contributed to the latest study, said it is the biggest of its kind.


He added: ‘Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.


‘Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.’


Despite this, he would not would not object to a prenatal test being developed.


He said: ‘Clearly parents should not be allowed to torture or kill babies. But they can currently choose to terminate a pregnancy early on, so they should be allowed to have as much information on the future child as possible.’






Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2xYe9DuGK 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## michaelr

> How is my title different from my statement?  Can you explain yourself?


The words 'defeating gay marriage' seems to be a term for a battle. Your opinions certainly count, I just don't see it this way. Like I said texmaster, not my fight. Been married and raising kids all my adult life. In fact, I am currently raising my granddaughter. 

Have fun, sorry to throw a kink in your thread.

----------


## Karl

> LOL an unpublished study that has a theory.  I will be glad to debunk this junk science when I get back from opening day but since the study isn't even published you are relying on nothing but your faith and beliefs that it's factual.  They don't even list the test group, how often it was found or how they eliminated environmental factors.  Thanks for staying predictable


You wont debunk it because you cant and I linked my source

There are Genetic Traits to homosexuality based upon DNA studes although It states that genetics only play a 30 to 40 percent role and that other factors play into the equation as well

Nonetheless they prove you to be a "liar"

Anyhow @texmaster you continue living your life in constant fear of gay people

----------


## texmaster

> The words 'defeating gay marriage' seems to be a term for a battle. Your opinions certainly count, I just don't see it this way. Like I said texmaster, not my fight. Been married and raising kids all my adult life. In fact, I am currently raising my granddaughter. 
> 
> Have fun, sorry to throw a kink in your thread.


You didn't do anything to my thread except live up to having no argument against mine.

----------


## texmaster

> You wont debunk it because you cant and I linked my source
> 
> There are Genetic Traits to homosexuality based upon DNA studes although It states that genetics only play a 30 to 40 percent role and that other factors play into the equation as well
> 
> Nonetheless they prove you to be a "liar"
> 
> Anyhow @texmaster you continue living your life in constant fear of gay people



LOL what part of unpublished do you not understand?

----------


## texmaster

> Being gay could be in the DNA.
> 
> Scientists have found two stretches of DNA linked to homosexuality in men.
> 
> 
> The confirmation of the existence of a ‘gay gene’ or genes will strengthen arguments that homosexuality is a matter of biology, rather than choice.
> 
> 
> +2
> ...



"Could be" is not factual.   Do read more carefully.   You lost in your first sentence lol

----------


## michaelr

> You didn't do anything to my thread except live up to having no argument against mine.


I don't always argue. Like I said, not my fight.

----------


## texmaster

> I don't always argue. Like I said, not my fight.


So you are admitting you can't argue against my op.  So why are you here?   I accept your defeat

----------


## michaelr

> So you are admitting you can't argue against my op.  So why are you here?   I accept your defeat


Oh good Lord, what is it with some of you. Do you not understand NOT MY FIGHT? What do you want from me?

----------


## Karl

> Oh good Lord, what is it with some of you. Do you not understand NOT MY FIGHT? What do you want from me?


Dont worry @michaelr and dont waster your time

 @texmaster Is the type of guy who willfully dismisses any facts he doesnt like if they do not support his crusade againsts gays and he then proclaims victory and runs around in circles

Its like arguing with a brick wall and these discussions usually go nowhere

----------

michaelr (03-31-2014)

----------


## Karl

> LOL what part of unpublished do you not understand?


Excuse me it is in one of the largest Newspapers in the world just because you dont like what it says does not change the results or the facts

Nice try but too bad

----------


## texmaster

> You wont debunk it because you cant and I linked my source
> 
> There are Genetic Traits to homosexuality based upon DNA studes although It states that genetics only play a 30 to 40 percent role and that other factors play into the equation as well
> 
> Nonetheless they prove you to be a "liar"
> 
> Anyhow @texmaster you continue living your life in constant fear of gay people


You can link your source all you like.  Read what you quoted

 [I]Our findings [b]suggest [\b]there [b]may be[\b] genes at play*[\I]


lol. The study itself admits they can't prove their findings. 

Game. Set. Match.   Hahhaahaha

----------

Rudy2D (04-01-2014)

----------


## catfish

> You can link your source all you like.  Read what you quoted
> 
>  [I]Our findings [b]suggest [\b]there [b]may be[\b] genes at play*[\I]
> 
> 
> lol. The study itself admits they can't prove their findings. 
> 
> Game. Set. Match.   Hahhaahaha


I guess their computer model sucks...

----------

texmaster (04-01-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Excuse me it is in one of the largest Newspapers in the world just because you dont like what it says does not change the results or the facts
> 
> Nice try but too bad



LOL next time I suggest you actually read the study before embarrassing yourself again.  Start by understanding basic words like may be and suggest.  Got news for you junior, they aren't facts.  Lol

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If someone wants to consider themselves married, it's none of my business.  It crosses the line when they want ME to consider them married.  When gays can command the servitude of business people into performing acts they don't want to perform, that crosses the line.  That's what shouldn't be allowed.


Were you married in the XYZ church?  If not, then I don't considered you married.  So what?  How does that affect my life now that we both know I consider you and your husband living in sin and any children you have to be bastards?  What does my opinion change in you and your religious beliefs change in me?  Why is it any of my fucking business anyway?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> that's quite racist of you to a degree isn't it?   We know how many obamabots take advantage of the system.  I'm sure as hell we have other races doing it although I don't see Asians doing it.


You're the one who is taking this racially.....and we all know why, don't we, Jonesy?  :Big Grin: 

I think we have too many people period. What their races are is irrelevant.

----------


## Karl

http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution...may-start-womb

Homosexuality May Start in the Womb

By: 


Elizabeth Norton


2012-12-11 16:45


Posted In: 


Biology,


Evolution


From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, homosexuality shouldn't still be around. It isn't the best way to pass along one's genes, and to complicate the picture further, no "gay genes" have even been identified. According to a newly released hypothesis, the explanation may not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This tug of war benefits the unborn child, keeping male or female development on a steady course even amid spikes in hormones. But if these so-called epigenetic changes persist once the child is born and has children of its own, some of those offspring may be homosexual, the study proposes.


Evolutionary geneticist William Rice of the University of California, Santa Barbara, felt there had to be a reason why homosexuality didn't just fade away down the generations. Research estimates that about 8% of the population is gay, and homosexuality is known to run in families. If one of a set of identical twins is gay, there's a 20% probability that the other will be, too.


Furthermore, Rice notes, "homosexuality isn't just a human thing." Among California gulls, which he watches from his office window, about 14% of pairs are female-female. In Australian black swans, some 6% of pairs are male-male, and 8% of male sheep are attracted exclusively to male partners.


But many genetic screens have failed to turn up genes that are responsible for sexual orientation. So to find out what makes homosexuality persist, Rice and colleagues began a comprehensive survey of the literature.


According to conventional wisdom, an embryo becomes a boy when a gene on the Y chromosome triggers the development of testes, which then begin to produce male sex hormones, including testosterone, at about the 8th week of gestation. With no Y chromosome and hence no testosterone, the embryo becomes a girl.


But testosterone doesn't explain everything, the researchers found. For one thing, female fetuses are exposed to small amounts of the hormone from their adrenal glands, the placenta, and the mother's endocrine system. At many key points of gestation, male and female fetuses are often exposed to similar amounts of testosterone. Levels of the hormone can even be higher than normal in females and lower than normal in males without any effect on genital or brain structure.


Rice and his co-workers were more intrigued by studies showing that male and female fetuses respond differently to the hormones that surround them, even when one hormone is temporarily higher. In their study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, the authors propose that differences in sensitivity to sex hormones result from "epigenetic" changes. These are changes that affect not the structure of a gene but when, if, and how much of it is activated—by chemically altering a gene's promoter region or "on" switch, for example. Epigenetic changes at key points in the pathway through which testosterone exerts its effects on the fetus could blunt or enhance the hormone's activity as needed, the authors suggest.


Although epigenetic changes are usually temporary, they involve alterations in the proteins that bind together the long strands of DNA. Thus, they can sometimes be handed down to offspring. According to the hypothesis, homosexuality may be a carry-over from one's parents' own prenatal resistance to the hormones of the opposite sex. The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, may alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference. "These epigenetic changes protect mom and dad during their own early development," Rice says. The initial benefit to the parents may explain why the trait of homosexuality persists throughout evolution, he says.


"The authors have done a terrific job providing a mechanism for genetic variation, especially a variation that might not be expected to persist because it's so tightly bound to reproduction," says evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. But she adds that to go from changes in gene expression to why someone is attracted to a person of the same sex is a question for which science may never fill in all the blanks.


Pos

----------


## Karl

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211083212.htm


Credit: iStockphoto


[Click to enlarge image]


Epigenetics -- how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks -- appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.


According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.


From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.


In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.


Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out -- when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carry over between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.


Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.


The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.


"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.


The paper's other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

----------


## metheron

> That isn't what they are forcing on us.
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to end this BS if someone is against gay marriage that means they hate gays.   Its complete bullshit.
> 
> Let me ask you this.   Why should only 2 person adult homosexual couples be granted marriage over all other sexual preferences?   Explain yourself.   Every other sexual preference on the planet could use* your exact same argument.*


Read the thread and show me where the love and acceptance is.

You'll have to be more specific. Which sexual preferences are you referring to?

----------


## metheron

> So you want to abolish laws that ban gay marriage yet you want to hide  behind laws that ban children from getting marriage based on nothing but  your own moral judgement.    Welcome to hypocrisy.
> 
> Your inability to formulate an argument to force us into accepting your sexual preference above all others makes my point.
> 
> You can't even make an argument for yourself.  How pathetic.
> 
> BTW, stop using the word bigot if you don't even know the definition of the word.   You are no less of a bigot than I.   The difference is I have no problem admitting it.


No one is trying to change the age of legal consent. If you want to make that argument, if you feel strongly enough about man-child marriage, that's a whole other thread.

But go ahead and start it, I would love to hear why you believe adults should be able to wed children.

----------


## metheron

> sadly...this is the only thing with which I agree with you ....before you start feeling all triumphant and justified know this......the majority acceptance of depravity only signals the collapse of our society...then it will suck to be you because God willing I won't be around to see it.


Society has been collapsing for years. Morals and family life has been on the decline for years. You really can't argue that straight couples have really set a good moral example. I would love to hear that. No, really, I would.

----------


## metheron

> I have no problem leaving people alone... Just leave the definition of marriage alone as well and stop trying to force society to accept that behavior as normal when it isn't.


What does marriage and the U.S. Constitution have in common? Marriage is a religious ceremony. How can you, Constitutionally, show how the government should play any role in it? Why would the government, one of the most corrupt bodies in America, set a definition of whats moral and not? 

No one is trying to get anyone to accept behavior. No one is asking for public gay liasions. They are asking for the right to wed. If the church is ok with it, what power is given to the government to say otherwise. The government don't belong in our bedrooms.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> No one is trying to change the age of legal consent. If you want to make that argument, if you feel strongly enough about man-child marriage, that's a whole other thread.
> 
> But go ahead and start it, I would love to hear why you believe adults should be able to wed children.


 They want it at 13.

----------

texmaster (04-01-2014)

----------


## metheron

> They want it at 13.


Who wants what at 13?

----------


## Rudy2D

> I love how you have all that nice Christian stuff taking about the lord and love as your signature but yet you just advocated for my murder. What a wonderful parent and example you are.


I'm not one of those guys who minds taking out the trash.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm not one of those guys who minds taking out the trash.


It's murder and God will judge you accordingly.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They want it at 13.


It's been as low as 14 in some states.  Still, I seriously doubt any state will agree to that "traditional" age.

----------


## Sentinel

> http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution...may-start-womb
> 
> Homosexuality May Start in the Womb


KarlChiders, are you a sodomite?  Why do you keep posting stupid homosexual propaganda, as if you bullshit detector is completely broken?

----------

ChoppedLiver (04-01-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> and what about traditional couples that are unable to have kids for whatever reason? Are they just supposed to be passed up too and reminded by the government every year or every paycheck that they can't have children? Does at least someone need to be shamed or excluded when it comes to marriage for some of you guys? Having children is voluntary and isnt a requirement for marriage or to be an american.


Traditional couples that don't have kids don't get tax breaks for them. There are benefits to society for men and women to marry. Stability in the community etc. I have no problem extending some of those tax benefits to same sex couples but how do you differentiate between two men that are roommates and two men that live together as a couple. If we simplify the tax code, provide breaks for those with kids, then the legal ramifications are resolved. Marriage should no longer be an issue for LGBTs. Now, I can guarantee you that it still will be because the goal isn't legal protection/benefits...it's normalizing homosexuality in our society.

----------


## Mgunner

> We have too many people now.  If we're going to be handing out benefits to anyone, it should be those who aren't so egomaniacal as to be obsessed with replicating themselves and telling everyone else to pay for it.


Horseshit... No one pays for the tax breaks parents get for having kids. We just get less tax revenues from those sources. We WANT to incentivize specific behaviors in society. Marriage between a man and woman is one such behavior.

----------


## Mgunner

> What does marriage and the U.S. Constitution have in common? Marriage is a religious ceremony. How can you, Constitutionally, show how the government should play any role in it? Why would the government, one of the most corrupt bodies in America, set a definition of whats moral and not? 
> 
> No one is trying to get anyone to accept behavior. No one is asking for public gay liasions. They are asking for the right to wed. If the church is ok with it, what power is given to the government to say otherwise. The government don't belong in our bedrooms.


The Federal government shouldn't have ANY say in the legal construct that is marriage. When I got married I went to my county court house to apply for a license to Marry. I don't give a shit what anyone does in their bedroom but I do care about how we define socially acceptable relationships in the public square. Marriage is one of those definitions and it is very specific just as other toes of relationships are defined very specifically. This isn't about religion directly. It is about protecting the traditional family structure. You said in another post that morals and family values have been declining for years. I would suggest that the major cause of this has been progressive policy around welfare, feminism, abortion, and the demonization of Christianity in western society by the rabid left. It's time to undue the damage that has been done by promoting the traditional family not destroying it.

----------

metheron (04-01-2014)

----------


## Karl

> KarlChiders, are you a sodomite?  Why do you keep posting stupid homosexual propaganda, as if you bullshit detector is completely broken?


Neither @Sentinel

I will always Bitchslap narrow minded ignorance whenever and wherever it shows its ugly face

You can Not honestly stand for Freedom and Liberty when you seek to use law and government to deny fair and equal rights to others 

Frankly I fear Your Kind more than I fear OBAMA

----------


## texmaster

> Oh good Lord, what is it with some of you. Do you not understand NOT MY FIGHT? What do you want from me?


*Honest* debate.  Don't run away because your argument failed.  Admit it and move on.

----------


## texmaster

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211083212.htm
> 
> .


I apprecaite you being so painfully predictable.  From my OP,

*I've seen just about every single study on homosexuality being  genetic  and the most common words found in every single one are "could  be"  "suggests"  "possible"  and "scientists believe"*

Every single junk science study you have linked to uses those exact words.    Theories are not facts.   You really need to learn the distinction between the two.

Again:

*Challenge to all gay advocates:*   Find any study, ANY STUDY   that says they have conclusively found the gay gene and have found it  in  even 60% of the gays they test over 100 while eliminating any   possibility environment plays a role.

None of your links even comes close to that challenge.   I accept your defeat.

----------


## texmaster

> Read the thread and show me where the love and acceptance is.
> 
> You'll have to be more specific. Which sexual preferences are you referring to?


I've already answered this question twice.   Two easy ones are polygamy and pedophilia.  Both of those can easily use the exact same argument.

Don't try to hide behind consent law when you want to abolish laws that ban gay marriage unless you want to enter Hypocrisyland again

----------


## Karl

> I apprecaite you being so painfully predictable.  From my OP,
> 
> *I've seen just about every single study on homosexuality being  genetic  and the most common words found in every single one are "could  be"  "suggests"  "possible"  and "scientists believe"*
> 
> Every single junk science study you have linked to uses those exact words.    Theories are not facts.   You really need to learn the distinction between the two.
> 
> Again:
> 
> *Challenge to all gay advocates:*   Find any study, ANY STUDY   that says they have conclusively found the gay gene and have found it  in  even 60% of the gays they test over 100 while eliminating any   possibility environment plays a role.
> ...


You and your "kind" is even closer to a "permanent" DEFEAT when the courts hand down a ruling so enjoy that pretend victory within your mind


 @texmaster

----------


## texmaster

> No one is trying to change the age of legal consent. If you want to make that argument, if you feel strongly enough about man-child marriage, that's a whole other thread.
> 
> But go ahead and start it, I would love to hear why you believe adults should be able to wed children.


I can use the gay marriage arguments as I have said.

_They have a right to marry.

People who love each other should be able to marry who they want._
_
The right to marry is granted in the 14th amendment._


Do I need to produce the top gay marriage advocate websites that make those exact same arguments to embarrass your further?

----------


## texmaster

> You and your "kind" is even closer to a "permanent" DEFEAT when the courts hand down a ruling so enjoy that pretend victory within your mind
> 
> 
>  @texmaster


Couldn't do it could you Karl.   I accept your defeat once again.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Horseshit... *No one pays for the tax breaks parents get for having kids.* We just get less tax revenues from those sources. We WANT to incentivize specific behaviors in society. Marriage between a man and woman is one such behavior.


I pay over $2000 per year in school taxes yet I have no children of my own.  I'm subsidizing the parents who chose to have kids.  Less kids, less school taxes.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Karl (04-01-2014)

----------


## metheron

> The Federal government shouldn't have ANY say in the legal construct that is marriage. When I got married I went to my county court house to apply for a license to Marry. I don't give a shit what anyone does in their bedroom but I do care about how we define socially acceptable relationships in the public square. Marriage is one of those definitions and it is very specific just as other toes of relationships are defined very specifically. This isn't about religion directly. It is about protecting the traditional family structure. You said in another post that morals and family values have been declining for years. I would suggest that the major cause of this has been progressive policy around welfare, feminism, abortion, and the demonization of Christianity in western society by the rabid left. It's time to undue the damage that has been done by promoting the traditional family not destroying it.


You say how WE define socially acceptable relationships. Who do you mean by 'we'? Because the majority of people in this country seem to support gay marriage/gay rights and yet you are unwilling to accept that. So who is we?

The traditional family destroyed itself by the heads of it not keeping their pants on. If you really wanted to support strong family morals why not bring back strict infidelity laws? That would be a good start.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),ManilaFolder (04-01-2014)

----------


## metheron

> I can use the gay marriage arguments as I have said.
> 
> _They have a right to marry.
> 
> People who love each other should be able to marry who they want._
> _
> The right to marry is granted in the 14th amendment._
> 
> 
> Do I need to produce the top gay marriage advocate websites that make those exact same arguments to embarrass your further?


I'm not embarrassed. I can even side with you in theory. Doesn't change anything though. Until you argue changing the legal consent age is doesn't matter. That is the discussion there. You would have to argue that kids can get credit cards, drive, vote, etc.........I really don't think that you will get much support for that.

I mean you can't say they are unable to give legal consent and still marry. Catch up buddy, apples and oranges here.

----------


## metheron

> I've already answered this question twice.   Two easy ones are polygamy and pedophilia.  Both of those can easily use the exact same argument.
> 
> Don't try to hide behind consent law when you want to abolish laws that ban gay marriage unless you want to enter Hypocrisyland again


I'm fine with polygamy. I mean you think you know whats good for you, why wouldn't those other adults. 

Big difference between consenting adults and kids. If you don't know the difference I suggest you stay away from middle schools.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> Neither @Sentinel
> 
> I will always Bitchslap narrow minded ignorance whenever and wherever it shows its ugly face
> 
> You can Not honestly stand for Freedom and Liberty when you seek to use law and government to deny fair and equal rights to others 
> 
> Frankly I fear Your Kind more than I fear OBAMA


Well now right there is the problem. Marriage has a very specific role and meaning in western society. There are many legal examples where certain subgroups of people don't get to participate in an activity under the law. Driving a car, drinking in a bar, serving In the military, marrying your sister, marrying more than one person, are all examples where people are NOT treated equally. Society determines where and when equality applies. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. We should not have to redefine the definition just to appease less than 5% of the population that is hellbent on getting married just so they can force normalization of their behavior on the rest of us. It isn't marriage, it isn't normal. Now... Are the legal solutions available that could make same sex folks whole from a benefits perspective? Certainly but they would be damn hard to prevent fraud under our current structure.  Just because claims they aren't bring treated equally doesn't mean that they should be treated equally. Especially when by definition they aren't in a situation that would place them on equal footing. Marriage is a privilege regulated by the State... No one has a right to it. Therefore equality doesn't mean shit in the scenario.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Marriage is a privilege regulated by the State... No one has a right to it.


Disagreed on both points.  

What a state does is sanction marriages under certain laws.  You can marry the love of your life in the eyes of God and be married.  However, unless the State recognizes your marriage, then laws of survivorship and whether or not your spouse can see you over the objections of family members in the event you are incapacitated come into play.  

The problem of "gay marriage" is that two things are being mixed:  the institution of marriage and the laws under our Constitution.  Government should not be involved in the former and it should only restrict itself to the latter.   Ergo, as long as gays have equal access to the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted straight married couples, then government should butt the fuck out.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Death camps. It the sign of a sick mind.


If you're that stupid to advocate for such a thing, well, so be it.

 :Cool:

----------


## Sentinel

> I can use the [Pedophile] marriage arguments as I have said.
> 
> _They have a right to marry.
> 
> People who love each other should be able to marry who they want._
> _
> The right to marry is granted in the 14th amendment._


Pervert.

----------

texmaster (04-01-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> I pay over $2000 per year in school taxes yet I have no children of my own.  I'm subsidizing the parents who chose to have kids.  Less kids, less school taxes.


Really? You are paying a school tax? Can you link to the code for that school tax? In my experience people that own property pay property taxes that cover a wide variety of local programs including school costs. Are there children living in your home that aren't your own?

----------


## Mgunner

> You say how WE define socially acceptable relationships. Who do you mean by 'we'? Because the majority of people in this country seem to support gay marriage/gay rights and yet you are unwilling to accept that. So who is we?
> 
> The traditional family destroyed itself by the heads of it not keeping their pants on. If you really wanted to support strong family morals why not bring back strict infidelity laws? That would be a good start.


We as in society... I am sure you can dig up tons of surveys that say that Americans are in favor of gay marriage. When you do I will point to the States that have protected the definition of marriage or outright banned gay marriage including that leftwing Mecca California. 

The he traditional family was destroyed when the war on poverty made it acceptable, heck even in outraged people, to be on welfare.

----------


## Mgunner

> Disagreed on both points.  
> 
> What a state does is sanction marriages under certain laws.  You can marry the love of your life in the eyes of God and be married.  However, unless the State recognizes your marriage, then laws of survivorship and whether or not your spouse can see you over the objections of family members in the event you are incapacitated come into play.  
> 
> The problem of "gay marriage" is that two things are being mixed:  the institution of marriage and the laws under our Constitution.  Government should not be involved in the former and it should only restrict itself to the latter.   Ergo, as long as gays have equal access to the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted straight married couples, then government should butt the fuck out.


You can be married in a ceremony lead by two mules and a horse but that doesn't make it legit. 

There are rights granted to certain people that are not granted to others all over the place that are designed to incentivize certain behavior. Businesses get to write off equipment as an incentive for growing the company and yet I don't get to write off my cars or my lawn mower since I don't own my business. Why? Because that is how business laws are designed. Why? Because there is a benefit to our economy and our society when businesses thrive. We, as in society, pass laws that benefit some folks over others because we wasn't to encourage certain behavior and discourage others. Personally I think we should force the a Fed to stick to enumerated powers, rip out the 14th as well as several other amendments and let the States legislate the things that they were intended to legislate originally but until then we must make decisions that promote rather than tear down.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We as in society...* I am sure you can dig up tons of surveys that say that Americans are in favor of gay marriage.* When you do I will point to the States that have protected the definition of marriage or outright banned gay marriage including that leftwing Mecca California. 
> 
> The he traditional family was destroyed when the war on poverty made it acceptable, heck even in outraged people, to be on welfare.


Surveys are great, but people get into trouble (and surveys get a bad rap) when they are misused for political purposes.

I think most Americans understand the difference between tolerating other views and condoning those views.  I think most Americans understand the wisdom of the maxim, "Live and Let Live".   In that regard, like me, while they may not want to participate in gay parades, go to gay bars or clap and throw rice at gay weddings, they understand the need to support our Constitution rather than weakening it.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I'm fine with polygamy. I mean you think you know whats good for you, why wouldn't those other adults. 
> 
> Big difference between consenting adults and kids. If you don't know the difference I suggest you stay away from middle schools.


 So you want to change all laws of marriage. Christians take marriage serious and so does the Bible. Has nothing to do with kids even tho some do have them. Jesus said a man and woman become one. Churches that deviate from what He taught  I have no use for. He will never recognize their marriage and to tell them different is a lie.

----------


## texmaster

> I'm not embarrassed. I can even side with you in theory. Doesn't change anything though. Until you argue changing the legal consent age is doesn't matter. That is the discussion there. You would have to argue that kids can get credit cards, drive, vote, etc.........I really don't think that you will get much support for that.
> 
> I mean you can't say they are unable to give legal consent and still marry. Catch up buddy, apples and oranges here.


Wrong again because you can't give me any justification to undo the majority of states that have laws banning gay marriage.   That's the point.

You want to ban some laws that ban marriages you like while hiding behind laws that ban marriages you do like.

Either you believe in laws voted on by the people and their representatives or you don't.

You can't have it both ways Metheron.

----------

metheron (04-01-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Surveys are great, but people get into trouble (and surveys get a bad rap) when they are misused for political purposes.
> 
> I think most Americans understand the difference between tolerating other views and condoning those views.  I think most Americans understand the wisdom of the maxim, "Live and Let Live".   In that regard, like me, while they may not want to participate in gay parades, go to gay bars or clap and throw rice at gay weddings, they understand the need to support our Constitution rather than weakening it.


You keep making an argument against no one.

This isn't about live and let live.  This is about forcing people to accept by force of law through activist judges their form of marriage bypassing the people's right to vote.

If you truly believed in supporting the Constitution you would not be for reinterpreting Constitutional amendments to include sexual preferences never referenced or mentioned.   You would be pursing an Amendment for gay marriage just as slavery didn't try to reinterpret "all men are created equal"

But you don't so no you don't support the Constitution.  You support weakening it by reinterpreting laws written centuries earlier to include your political agenda instead of creating new amendments as the history of the Constitutions has done since the country's founding to deal with new situations.  But you know you don't have the votes which is why you don't pursue it.

----------


## michaelr

> *Honest* debate.  Don't run away because your argument failed.  Admit it and move on.


You're a troll!

----------


## michaelr

> If you're that stupid to advocate for such a thing, well, so be it.


Yea gee bright guy putting words in my mouth.....

----------


## texmaster

> You're a troll!


I understand you can't debate the facts that's why you have nothing left but name calling.  A sure sign of a defeated opponent.

Keep on running away Mikey.   Its what you do best.

----------


## michaelr

> I understand you can't debate the facts that's why you have nothing left but name calling.  A sure sign of a defeated opponent.
> 
> Keep on running away Mikey.   Its what you do best.


You never say anything. I can't debate stupid nothing. Say something for once you intelligently lazy mofo! You're an idot!!!!!

----------


## michaelr

Now this idiot is going to repeat himself.

----------


## texmaster

> You never say anything. I can't debate stupid nothing. Say something for once you intelligently lazy mofo! You're an idot!!!!!


My argument is based in science.   You couldn't debate a single point I made from the factual biological sexual reaction in humans to a laughable lack of evidence proving homosexuality is genetic.

Every time you jump up and down name calling like a 4 year old you prove my point.   You've got nothing to bring to the debate.

Go ahead, name call some more and run away from the science like you always do.

----------


## michaelr

> My argument is based in science.   You couldn't debate a single point I made from the factual biological sexual reaction in humans to a laughable lack of evidence proving homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> Every time you jump up and down name calling like a 4 year old you prove my point.   You've got nothing to bring to the debate.
> 
> Go ahead, name call some more and run away from the science like you always do.


Still going on about nothing, it's not my fight asshole! Yourself is a boner!

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I'm not one of those guys who minds taking out the trash.


It's no surprise that some of you would be all too willing to assist in carrying out a final solution.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> Still going on about nothing, it's not my fight asshole! Yourself is a bonner!


I accept your defeat once again Mikey.

----------


## michaelr

> I accept your defeat once again Mikey.


Suck my de-feet.

----------


## Invayne

> Suck my de-feet.


Can I suck your toe bone?

----------

michaelr (04-01-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Can I suck your toe bone?


Oh yeah....

----------


## Invayne

Well, THAT shut it up.... :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

OK, let me see what this thread is about now...LOL...I couldn't resist...CARRY ON!

----------

michaelr (04-01-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Can I suck your toe bone?


Ask this guy. He's younger...

Attachment 3289

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> Ask this guy. He's younger...
> 
> Attachment 3289


Heh...I'm not looking for youth, I'm looking for size.

He does look like one of my ex's though....

----------


## metheron

> Wrong again because you can't give me any justification to undo the majority of states that have laws banning gay marriage.   That's the point.
> 
> You want to ban some laws that ban marriages you like while hiding behind laws that ban marriages you do like.
> 
> Either you believe in laws voted on by the people and their representatives or you don't.
> 
> You can't have it both ways Metheron.


Discrimination is a federal issue. I believe that if some states wanted to bring slavery back we shouldn't support that either, just because the state wants it.

I support states doing what they want, within the law. Marriage is not a states right issue, nor is it a federal issue. Marriage is a religious issue. 

Where have I said we should have laws banning any marriage? I have not supported any laws banning marriage between two consenting adults. If your comment was about children, thats just asinine and not even worth discussing.

The validation between undoing those laws is easy, discrimination. If you don't think it is discrimination then provide me with your definition of it.

My view has been clear and consistent. 

Do you support strict adultery laws and possibly outlawing divorce? Or at least getting rid of no-fault divorce?

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> He does look like one of my ex's though....


LOL! He looks like someone I've seen. Quite recently, in fact. I had no desire to suck the toes on either of them though .

 :Cool:

----------


## michaelr

> LOL! He looks like someone I've seen. Quite recently, in fact. I had no desire to suck the toes on either of them though .


You get your toes sucked by homos? Weird!

----------


## metheron

> So you want to change all laws of marriage. Christians take marriage serious and so does the Bible. Has nothing to do with kids even tho some do have them. Jesus said a man and woman become one. Churches that deviate from what He taught  I have no use for. He will never recognize their marriage and to tell them different is a lie.


I think marriage should not be reserved for the religious. I think it should be available to all consenting adults whether God would agree with it or not. This is a nation based on laws, not Christianity, whether you like it or not.

Must not be many Christians getting married these days what with the divorce rate so high. Do you support strict adultery laws and getting rid of divorce? Especially since that stuff don't normally apply to Christians anyway since they take it so serious and all?

I support the church not being forced to marry anyone that they don't believe in marrying, but that the state provide an outlet for people to marry outside of the church.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),michaelr (04-01-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> No one needs to tolerate it. The perversion of fagism needs to be "closeted" or quarantined.


Or round up and shot? Is that what you want?

----------

michaelr (04-01-2014)

----------


## metheron

> We as in society... I am sure you can dig up tons of surveys that say that Americans are in favor of gay marriage. When you do I will point to the States that have protected the definition of marriage or outright banned gay marriage including that leftwing Mecca California. 
> 
> The he traditional family was destroyed when the war on poverty made it acceptable, heck even in outraged people, to be on welfare.


I think what you are going to see is them being overturned due to discrimination or people changing their vote. And you will support that then?

Do you support strict adultery laws and getting rid of divorce to protect traditional values? You seem to blame the demise of traditional values on everyone else except heterosexual married couples. Seems pretty narrow minded.

----------


## GreenEyedLady

okay guys, enough with the foot fetishes or I'm going to have to put on the high heels and grab my whip!

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> The whole homo debate comes down to two camps
> 
> people who are gay or have friends and family who are
> 
> and the rest of us


I think it's a NON issue, myself. WTF is up with you people wanting to run other peoples' lives? Are they bothering you or fucking up your life in any way???

And no, that is not directed at you, Catfish. ;-)

----------

metheron (04-01-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Originally Posted by *ChoppedLiver* 				 No one needs to tolerate it. The perversion of fagism needs to be "closeted" or quarantined.





> Or round up and shot? Is that what you want?


Closeted or quarantined will do.

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> I don't hate nothing. It's just a disgusting problem that needs to be taken care of by ALL means necessary for the sake of America.


And I see police brutality and the stinking NSA as a disgusting problem that needs to be taken care of by ANY and ALL means necessary for the sake of America. THEY are the ones destroying this country, not your "fag" couple that's minding their own fucking business and hurting NO ONE. Jeezus...

----------


## Taylor

> Closeted or quarantined will do.


Fucking disgusting

----------


## Invayne

> You're a seriously messed up kid, lol... 
> 
> I'm a libertarian and couldn't care less who you're sleeping with, or doing what with whom - but, do you have any understanding whatsoever of how societies collapse??
> 
> Did they teach you any history at all in the government school you attended?? From your inability to answer a simple question about republics and democracies I know you don't understand much of anything about governmental systems - did they teach you anything about how previous societies collapsed?? Anything at all??
> 
> I do get a kick out of you, I'll say that... but at the same time it's sad that you haven't a clue of what's coming your way.


What makes you think that a lesbian or homosexual can't understand anything about governmental systems? What does that have to do with anything? :Dontknow:

----------


## Invayne

> I didn't expect you to a sick pedophobe bigot.  It's none of your business if a boy and a man love each other, and if you refuse to sell them a man-boy wedding cake, your ignorant ass should be thrown in prison.


Stupidest shit I've seen in a long time...... :Geez:

----------

Taylor (04-01-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Fucking disgusting


Yes. Fags are fucking disgusting. That fact has already been established as we have discussed that in some detail.

 :Cool:

----------


## ManilaFolder

I smell a lot of bigotry on this thread. While I do not think homosexuality is right, I don't think it is the business of anybody to tell these people how to live their lives.

----------


## Invayne

> I pay over $2000 per year in school taxes yet I have no children of my own.  I'm subsidizing the parents who chose to have kids.  Less kids, less school taxes.


I think we should just kill all kids. MOAR SKOOL SHOOTINGS!

Did I say that?

----------


## Invayne

> You say how WE define socially acceptable relationships. Who do you mean by 'we'? Because the majority of people in this country seem to support gay marriage/gay rights and yet you are unwilling to accept that. So who is we?
> 
> The traditional family destroyed itself by the heads of it not keeping their pants on. If you really wanted to support strong family morals why not bring back strict infidelity laws? That would be a good start.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

BINGO!

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> While I do not think homosexuality is right, I don't think it is the business of anybody to tell these people how to live their lives.


And fags have NO business telling US normal people how to live their lives and what they MUSY accept.

Ergo, the problem we have with fags in this country. Worldwide, in fact.

 :Cool:

----------


## ManilaFolder

> And fags have NO business telling US normal people how to live their lives and what they MUSY accept.
> 
> Ergo, the problem we have with fags in this country. Worldwide, in fact.


You're a bigot.

----------

Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> You're a bigot.


When you're old enough to know what a bigot is, let us know, M'Kay?

I don't like pedophiles either as they are also a scourge on society somewhat along the same lines.

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> So you want to change all laws of marriage. Christians take marriage serious and so does the Bible. Has nothing to do with kids even tho some do have them. Jesus said a man and woman become one. Churches that deviate from what He taught  I have no use for. He will never recognize their marriage and to tell them different is a lie.


What do you mean it has nothing to do with kids? I thought that was the whole complaint against gay marriage...the religious say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because anything else can't procreate.  :Dontknow:

----------

metheron (04-01-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> LOL! He looks like someone I've seen. Quite recently, in fact. I had no desire to suck the toes on either of them though .


Honestly, it's been years since I had my toes sucked....damn, I miss that.

----------


## ManilaFolder

> When you're old enough to know what a bigot is, let us know, M'Kay?
> 
> I don't like pedophiles either as they are also a scourge on society somewhat along the same lines.


I know what a bigot is. Good try though, resorting to mocking me for my age rather than addressing the issue.

Pedophilia is a whole different issue than gay rights, by the way.

Praying on children *vs* Two consenting adults making their own decisions.

Big difference.

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014),Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> What do you mean it has nothing to do with kids? I thought that was the whole complaint against gay marriage...the religious say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because anything else can't procreate.


 It's not the marriage it's the pamphlets they want to give to elementary schools, they want boys to be able to go into girls restrooms, want the age of consent to 13 and encourage Man and boy but their goal is to eliminate age all together, it's not what it seems. I put a thread up a while back you should watch it.

----------


## Invayne

> okay guys, enough with the foot fetishes or I'm going to have to put on the high heels and grab my whip!


BRING IT, BABY! Should I get the cherry jello ready? LOL

----------


## Invayne

> And fags have NO business telling US normal people how to live their lives and what they MUSY accept.
> 
> Ergo, the problem we have with fags in this country. Worldwide, in fact.


Define "normal"....

----------


## metheron

> It's not the marriage it's the pamphlets they want to give to elementary schools, they want boys to be able to go into girls restrooms, want the age of consent to 13 and encourage Man and boy but their goal is to eliminate age all together, it's not what it seems. I put a thread up a while back you should watch it.


What they distribute in schools, consent laws, etc......all separate issues. It is just deflection to try to include them here.

----------

Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> When you're old enough to know what a bigot is, let us know, M'Kay?
> 
> I don't like pedophiles either as they are also a scourge on society somewhat along the same lines.


Really? A pedophile is the same as a consenting adult? Are you fucking serious???

----------

ManilaFolder (04-01-2014),Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## GreenEyedLady

Cherry sounds good to me! You have the pit ready?

----------

Invayne (04-01-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> I know what a bigot is. Good try though, resorting to mocking me for my age rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> Pedophilia is a whole different issue than gay rights, by the way.
> 
> Praying on children *vs* Two consenting adults making their own decisions.
> 
> Big difference.


Praying on children is a common trait with faggots. VERY common.

 :Cool:

----------


## Roadmaster

These people are honest and have facts to back them up. Even if you don't believe at least be aware of the movement.

----------


## ManilaFolder

> Praying on children is a common trait with faggots. VERY common.


You keep resorting to bigotry in order to deflect the conversation away from the topic. 

Your the one calling me a child, but your also the one acting like one.

You are grouping gays together with pedophiles, and saying that because pedophilia is wrong being gay is wrong. That's just plain ignorant.

----------


## Invayne

> Cherry sounds good to me! You have the pit ready?


Good day for a jello wrestle here tomorrow....high 80's...and my birthday...plenty of cocktails...LET'S ROLL! LOL

----------


## Invayne

> Praying on children is a common trait with faggots. VERY common.


NO....where do you get that from?? LOL! Got a link?

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> NO....where do you get that from?? LOL! Got a link?


That's like asking someone for a link stating water is wet. Go find it yourself. LOL!

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> That's like asking someone for a link stating water is wet. Go find it yourself. LOL!


Bullshit. You made a statement and you need to back it up! Where does this alleged fact come from??

----------


## GreenEyedLady

Happy BD early! Beers to ya!

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Bullshit. You made a statement and you need to back it up! Where does this alleged fact come from??


I don't NEED to do a gawd damned thing, especially because it was YOU that asked.

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> Happy BD early! Beers to ya!


No beer..wine!

----------


## Mgunner

> I think what you are going to see is them being overturned due to discrimination or people changing their vote. And you will support that then?
> 
> Do you support strict adultery laws and getting rid of divorce to protect traditional values? You seem to blame the demise of traditional values on everyone else except heterosexual married couples. Seems pretty narrow minded.


We shall see... But I will personally never support same sex marriage for the reasons I have already stated. I think we should make it harder to gain a marriage license at the local level instead of just treating it as another revenue stream. I also think that we should make it harder to get a divorce barring obvious abuse. Couples should have to go through counseling first for a period of time, even if separated, before the divorce could proceed. But make no mistake... The demise of traditional family values was decades in the making... It will take time to reverse the damage.

----------


## Invayne

> I don't NEED to do a gawd damned thing, especially because it was YOU that asked.


You made a statement that you tried to pass off as fact. Back it up! Where's your proof? Come on, I know you can do this.... :Headbang:

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> No beer..wine!


 Wine is okay with me!

----------

Invayne (04-02-2014)

----------


## metheron

> We shall see... But I will personally never support same sex marriage for the reasons I have already stated. I think we should make it harder to gain a marriage license at the local level instead of just treating it as another revenue stream. I also think that we should make it harder to get a divorce barring obvious abuse. Couples should have to go through counseling first for a period of time, even if separated, before the divorce could proceed. But make no mistake... The demise of traditional family values was decades in the making... It will take time to reverse the damage.


Well like most people, I never thought I could change your mind.

 I support Christians that want to get married in the name of God to have their right to do so. It is a promise between each other and their God. However, legally, it would be non-binding. I mean the power of God is much stronger than any law anyway. 

However, to be wed and be recognized by law as a legal couple we should all go through an agent of the government that does not discriminate, is open to all legal consenting adults and will be binding by law.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Only a tiny percentage of male gays will ever take advantage of the 'gay marriage' option. Marriage has little relevance in the largely hedonistic, hard-partying, promiscuous and shallow lifestyles of male homosexuals. Lesbians might be a different story, but it still won't be all that common.

Those who think pushing 'gay marriage' is advancing a 'right' are making a huge mistake. The point is to further undermine the legitimacy of the traditional family. Why? The traditional family is the ultimate bulwark against the power of the state and its ability to influence and control the minds of the rising generation. It's an attempt to destroy a rival and barrier to the progressivist project.

That's its ONLY purpose, PERIOD. Overall, most gays really don't care and can't be bothered with marriage.

----------

ChoppedLiver (04-02-2014)

----------


## metheron

> Only a tiny percentage of male gays will ever take advantage of the 'gay marriage' option. Marriage has little relevance in the largely hedonistic, hard-partying, promiscuous and shallow lifestyles of male homosexuals. Lesbians might be a different story, but it still won't be all that common.
> 
> Those who think pushing 'gay marriage' is advancing a 'right' are making a huge mistake. The point is to further undermine the legitimacy of the traditional family. Why? The traditional family is the ultimate bulwark against the power of the state and its ability to influence and control the minds of the rising generation. It's an attempt to destroy a rival and barrier to the progressivist project.
> 
> That's its ONLY purpose, PERIOD. Overall, most gays really don't care and can't be bothered with marriage.


Are you gay?

If not, do you have a source for this information? Like a 'gay' playbook or something?

Just curious how someone came to such a wild conclusion?

----------

Invayne (04-02-2014),Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> You keep resorting to bigotry in order to deflect the conversation away from the topic. 
> Your the one calling me a child, but your also the one acting like one.
> You are grouping gays together with pedophiles, and saying that because pedophilia is wrong being gay is wrong. That's just plain ignorant.


You should at least try to understand.
There are a lot of bad things out there in the world. Fagism, liberalism, bestiality, incest, communism, murder, dimocrats, Hitler, rape, hippies, violent crime, pedophilia, etc... are all bad things. And they're comparatively equal in their "badness".
I don't like bad things. And if you believe that not liking bad things is bigotry, then so be it.
But, then again, you have a lot to learn about a lot of things.

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> You should at least try to understand.
> There are a lot of bad things out there in the world. Fagism, liberalism, bestiality, incest, communism, murder, dimocrats, Hitler, rape, hippies, violent crime, pedophilia, etc... are all bad things. And they're comparatively equal in their "badness".
> I don't like bad things. And if you believe that not liking bad things is bigotry, then so be it.
> But, then again, you have a lot to learn about a lot of things.


Funny you should mention MURDER, VIOLENT CRIME, and RAPE...I thought that was OK amongst the Boys in Blue.  :Dontknow:

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Funny you should mention MURDER, VIOLENT CRIME, and RAPE...I thought that was OK amongst the Boys in Blue.


Well, it's not unusual for you to think wrong. Or not think at all. It happens all the time.

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> Well, it's not unusual for you to think wrong. Or not think at all. It happens all the time.


So you want to insult me instead of dealing with the problem?

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> So you want to insult me instead of dealing with the problem?


You made an ignorant statement and I responded. What's the problem?

 :Cool:

----------


## Invayne

> You made an ignorant statement and I responded. What's the problem?


I have no clue of what "ignorant statement" you're talking about, and I don't have the energy to figure it out, so....til tomorrow...or today...whichever it may be...LOL...g'nite!

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> I have no clue of what "ignorant statement" you're talking about, and I don't have the energy to figure it out, so....til tomorrow...or today...whichever it may be...LOL...g'nite!


Post #231.

 :Cool:

----------


## Taylor

> Only a tiny percentage of male gays will ever take advantage of the 'gay marriage' option. Marriage has little relevance in the largely hedonistic, hard-partying, promiscuous and shallow lifestyles of male homosexuals. Lesbians might be a different story, but it still won't be all that common.
> 
> Those who think pushing 'gay marriage' is advancing a 'right' are making a huge mistake. The point is to further undermine the legitimacy of the traditional family. Why? The traditional family is the ultimate bulwark against the power of the state and its ability to influence and control the minds of the rising generation. It's an attempt to destroy a rival and barrier to the progressivist project.
> 
> That's its ONLY purpose, PERIOD. Overall, most gays really don't care and can't be bothered with marriage.


It doesnt matter what the percentage is that wants to get married though as long as they have the ability to get married freely and fairly like everybody else.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> It doesnt matter what the percentage is that wants to get married though as long as they have the ability to get married freely and fairly like everybody else.


And they do. EVERYONE is free to find someone of the opposite sex that they're not related to and then marry them. 

 :Cool:

----------


## Sentinel

> It doesnt matter what the percentage is that wants to get married though as long as they have the ability to get married freely and fairly like everybody else.


Is that how you really feel about pedphiles?

What about the freedom and the rights of non-perverts.  Why should the government force a wedding photographer to create artist photographs from a same-sex or pedohile wedding?

How many faggots are in jail for exchanging rings and living together, swapping HIV viruses?  None?  How is bringing in the government into their relationships "freedom"?

----------


## Taylor

> Is that how you really feel about pedphiles?
> 
> What about the freedom and the rights of non-perverts.  Why should the government force a wedding photographer to create artist photographs from a same-sex or pedohile wedding?
> 
> How many faggots are in jail for exchanging rings and living together, swapping HIV viruses?  None?  How is bringing in the government into their relationships "freedom"?


I don't give a shit about pedophiles. Why you people always try and tie the gay community to pedophilia is ridiculous. There are both straight and gay pedophiles and both types of pedophile are twisted and fucked up.

as for the rest if a business wants to discriminate then that cool, but don't whine and cry when the people they discriminate against make legal efforts to make you pay for it one way or another. I personally wouldn't give my money to a piece of suit bigot but I won't shed a tear for them if they lose business from the bad publicity surrounding their discrimination.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> as for the rest if a business wants to discriminate then that cool, but don't whine and cry when the people they discriminate against make legal efforts to make you pay for it one way or another. I personally wouldn't give my money to a piece of suit bigot but I won't shed a tear for them if they lose business from the bad publicity surrounding their discrimination.


And somehow you still don't realize just how fucked up, hypocritical, and un-American your opinion is. Pathetic.

 :Cool:

----------


## Taylor

> And somehow you still don't realize just how fucked up, hypocritical, and un-American your opinion is. Pathetic.


Yeah if it's opposite of your opinion then at least I know I'm right.

----------


## texmaster

> Still going on about nothing, it's not my fight asshole! Yourself is a boner!


Still got nothing do you Mikey.  So painfully predictable.

----------


## texmaster

> Discrimination is a federal issue.


No its not.  *All laws discriminate* against a behavior or person.




> I believe that if some states wanted to bring slavery back we shouldn't support that either, just because the state wants it.


The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery.  Its protected.  Thats what the amendment process was implemented in the first place and why you should support a new amendment to allow for gay marriage if that is your desire.   But you know you don't have the votes which is why you support circumventing the Constitution by way of activist liberal judges.




> I support states doing what they want, within the law. Marriage is not a states right issue, nor is it a federal issue. Marriage is a religious issue. 
> 
> Where have I said we should have laws banning any marriage?


Every time you support consent law that bans pedo marriage.




> I have not supported any laws banning marriage between two consenting adults. If your comment was about children, thats just asinine and not even worth discussing.


That same argument is used by people against gay marriage.   They believe its asinine to allow gay marriage.   All you are doing is pretending your moral judgement is somehow superior to theirs.   That is your hypocrisy in action.




> The validation between undoing those laws is easy, discrimination. If you don't think it is discrimination then provide me with your definition of it.


I think *all laws discriminate.*  Are you going to ban all laws based on that laughable argument?  Laws against murder discriminate against murderers.  Laws against rape discriminate against rapists.   If you truly actually thought about the argument you are making it might start to sink in how laughable it is.




> My view has been clear and consistent.


No just clearly hypocritical.   You can't seem to understand all you are doing is falling back on your own personal morality for law enforcement then berating people who are doing the exact same thing against gay marriage.




> Do you support strict adultery laws and possibly outlawing divorce? Or at least getting rid of no-fault divorce?


Why would I?

----------

Mgunner (04-02-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> It doesnt matter what the percentage is that wants to get married though as long as they have the ability to get married freely and fairly like everybody else.


You don't support marriage for everyone.   Don't make me prove it again.

Just answer this question Tay.  What makes your moral decisions superior to everyone else that we should base or remove law on your moral opinion alone?

----------


## Sentinel

> I don't give a shit about pedophiles.


Because all your arguments apply to pedophiles, as well as homosexuals.  




> as for the rest if a business wants to discriminate then that cool, but don't whine and cry when the people they discriminate against make legal efforts to make you pay for it one way or another. I personally wouldn't give my money to a piece of suit bigot but I won't shed a tear for them if they lose business from the bad publicity surrounding their discrimination.


Anti-discrimination laws are a violation of our individual sovereignty, our freedom.  Besides that, I'm not talking about something like a fag wanting to buy a cup of coffee.  I'm talking about a fag -- and you -- wanting to force people to take part in perversions, like forcing a wedding photographer to make photographic art of homosexuals getting married.

----------

texmaster (04-02-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> You don't support marriage for everyone.   Don't make me prove it again.
> 
> Just answer this question Tay.  What makes your moral decisions superior to everyone else that we should base or remove law on your moral opinion alone?


I support marriage between consenting adults. As for your question there's no right or wrong answer. I believe it's perfectly fine and within their right for two men or two women to get married as long as they are consenting adults. That's not hard to understand.

----------


## Taylor

> Because all your arguments apply to pedophiles, as well as homosexuals.  
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-discrimination laws are a violation of our individual sovereignty, our freedom.  Besides that, I'm not talking about something like a fag wanting to buy a cup of coffee.  I'm talking about a fag -- and you -- wanting to force people to take part in perversions, like forcing a wedding photographer to make photographic art of homosexuals getting married.


I said several times that I don't think anybody should be forced to make a cake for someone, but I have no problem with making that business look like shit for discriminating like that.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Gays can figure out for themselves their own rules for cohabitation and have written up in a contract, but marriage is a heterosexual institution between one man and one woman. Period. Introduce variations on it and alarming distortions creep in. Even if you introduce polygamy, it creates ugly side-effects, with the condition of women being degraded to that of mere chattel, as happens in those nations where polygamy is common and recognized.

Even in advanced societies like those of ancient Greece where homosexuality was widely practiced and even acquire a certain degree of institutionalized status, marriage between two men and two two women would have been regarded as absurd.

Gayness is something APART from marriage altogether.

----------

Mgunner (04-02-2014),texmaster (04-02-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> I support marriage between consenting adults. As for your question there's no right or wrong answer. I believe it's perfectly fine and within their right for two men or two women to get married as long as they are consenting adults. That's not hard to understand.


No its not but you still aren't getting it.   You are using your personal morality to limit marriage to 2 person adults only with zero justification for it.    Why is that so hard for you to understand?

----------


## Mgunner

> Well like most people, I never thought I could change your mind.
> 
>  I support Christians that want to get married in the name of God to have their right to do so. It is a promise between each other and their God. However, legally, it would be non-binding. I mean the power of God is much stronger than any law anyway. 
> 
> However, to be wed and be recognized by law as a legal couple we should all go through an agent of the government that does not discriminate, is open to all legal consenting adults and will be binding by law.


I never mentioned a religious reason for opposing gay marriage so I am not sure why you bring that piece into the conversation. 

Ahh... so you are ok with anyone, regardless of who they are, marrying anyone they chose as long as they are consenting adults? No other restrictions? I disagree.

----------

texmaster (04-02-2014)

----------


## Mgunner

> I don't give a shit about pedophiles. Why you people always try and tie the gay community to pedophilia is ridiculous. There are both straight and gay pedophiles and both types of pedophile are twisted and fucked up.
> 
> as for the rest if a business wants to discriminate then that cool, but don't whine and cry when the people they discriminate against make legal efforts to make you pay for it one way or another. I personally wouldn't give my money to a piece of suit bigot but I won't shed a tear for them if they lose business from the bad publicity surrounding their discrimination.


So you place gay rights above individual property rights? Even though gays have the same rights as every other person in this country and property rights are emphasized specifically going back to the founding of this nation?

----------


## Invayne

> Is that how you really feel about pedphiles?
> 
> What about the freedom and the rights of non-perverts.  Why should the government force a wedding photographer to create artist photographs from a same-sex or pedohile wedding?
> 
> How many faggots are in jail for exchanging rings and living together, swapping HIV viruses?  None?  How is bringing in the government into their relationships "freedom"?


You are totally fucking warped...LMAO!! 

What in theeeee fucking hell are you talking about???

----------

Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> So you place gay rights above individual property rights? Even though gays have the same rights as every other person in this country and property rights are emphasized specifically going back to the founding of this nation?


Individual rights are what this is all about....dammit....you take away rights for some, you do it for all.

PLEASE....wake up, people.

----------


## texmaster

> Individual rights are what this is all about....dammit....you take away rights for some, you do it for all.
> 
> PLEASE....wake up, people.


So by that logic you support pedophile marriage.

After all, you take away rights for some, you do it for all.


I swear tripping up liberals with their own words only gets easier.

----------


## Invayne

> And somehow you still don't realize just how fucked up, hypocritical, and un-American your opinion is. Pathetic.


Somehow, I always thought differences of opinion and being able to speak them WERE American.....when did that end?

----------


## Invayne

> So by that logic you support pedophile marriage.
> 
> After all, you take away rights for some, you do it for all.
> 
> 
> I swear tripping up liberals with their own words only gets easier.


Excuse me? Where in the fucking hell did you get that from??

Pedophilia HURTS another person. It is NOT a right. ~shaking my fucking head~

----------

Taylor (04-02-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

97% of the new AIDS cases are from bi and homosexuals. I don't call this normal and bi-s refuse to get tested and spread the virus. To me they are mass murderers.

----------


## Invayne

> 97% of the new AIDS cases are from bi and homosexuals. I don't call this normal and bi-s refuse to get tested and spread the virus. To me they are mass murderers.


HIV is a manmade virus. Check again on who your mass murderers are.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> HIV is a manmade virus. Check again on who your mass murderers are.


One of the more comical conspiracy theories out there.

----------


## Invayne

> One of the more comical conspiracy theories out there.


~sigh~

Whatever....

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> ~sigh~
> 
> Whatever....


Oh, yeah! BIG-time!

There's a vast cottage industry on HIV conspiracy theories, I wouldn't doubt nearly as big as 911 'Troofers'! EVERY whack-job has their own theory, and WHAT a colourful lot they are too! :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Aren't you glad you have ME around pointing all this out to you and preventing you from going down sterile paths that lead nowhere? :Smiley20: 

Remember: HIV man-made...:

----------


## Roadmaster

> HIV is a manmade virus. Check again on who your mass murderers are.


 I have watched many with HIV turn into AIDS and die. The ones with HIV may buy their drugs for pleasure but the majority won't buy a condom but that doesn't prevent HIV. Every month another video pops up about a person that knew he had HIV infected others. The ones who don't get tested or think it isn't real should go and see AIDs patients. Also these with HIV have a sadistic view that having sex with boys will take it away or better their chance of not getting it. The 6 now that I know of gays all but one has HIV. Only one of the HIV people have what they call safe sex because many men don't want to use condoms. Heck you can't get most husbands to use them and do you really think the ones at parties are going to risk losing a little sensation over a condom. No they only think of themselves and their satisfaction. Bis and gays only care about their next fix while infecting others. Just like the teacher that infected 50 boys under 10. It was all about him. You can support these people but I don't and never will.

----------


## Roadmaster

I have a brother-in-law living with HIV it's not a  joke and watched his partner die. Might as well bring a gun with you every time put one bullet in it and fire be about the same as being with a person you don't know if he or she has it.

----------


## texmaster

> Excuse me? Where in the fucking hell did you get that from??
> 
> Pedophilia HURTS another person. It is NOT a right. ~shaking my fucking head~


Prove it.  Prove every single child is hurt by it.  Go ahead.  Every single one.   Your moronic assumption is that all children are the same, all have the same development level and all have the same sex partner.

Don't rely on your morality as you piss on those who rely on their own to be against gay marriage.

Show us your evidence.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> HIV is a manmade virus. Check again on who your mass murderers are.





> One of the more comical conspiracy theories out there.


Actually, @Ghost, @Invayne is correct. It _IS_ a manmade virus. But Invayne doesn't cite the right people (if you can lower yourself to actually call them people) who caused the virus and created the disease.
The virus was caused because some fags decided to have sex with some monkeys in Africa which, in turn, gave us the plague of the 80's (& 90's. & 2000's. & 2010's...)

 :Cool:

----------


## ChoppedLiver

...


 :Cool:

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Actually, Africans hunt and EAT monkeys in the part of Africa where it originated, so I think transmission probably occurred that way.

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> Actually, Africans hunt and EAT monkeys in the part of Africa where it originated, so I think transmission probably occurred that way.


And they have been eating them for centuries. It wasn't 'till fags went over there and had sex with them that this virus came to being. When the Africans hunted them for food, I think they cooked them before eating them. It wasn't like sushi. The way the faggots used the monkeys wasn't for eating and quite unsanitary.

 :Cool:

----------


## Calypso Jones

Via KC Star
Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing.

The 63-page brief filed Tuesday is the latest volley in a battle between a lesbian couple of 17 years and Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who refused to grant them a marriage license in 2009.

*Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin subsequently sued to be allowed to marry in their home state, where voters had approved a ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled in Bishop and Baldwin’s favor in January this year, and Smith appealed.
*
Lawyers for Smith argued that marriage is about furthering “potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions” rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.

“They (plaintiffs) reduce marriage from an institution that exists to benefit children and society, and relegate it to a mere stamp through which the government approves loving, emotional unions between adult couples,” they said in the brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

They further argued that the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that marriage is fundamental to the survival of the human race. In one of the cases cited, Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the court ruled that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Bishop and Baldwin didn’t immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment, but they argued in a brief last month that the marriage ban demeans same-sex couples and their children because it sends the message that their relationships are secondary to those built in traditional families.

----------


## Calypso Jones

this hurts my eyes and it makes my mind movies cringe.  I do not want to think about what goes on here.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think we should just kill all kids. MOAR SKOOL SHOOTINGS!
> 
> Did I say that?


I'm against random shootings.  A mass "Hunger Games" survival test where all 13 year olds are put through one end of a, say 50 mile wide X 100 mile, long corridor allows survivors to continue on to school at taxpayer expense.  Exceptional survivors would be eligible for college scholarships.  

Full citizenship, meaning they could vote in elections and run for office, would only be allowed to those who served a full 8 year tour in the military.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Full citizenship, meaning they could vote in elections and run for office, would only be allowed to those who served a full 8 year tour in the military.


Isn't that similar to Robert Heinlein's idea in 'Starship Troopers'?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Isn't that similar to Robert Heinlein's idea in 'Starship Troopers'?


Yes.  It's a terrific idea.  The Iraq War is a classic example of a bunch of Chickenhawks sending our country to war against the best advice of our military leaders.  I doubt that would have happened if our President and Congress were all military veterans instead of lawyers, businessmen, draft dodgers and chickenhawks.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If you truly believed in supporting the Constitution you would not be for reinterpreting Constitutional amendments to include sexual preferences never referenced or mentioned.


I'm not reiterpreting the Constitution.  The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter. It's the idiots, homosexuals and homophobes who are injecting sex into the situation.

I've said repeatedly that the solution is to either grant the 1138 Federal rights and benefits to all American citizens or eliminate those rights and benefits.  You always overlook that last part and I know why too;  self-serving hypocrisy.

----------


## texmaster

> I'm not reiterpreting the Constitution.


Of course you are.




> The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter. It's the idiots, homosexuals and homophobes who are injecting sex into the situation.


Look at the 14th amendment genius.

*Give us the specific quote* from the 14th amendment that you claim allows for gay marriage and I will embrass you by showing how laughably easy it is to interpret that quote for anyone.

Go ahead Max.  Time to Man up.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Of course you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the 14th amendment genius.
> 
> *Give us the specific quote* from the 14th amendment that you claim allows for gay marriage and I will embrass you by showing how laughably easy it is to interpret that quote for anyone.
> 
> Go ahead Max.  Time to Man up.


It's not in there slick.  Pull your head out of wherever it's stuck and breath something other than noxious gas.  You're fine with taking government benefits yet don't you also bitch like a little princess when someone talks about raising taxes????

You have access to Federal tax benefits and rights that I do not simply because you're married and I'm single.  _This is wrong_and a violation of the 14th Amendment's protection clause.  While you may get prurient pleasure from peeking into other people's bedrooms to make sure they are only having sex that you personally approve, I don't give a shit.  All I care about is that the Constitution is applied fairly to all as a means of protecting my own rights.  At the moment I'm being fucked by the self-serving cunts who want government benefits for themselves, but don't want those same rights applied to others.  I'm taxed over $2000 a year to subsidize the stupid little bastards of these cunts in public school and, because of the laws, my girlfriend can't make medical decisions for me if I'm incapacitated and, overall, we have to pay higher taxes than the "Married with Children" crowd.

I'm tired of subsidizing assholes like this:


Eliminate the 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted to married couples and I'll be happy.  Do the same for anyone who chooses to have children.  If they want to have kids, let them pay for it themselves.  Making me pay for it is _wrong_.

----------


## texmaster

> It's not in there slick.  Pull your head out of wherever it's stuck and breath something other than noxious gas.  You're fine with taking government benefits yet don't you also bitch like a little princess when someone talks about raising taxes????
> 
> You have access to Federal tax benefits and rights that I do not simply because you're married and I'm single.  _This is wrong_and a violation of the 14th Amendment's protection clause.  While you may get prurient pleasure from peeking into other people's bedrooms to make sure they are only having sex that you personally approve, I don't give a shit.  All I care about is that the Constitution is applied fairly to all as a means of protecting my own rights.  At the moment I'm being fucked by the self-serving cunts who want government benefits for themselves, but don't want those same rights applied to others.  I'm taxed over $2000 a year to subsidize the stupid little bastards of these cunts in public school and, because of the laws, my girlfriend can't make medical decisions for me if I'm incapacitated and, overall, we have to pay higher taxes than the "Married with Children" crowd.
> 
> I'm tired of subsidizing assholes like this:
> 
> 
> Eliminate the 1138 Federal rights and benefits granted to married couples and I'll be happy.  Do the same for anyone who chooses to have children.  If they want to have kids, let them pay for it themselves.  Making me pay for it is _wrong_.


So, despite all your BS that gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendment you can't even quote the very amendment to justify your claim.

Thanks for staying predictable Max.   I knew once you were challenged on your claims you would run away from them.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So, despite all your BS that gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendment you can't even quote the very amendment to justify your claim.


Quite lying, @texmaster.  It makes you look weak and stupid.  

If I ever claimed "_gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendment_" then prove it.  Please don't reply to this if you cannot or will not.  I know you can't do it, so your silence will be refreshing.  If you do reply without proving I said that, can I call you a lying cunt?

----------


## Invayne

> Actually, @Ghost, @Invayne is correct. It _IS_ a manmade virus. But Invayne doesn't cite the right people (if you can lower yourself to actually call them people) who caused the virus and created the disease.
> The virus was caused because some fags decided to have sex with some monkeys in Africa which, in turn, gave us the plague of the 80's (& 90's. & 2000's. & 2010's...)


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Vaccines, not sex.

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

----------


## Invayne

> Yes.  It's a terrific idea.  The Iraq War is a classic example of a bunch of Chickenhawks sending our country to war against the best advice of our military leaders.  I doubt that would have happened if our President and Congress were all military veterans instead of lawyers, businessmen, draft dodgers and chickenhawks.


You mean like John McCain, who never saw an opportunity for war that he didn't like?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You mean like John McCain, who never saw an opportunity for war that he didn't like?


At least McCain knows the consequences of war.   Can't say the same for Clinton, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld or Obama.

----------


## Invayne

> Prove it.  Prove every single child is hurt by it.  Go ahead.  Every single one.   Your moronic assumption is that all children are the same, all have the same development level and all have the same sex partner.
> 
> Don't rely on your morality as you piss on those who rely on their own to be against gay marriage.
> 
> Show us your evidence.


What is your definition of a child? If you're talking 14 or 15, then yeah, they might NOT be hurt from it. Hell, when I was 16, I was seeing a guy that was 32...twice my age...but I certainly didn't consider him a pedophile.

An 8 year old girl that I used to babysit was raped by her 30something year old uncle, and she almost died because of it. I would say she was definitely hurt by it.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

You were obviously very precocious, Invayne.

And you could have sent him to prison at any time!

----------


## texmaster

> What is your definition of a child? If you're talking 14 or 15, then yeah, they might NOT be hurt from it. Hell, when I was 16, I was seeing a guy that was 32...twice my age...but I certainly didn't consider him a pedophile.
> 
> An 8 year old girl that I used to babysit was raped by her 30something year old uncle, and she almost died because of it. I would say she was definitely hurt by it.


So you are using your own morality to judge laws.

How are you any different from someone against gay marriage based on their morality?

----------


## texmaster

> Quite lying, @texmaster.  It makes you look weak and stupid.


The only one looking stupid here is you and I have your words to prove it.




> If I ever claimed "_gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendment_" then prove it.  Please don't reply to this if you cannot or will not.  I know you can't do it, so your silence will be refreshing.  If you do reply without proving I said that, can I call you a lying cunt?


Easily.    I stated: _If you truly believed in supporting the  Constitution you would not be for reinterpreting Constitutional  amendments to include sexual preferences never referenced or mentioned._

Which you replied: * The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter.*

You just used the 14th amendment to justify gay marriage.

Then as predicted you ran away when you were challenged on that justification.

Go ahead, lie again and claim you didn't.   Your words are far too easy to quote Max.

----------


## Invayne

> So you are using your own morality to judge laws.
> 
> How are you any different from someone against gay marriage based on their morality?


So you're OK with raping 8 year olds?

----------


## texmaster

> So you're OK with raping 8 year olds?


absolutely not.

Now try and answer my question this time:

How are you any different from someone against gay marriage based on their morality?

----------


## Invayne

> absolutely not.
> 
> Now try and answer my question this time:
> 
> How are you any different from someone against gay marriage based on their morality?


Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone or anything except the feelings of the religious.

Pedophilia hurts children. You seriously can't see the difference??

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone or anything except the feelings of the religious.
> 
> Pedophilia hurts children. You seriously can't see the difference??


Pro-pedophile 'thinkers' do not think so. Even Dawkins brushes off 'mild paedophilia':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-comments.html

As I have always said: start down the road of decadence, and it will take you to some very dark places. Best not to start at all.

----------

texmaster (04-03-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Pro-pedophile 'thinkers' do not think so. Even Dawkins brushes off 'mild paedophilia':
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-comments.html
> 
> As I have always said: start down the road of decadence, and it will take you to some very dark places. Best not to start at all.


Your link doesn't work...  :Sad20:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Which you replied: * The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter.*
> 
> You just used the 14th amendment to justify gay marriage.


Incorrect, but I can see how a person of your character not only sinks so low as to put words in other people's mouths, but jumps to wild conclusions.

The Equal protection clause:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection



> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights._


Granting rights and privileges to one segment of society while denying them to another, such as tax breaks, rights of survivorship and over 1100 Federal rights and privileges is a violation of that Amendment.  There are two solutions that even liars should recognize;  either make the law(s) apply equally to all or eliminate the law(s) that create the discrepancy.  

You failed to show where I said that, @texmaster.  An honorable man would admit they were wrong.  I don't expect anything like that from you.

----------


## texmaster

> Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone or anything except the feelings of the religious.


Which is complete BS you couldn't possible prove.




> Pedophilia hurts children. You seriously can't see the difference??


Which again you cannot prove.  At best you could claim the majority of children would be hurt by pedophile marriage but you are using your own morality to judge a sexual reference which is EXACTLY what most people against gay marriage do.

Why can't you just admit the obvious?

This is why my science argument is so valid.    It eliminates morality from the argument completely.

----------


## Invayne

Are you a pedophile, Tex?

----------


## texmaster

> Incorrect, but I can see how a person of your character not only sinks so low as to put words in other people's mouths, but jumps to wild conclusions.


You can lie all you want. The very fact you took out the quote of mine you were replying to shows how dishonest you are because it proves the context that you used the 14th amendment to justify gay marriage law.




> The Equal protection clause:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
> 
> 
> Granting rights and privileges to one segment of society while denying them to another, such as tax breaks, rights of survivorship and over 1100 Federal rights and privileges is a violation of that Amendment.  There are two solutions that even liars should recognize;  either make the law(s) apply equally to all or eliminate the law(s) that create the discrepancy.  
> 
> You failed to show where I said that, @texmaster.  An honorable man would admit they were wrong.  I don't expect anything like that from you.


You can keep on lying all you like Max.   No one is more dishonorable than you removing my quote you responded to with your 14th amendment argument so the context would be removed.

The dishonesty here on display is you run like a gutless coward from quoting the equal protection clause where you can justify gay marriage because you know any part you quote could be used by any sexual preference to make the same argument for their marriage.   

Taking your own link which once again you cowardly won't quote because you know it will prove my point that *expanding the 14th amendment to include gay marriage opens it up to any and all sexual preferences from using the exact same argument.*

From your link:

_The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S.  Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.  In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the  same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances...Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been  violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals  the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same  right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is  unconstitutional._

And therin lies the fallacy which you lack to honor and courage to admit.   Any justification for gay marriage that comes from the 14th amendment cannot be limited to a single sexual preference when the terminolgy of equal proction applies to *all people not just specific sexual preferences*.   Its the same reason no one against gay marriage is stupid enough to claim the 14th amendment covers heterosexual marriage.

You are simply outclassed by someone who can actually read the Constitution and address the fallacy and stupidity of trying to highjack the 14th amendment for a specific sexual preference.

----------


## texmaster

> Are you a pedophile, Tex?


No Troll I am not.  Still running away like a gutless troll from answering my question about using your own personal morality to judge law I see.

Don't worry, its expected.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> _Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been  violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals  the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same  right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is  unconstitutional._


Do you think it is right that married couples are granted special tax breaks and benefits while single people are not?  No dancing, just an honest straight yes or no answer for once....if that is possible from a person like you.

----------


## Invayne

> Do you think it is right that married couples are granted special tax breaks and benefits while single people are not?  No dancing, just an honest straight yes or no answer for once....if that is possible from a person like you.


I thought there was a "marriage tax"? What happened to that?

----------


## Invayne

> No Troll I am not.  Still running away like a gutless troll from answering my question about using your own personal morality to judge law I see.
> 
> Don't worry, its expected.


Dismissed.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I thought there was a "marriage tax"? What happened to that?


IIRC, there is are area of taxes where married filing jointly is higher, but that is offset by the other deductions and benefits allowed married couples.  

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/06/11/...ts-your-taxes/

Most of these comparisons are should be oranges to oranges such as an unmarried couple vs. a married couple, not just a single person vs. a married couple.

There are several taxes advantages for married couples especially in saving money, buying homes and estate planning as noted in the H&R Block above. Advantages an unmarried couple such as my girlfriend and I cannot access.

----------

Invayne (04-03-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Do you think it is right that married couples are granted special tax breaks and benefits while single people are not?  No dancing, just an honest straight yes or no answer for once....if that is possible from a person like you.


Let me have a crack at answering that.

As long as governments tax, governments have the right to encourage or discourage certain behaviours via the tax code.

If you want to make it easier for people to form stable families and think encouraging that is a good idea, I see no reason why would would not offer tax breaks to them for making that decision. If you want to encourage investment, you greatly reduce or even eliminate the capital gains tax. If you want an industry to open a plant in your town, you give them a break on all kinds of local taxes. 

I see no reason why you wouldn't want to employ the tax code to encourage outcomes that you want to see.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Let me have a crack at answering that.
> 
> As long as governments tax, governments have the right to encourage or discourage certain behaviours via the tax code.
> 
> If you want to make it easier for people to form stable families and think encouraging that is a good idea, I see no reason why would would not offer tax breaks to them for making that decision. If you want to encourage investment, you greatly reduce or even eliminate the capital gains tax. If you want an industry to open a plant in your town, you give them a break on all kinds of local taxes. 
> 
> I see no reason why you wouldn't want to employ the tax code to encourage outcomes that you want to see.


Off hand, I see no problem with that idea.  The problem comes in when government is allowed to violate the Constitution in selecting behaviors.

----------


## texmaster

> Do you think it is right that married couples are granted special tax breaks and benefits while single people are not?  No dancing, just an honest straight yes or no answer for once....if that is possible from a person like you.


Honest?   Pretty amusing statement from someone too gutless and dishonest to quote my entire reply and address the argument made or have the balls to handle a counter argument to a bullshit claim that the 14th amendment only covers sexual preferences you like.

Answer my arguments first and I will answer yours but I wont reward cowardice.

----------


## texmaster

> Dismissed.


Translation:  I can't debate or answer the challenges posed to me so I'm running away.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Honest?   Pretty amusing statement from someone too gutless and dishonest to quote my entire reply and address the argument made or have the balls to handle a counter argument to a bullshit claim that the 14th amendment only covers sexual preferences you like.
> 
> Answer my arguments first and I will answer yours but I wont reward cowardice.


I've answered your questions and you are refusing mine.  The outcome was foretold since your character, or lack thereof, is well known.

BTW, it's a pussified argument to claim another person isn't honest because they didn't address every single point in a litany of questions and statements.  If you think you or I are required to respond to every single statement and answer every single question in a post, you are delusional.

----------


## texmaster

> I've answered your questions and you are refusing mine.


Bullshit.  You never answered the question as to how the 14th amendment allows for gay marriage and only gay marriage.




> The outcome was foretold since your character, or lack thereof, is well known.


Says the poster who removed quotes to change the context because he wasn't honest or honorable enough to address his own words.




> BTW, it's a pussified argument to claim another person isn't honest because they didn't address every single point in a litany of questions and statements.


The answer expected of a dishonest person.




> If you think you or I are required to respond to every single statement and answer every single question in a post, you are delusional.


You can't even defend your own arguments and when you are challenged, you name call and run away then demand your opponent to answer your questions.

Its a sad but painfully predictable pattern.

If you lack the honor and courage to defend your own arguments then don't bother replying.

Still waiting for you to explain what part of the 14th amendment covers gay marriage and no other sexual preference.

----------


## sotmfs

> You're lucky that it were not my daughter that you kissed.  They'd never find your body.


Obviously justifiable homicide.An eye for an eye!  Commandment # 6 Thou shall not murder(Thou shall not kill) is ok to ignore when one has to protect themselves and their families from homosexuals.

Homosexuality is so unnatural and destructive to society it should not even be discussed publicly.The majority of people know how dangerous it is ,it is a given.It is/was known to be  the most  evil and insidious threat to human behavior and survival ,so much so a commandment stating "homosexuality shall be eliminated by ignoring commandment #6"was not necessary.

Is it a coincidence that the homosexual threat has increased as the posting of the 10 commandments in schools and public buildings has decreased? 

Perhaps they need to be posted in as many public places as possible in order to remind people how to behave.It is easy to forget .

ONE: '_You shall have no other gods before Me._' 

TWO: '_You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or  that is in the water under the earth._' 

THREE: '_You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain._' 

FOUR: '_Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy._' 

FIVE: '_Honor your father and your mother._' 

SIX: '_You shall not murder._' 

SEVEN: '_You shall not commit adultery._' 

EIGHT: '_You shall not steal._' 

NINE: '_You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor._' 

TEN: '_You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet  your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor  his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's._'  - See more at: http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-Comm....cBotpYIS.dpuf


ONE: '_You shall have no other gods before Me._' 

TWO: '_You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or  that is in the water under the earth._' 

THREE: '_You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain._' 

FOUR: '_Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy._' 

FIVE: '_Honor your father and your mother._' 

SIX: '_You shall not murder._' 

SEVEN: '_You shall not commit adultery._' 

EIGHT: '_You shall not steal._' 

NINE: '_You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor._' 

TEN: '_You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet  your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor  his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's._'  - See more at: http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-Comm....cBotpYIS.dpuf

ONE: '_You shall have no other gods before Me._' 

TWO: '_You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or  that is in the water under the earth._' 

THREE: '_You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain._' 

FOUR: '_Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy._' 

FIVE: '_Honor your father and your mother._' 

SIX: '_You shall not murder._' 

SEVEN: '_You shall not commit adultery._' 

EIGHT: '_You shall not steal._' 

NINE: '_You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor._' 

TEN: '_You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet  your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor  his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's._'  - See more at: http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-Comm....cBotpYIS.dpuf

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Bullshit.  You never answered the question as to how the 14th amendment allows for gay marriage and only gay marriage.


That's because you're a liar.  I never said it did.  Nice dodge, but that's expected from liars like you.

----------


## texmaster

> That's because you're a liar.  I never said it did.  Nice dodge, but that's expected from liars like you.


Still lying I see huh Max.

Easily proven.

I stated: _If you truly believed in  supporting the  Constitution you would not be for reinterpreting  Constitutional  amendments to include sexual preferences never  referenced or mentioned._

Which you replied: * The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter.


*Of course when you replied to my evidence you removed the statement I made that you responded to hoping the context was removed.

Lies and cowardice are not how one debates.   You used the 14th amendment to justify gay marriage then you lack the courage and honor to admit what you did.

And the most hystrical thing about your denial is you quoting an article discussing the 14th amendmentto further your argument.   Yet when that was exposed and challenged you ran away again.

_The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S.   Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its   jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.   In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the   same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances...Generally,  the question of whether the equal protection clause has been  violated  arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals  the right  to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same  right.  There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is   unconstitutional._

And therin lies the fallacy which you lack to honor and courage to  admit.   Any justification for gay marriage that comes from the 14th  amendment cannot be limited to a single sexual preference when the terminology of equal protection applies to *all people not just specific sexual preferences*.   Its the same reason no one against gay marriage is stupid enough to claim the 14th amendment covers heterosexual marriage.


As I said, answer the questions posed to you and I will be happy to answer yours but I don't reward dishonesty and cowardice.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Still lying I see huh Max.
> 
> Easily proven.
> 
> I stated: _If you truly believed in  supporting the  Constitution you would not be for reinterpreting  Constitutional  amendments to include sexual preferences never  referenced or mentioned._
> 
> Which you replied: * The 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter.
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously I didn't, but you are hellbent on believing it to be so.   Intelligent people know this is about law, not sex.

----------


## texmaster

> Obviously I didn't, but you are hellbent on believing it to be so.   Intelligent people know this is about law, not sex.


Obviosuly you did and I quoted you directly.   You simply lack the honesty to admit it.


Did someone else make you say 14th amendment Max when questioned about justifying legalizing gay marriage?   

Who is this fantasy poster who took over your account and posted that?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Obviosuly you did and I quoted you directly.   You simply lack the honesty to admit it.


I'm content to let sane, intelligent, unbiased people decide for themselves which of us is dishonest and jumping to conclusions.

----------


## texmaster

> I'm content to let sane, intelligent, unbiased people decide for themselves which of us is dishonest and jumping to conclusions.


Of course.  They can read your words directly and see where you used the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage as I quoted your own words.

You can go back to running away now.  Its clear you don't have the stomach to debate.

I accept your defeat.  Again.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Of course.  They can read your words directly and see where you used the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage as I quoted your own words.
> 
> You can go back to running away now.  Its clear you don't have the stomach to debate.
> 
> *I accept your defeat.  Again.*


You are free to believe any masturbatory fantasies you like, sir. 

Agreed people can read my posts and figure out for themselves whether I stated the 14th Amendment supports gay marriage or not.  Sure, if they take the words you keep putting in my mouth, they might think so, but then I'd lose as much respect for their intelligence and literacy as I have for yours.

Since everyone else has lost more interest in this thread than I have, I'll join them.  

Have a great time by yourself, TM.

/suscribe

----------


## texmaster

> You are free to believe any masturbatory fantasies you like, sir.


Its called your direct words, sir.  The ones you keep running from.




> Agreed people can read my posts and figure out for themselves whether I stated the 14th Amendment supports gay marriage or not.


Which you did.




> Sure, if they take the words you keep putting in my mouth, they might think so, but then I'd lose as much respect for their intelligence and literacy as I have for yours.


From the mouth of the person so dishonest they removed my quote providing the context for your quote on the 14th amendment.   Forgive me if I chuckle at your transparent hypocritical nature.




> Since everyone else has lost more interest in this thread than I have, I'll join them.  
> 
> Have a great time by yourself, TM.


The gay supporters like yourself have because you can't defeat my argument based on science.

Next time if you throw around the 14th amendment as defense for gay marriage don't run away like a coward when its challenged and pretend you never said it.  Its far too easy to quote you directly.

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

I would like to point out that when the APA changed homosexuality from a mental disorder to merely a sexual preference in 1973, they did so without any new information, new studies, new scientific discoveries or any scientific foundation at all.  I was simply changed because of political pressure from outside the organization.

----------

texmaster (04-08-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> I would like to point out that when the APA changed homosexuality from a mental disorder to merely a sexual preference in 1973, they did so without any new information, new studies, new scientific discoveries or any scientific foundation at all.  I was simply changed because of political pressure from outside the organization.


 It was changed by a group that lied about their professions. These were gay men that send in the reports.

----------

texmaster (04-08-2014)

----------


## Shoey

> I'm good with that, but we still have a Constitutional issue.  "Marriage" is a religious institution and the government should butt out.  The Federal government grants 1138 Federal rights and benefits to married couples.  This is unfair to gay couples and singles like me.  We need to eliminate those benefits.  If people want to get married, have children, whatever, fine, but don't make me pay for it.
> 
> Eliminate all unConstitutional Federal and State marriage benefits.  Stop the marriage and child welfare.   Make everyone pay the same amount of taxes.  Do that, and we won't have a "gay marriage" problem.


All Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person, not the couple. The Individual is protected from the denial of equal protection under the law. With whom they choose to form personal relationships (partnership) to wed is primarily based upon mutual consent is their business. *Prohibitions against same sex marriage violate (and discriminate) against the Right Of The Person.*

----------


## metheron

> I would like to point out that when the APA changed homosexuality from a mental disorder to merely a sexual preference in 1973, they did so without any new information, new studies, new scientific discoveries or any scientific foundation at all.  I was simply changed because of political pressure from outside the organization.


Great observation. And do you think women should be able to vote and blacks should be free?

----------


## Shoey

> Discrimination is a federal issue. I believe that if some states wanted to bring slavery back we shouldn't support that either, just because the state wants it.
> 
> I support states doing what they want, within the law. *Marriage is not a states right issue, nor is it a federal issue. Marriage is a religious issue.* 
> 
> Where have I said we should have laws banning any marriage? I have not supported any laws banning marriage between two consenting adults. If your comment was about children, thats just asinine and not even worth discussing.
> 
> The validation between undoing those laws is easy, discrimination. If you don't think it is discrimination then provide me with your definition of it.
> 
> My view has been clear and consistent. 
> ...


According to the 14th Amendment of The US Constitution, "marriage" is not a religious issue. Marriage could be defined as a personal, financial partnership between individuals established by contract primarily based upon mutual consent  between two consenting adults and should be particularly under contract law. Individuals that engage in a personal/financial partnerships solely based on mutual consent do not represent any danger or threat to The Inalienable Right of other people.

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

> Great observation. And do you think women should be able to vote and blacks should be free?


I'm a republican.  Republicans fought for women's right to vote and for blacks to be free.  

Are you comparing being a women and being blacks to mental disorders?  

Once again you are using fallacious arguments as well as derailing the subject of the thread.  This is not about suffrage or slavery.  It's about the science behind homosexuality.

----------

texmaster (04-08-2014)

----------


## texmaster

> I would like to point out that when the APA changed homosexuality from a mental disorder to merely a sexual preference in 1973, they did so without any new information, new studies, new scientific discoveries or any scientific foundation at all.  I was simply changed because of political pressure from outside the organization.


Well said and an excellent point.

----------


## texmaster

> All Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person, not the couple. The Individual is protected from the denial of equal protection under the law. With whom they choose to form personal relationships (partnership) to wed is primarily based upon mutual consent is their business. *Prohibitions against same sex marriage violate (and discriminate) against the Right Of The Person.*


By that moronic logic no marriage of any kind could be denied because any prohibition of any marriage would be against the "right" of the person.

You just opened up the door to pedophile marriage.   Congrats.

----------


## texmaster

> According to the 14th Amendment of The US Constitution, "marriage" is not a religious issue. Marriage could be defined as a personal, financial partnership between individuals established by contract primarily based upon mutual consent  between two consenting adults and should be particularly under contract law. Individuals that engage in a personal/financial partnerships solely based on mutual consent do not represent any danger or threat to The Inalienable Right of other people.


The 14th amendment does not mention marriage anywhere in its wording.   You are fabricating a right that does not exist and if you use the 14th to justify gay marriage, any sexual preference of any kind or makeup could use the exact same argument you are and could not be denied.   This is the gaping fallacy in the far left's push for gay marriage.

----------


## Roadmaster

> By that moronic logic no marriage of any kind could be denied because any prohibition of any marriage would be against the "right" of the person.
> 
> You just opened up the door to pedophile marriage.   Congrats.


Well the ACLU is trying to overturn NC ban on gay marriage now.

----------

