# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  The Science of Gay Marriage

## Calypso Jones

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/...rriage/158265/

*A University of Lagos* *post graduate** student, Chibuihem Amalaha, from Imo State has used science to prove that gay marriage is improper among other breakthroughs, writes Charles Ajunwa

*Then, he zeroed in on his research about gay marriage. He said: “In recent time I found that gay marriage,which is homosexuality and lesbianism, is eating deep into the fabric of our human nature all over the world and this was why nations of Sodom and Gomora were destroyed by God because they were into gay practice. That is, a man marrying another man and a woman marrying another woman.*“A recent publication on May 3, 2013 shows that France is the 14th country in the world that have legalised gay. I asked myself why should a man be marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman, does it mean that there is no more female for a man to marry or there is no more male for a woman to marry?  And recently, Britain told Nigeria to legalise gay marriage of forfeit international aid. I thank God for our lawmakers who refused to sign the bill legalising gay marriage. And so God gave me the wisdom to use science as a scientist to prove gay marriage wrong.**	“In the area of physics, I used physics with* *experiments**, I used chemistry with experiments, I used biology with experiments and I used mathematics to prove gay marriage wrong.
*

----------


## kilgram

LOL. It is funny.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Where's the science, exactly? I see a lot of BS and no science.

Nevermind that "gay marriage" cannot be scientifically proven wrong, as marriage is a social institution and not science.

----------

President Peanut (09-23-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

then explain the excuse used by homosexual marriage proponents that homosexuality is seen in nature.     Is that science or not.   tit for tat so to speak.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> then explain the excuse used by homosexual marriage proponents that homosexuality is seen in nature.     Is that science or not.   tit for tat so to speak.


There's a difference between _homosexuality_ in science and _gay marriage_ in science. You're conflating the two. Homosexuality does exist in nature, and I personally believe it is nature's way of preventing overpopulation. That's just me, though. I don't particularly care what it is or why. I am who I am, and I don't care who approves or doesn't. 

So, what's your scientific proof that a very unscientific social institution is "wrong"?

----------



----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> then explain the excuse used by homosexual marriage proponents that homosexuality is seen in nature.     Is that science or not.   tit for tat so to speak.


Where is marriage seen in nature? Are there any species in the animal kingdom which issue marriage licenses and perform ceremonies?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-22-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

homosexual advocates don't equate the two....they just say homosexuality occurs in nature....they don't say anything about marriage....see...this is you guys' problem.....you are inconsistent and you don't like it when your own criteria is used.

----------

JustPassinThru (09-26-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> homosexual advocates don't equate the two....they just say homosexuality occurs in nature....they don't say anything about marriage....see...this is you guys problem.....you are inconsistent and you don't like it when you own criteria are used.


Marriage doesn't exist in nature, so it can't be said that two homosexuals getting married is unnatural. My only criteria is that two people decide to avail themselves of the benefits that are granted to couples.

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

well I didn't do the experiments the subject of the OP did...so if you have a problem with it, take it up with him.   His opinion is at least as qualified as the homo lobby's is in this country.

----------


## Trinnity

> LOL. It is funny.


 @kilgram, I'm interested to know what you think's funny and why.

----------


## Calypso Jones

If al gore said it the left would be fine with it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> homosexual advocates don't equate the two....they just say homosexuality occurs in nature....they don't say anything about marriage....see...this is you guys' problem.....you are inconsistent and you don't like it when your own criteria is used.


I thought about saying "fuck this absurdity" and moving on to another thread, but hell, I'm bored. 

Do please show me proof of this.

----------



----------


## Roadmaster

> Marriage doesn't exist in nature, so it can't be said that two homosexuals getting married is unnatural. My only criteria is that two people decide to avail themselves of the benefits that are granted to couples.


 Actually marriage may not exist in nature but say certain birds will only mate with one their whole life or until one dies. Most men will hit anything including animals. Women on the other hand don't want to play the role of their mother for many excuses such as abusive relationships. People find excuses for everything. The fact is when all is gone, health has deteriorated which one will care enough to take care of them to the end.

----------

Trinnity (09-22-2013)

----------


## President Peanut

@roadmaster does have a point. Some birds, such as geese (of the Canadian variety) mate for life. I have heard other species do the same. However, I don't believe you can "prove" or "disprove" that homosexuality or gay marriage exists in nature. I give two shits about that any ways. How about we work within the context which is human homosexuality and gay marriage? Frankly, I don't see why Americans are so up in arms with this. So far, I see people either adamently against gay marriage/homosexuality or adamently for it. And now they make this clearly social issue a political one. To be honest, both sides are fucking morons. The Christians cling to phrases in the Bible that are "fact" of why it is wrong, despite the fact that the Catholic church spent centuries re-writting, editing, and removing books of the Bible until arriving at the current edition. Then those on the left cling to the "civil rights" arguement as to why we should all be forced to accept gay marriage and homosexuality. That's cute and all, but civil rights has been settled. Slaves are free, women and blacks can own property, work in any industry, and vote. I fail to see how gay marriage is a "civil right". I have never heard of a single law where gays can't vote or own property or work in this industry. 

Of course, I am wasting my time writing this. After all, why would we discuss issues that fucking matter? No, let's continue on this ridiculous path. Let's continue to bitch about the size and reach of the federal government while making adament pushes to create federal legislation either way on this "issue". Heaven forbid we use the Tenth Amendment.

----------

Roadmaster (09-23-2013)

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

That reminds me, does anyone know how many gay men have died from AIDS in the USA?  I tried to find a stat on that the other day and couldn't.  

As for gays getting married, we have already had a preview of things to come.  Churches being sued, wedding photographers and bakers being driven out of business.  If you don't comply with their gay marriage farce, you will be hunted down, fined, jailed, run out of business.  Schools are being forced to accommodate gay, lesbian, cross dressers so that males can go into the female restrooms and visa versa.   It's gonna be a legal nightmare especially when states like Utah, Wyoming are going to be forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

When did the University of Lagos become a respected scientific institution, anyway?

----------

President Peanut (09-23-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> @roadmaster does have a point. Some birds, such as geese (of the Canadian variety) mate for life. I have heard other species do the same


 Yes even cockatiels, you can't just put a boy and girl together and expect them to mate either. The girl picks and it's for life. I was a what they use to call tom-boy. Didn't like dolls only quote boy toys.  I wasn't a boy trapped in a girls body. Let little girls be themselves and boys too. People are trying to say that because of little girls like I was is not normal. They are wrong and not all boys are aggressive. No science about it, I am a female and was never meant to be with a female.

----------

President Peanut (09-24-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> homosexual advocates don't equate the two....they just say homosexuality occurs in nature....they don't say anything about marriage....see...this is you guys' problem.....you are inconsistent and you don't like it when your own criteria is used.


Homosexuality, per se, doesn't exist in nature.

Social status orders within animal packs, exist in nature.  In some species, dominance is exhibited, male over male, by going through the MOTIONS of copulation.

That's not homosexuality.  That's dominance.  That's like your neighbor's dog humping your leg when you come over...he's just showing that he's higher in the pack than you; and daring you to prove him wrong.

----------

President Peanut (09-24-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

you're gonna love it here.

----------


## President Peanut

> Homosexuality, per se, doesn't exist in nature.
> 
> Social status orders within animal packs, exist in nature. In some species, dominance is exhibited, male over male, by going through the MOTIONS of copulation.
> 
> That's not homosexuality. That's dominance. That's like your neighbor's dog humping your leg when you come over...he's just showing that he's higher in the pack than you; and daring you to prove him wrong.


Well reasoned arguement.

----------


## texmaster

> LOL. It is funny.


You do love thumbing your nose at basic science don't you.

Homosexuality has never been proven genetic or natural in any way shape or form unlike heterosexuality so why do you hate science?

----------


## texmaster

> Where's the science, exactly? I see a lot of BS and no science.
> 
> Nevermind that "gay marriage" cannot be scientifically proven wrong, as marriage is a social institution and not science.


The marriage has nothing to do with science.   4th grade sex education and basic science of human reproduction disproves any doubt of homosexuality being natural or genetiic.   Where is your scientific evidence homosexuality is natural or genetic?

BTW, before you make the tired line homosexuality is in nature, so is cannibalism and no one is stupid enough to pretend its natural or genetic.

----------


## The XL

So.......where is the scientific proof proving it wrong?   Better yet, how does one scientifically prove a contract wrong?

----------



----------


## texmaster

> So.......where is the scientific proof proving it wrong?   Better yet, how does one scientifically prove a contract wrong?


Why would we make a law based on something that has never been proven?

Where is my scientific proof its wrong?  Are you kidding?    Do I have to explain what an ass actually does?   Do I have to explain procreation as well?

----------


## The XL

> Why would we make a law based on something that has never been proven?
> 
> Where is my scientific proof its wrong?  Are you kidding?    Do I have to explain what an ass actually does?   Do I have to explain procreation as well?


You cannot prove that homosexuality is a choice.  And even if you could, as long as the state is involved in marriage, they have a right to it.

What the fuck does the functions of the ass have to do with anything?  Some gays don't even practice anal sex, and plenty of heteros do.  Procreation?  What of it?  Do infertile heterosexuals have the right to marry?  What about those who choose not to procreate?  I'm pretty sure they do, so that line of logic holds no water.

  I'm not sure if you think you made a valid point, but I assure you, you did not.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-26-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The marriage has nothing to do with science.   4th grade sex education and basic science of human reproduction disproves any doubt of homosexuality being natural or genetiic.   Where is your scientific evidence homosexuality is natural or genetic?
> 
> BTW, before you make the tired line homosexuality is in nature, so is cannibalism and no one is stupid enough to pretend its natural or genetic.


If something exists in nature, it is natural. That's what "natural" means, genius.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

@Sinestro

Are you up late or early?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> homosexual advocates don't equate the two....they just say homosexuality occurs in nature....they don't say anything about marriage....see...this is you guys' problem.....you are inconsistent and you don't like it when your own criteria is used.


Inconsistent, illogical, irrational and hysterical.

That's the kind of CONSISTENT behavior that leads me to conclude, homosexuality is manifestation of mental illness.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> @Sinestro
> 
> Are you up late or early?


Late.

----------


## texmaster

> You cannot prove that homosexuality is a choice.  And even if you could, as long as the state is involved in marriage, they have a right to it.


Its not my place to prove homosexuality is a choice.  You want to change the law.  It is up to you to prove to the rest of us in the real world that homosexuality is NOT a choice. But you can't.




> What the fuck does the functions of the ass have to do with anything?  Some gays don't even practice anal sex, and plenty of heteros do.  Procreation?  What of it?  Do infertile heterosexuals have the right to marry?  What about those who choose not to procreate?  I'm pretty sure they do, so that line of logic holds no water.
> 
>   I'm not sure if you think you made a valid point, but I assure you, you did not.


I understand you are confused but do try and keep up.   See Males and Females in nature complement each other.  Their sexual organs were made to be used for procreation with each other.   That is the natural and genetic state of heterosexuality.  Where is your made up evidence that homosexuality can boast any claim to be genetic or natural?

This should be good.

----------


## texmaster

> If something exists in nature, it is natural. That's what "natural" means, genius.


Hey Genius.  By that moronic definition murder, cannibalism, and rape are natural and no one is stupid enough to legalize it just because it occurs in nature.

Seriously, do you even think these things through before you post them?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Its not my place to prove homosexuality is a choice.  You want to change the law.  It is up to you to prove to the rest of us in the real world that homosexuality is NOT a choice. But you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you are confused but do try and keep up.   See Males and Females in nature complement each other.  Their sexual organs were made to be used for procreation with each other.   That is the natural and genetic state of heterosexuality.  Where is your made up evidence that homosexuality can boast any claim to be genetic or natural?
> 
> This should be good.


So what if homosexuality is a choice or not? If two straight guys wanted to get married, they should be able to also. Marriage is not about procreation, if it was, then infertile couples or post-menopausal women would not be allowed to get married. Also, sex is not just about procreation. If that was true, humans would not be able to have sex unless the woman was ovulating and birth control would be illegal. We don't base our laws on things that are natural or not because the word "natural" is meaningless. Everything that exists is "natural". So do yourselves a favor and find a new word.

----------



----------


## texmaster

> So what if homosexuality is a choice or not? If two straight guys wanted to get married, they should be able to also. Marriage is not about procreation, if it was, then infertile couples or post-menopausal women would not be allowed to get married. Also, sex is not just about procreation. If that was true, humans would not be able to have sex unless the woman was ovulating and birth control would be illegal. We don't base our laws on things that are natural or not because the word "natural" is meaningless. Everything that exists is "natural". So do yourselves a favor and find a new word.


You really need to stop embarassing yourself:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCHərəl/
_adjective_
adjective: *natural*
*1*. 
existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind.*

Get that last part?

And to answer your laughable question so what if it is a choice?    What would stop any other marriage from being legal if you cannot prove homosexuality is anything more than a choice?   Tell us.

Heterosexual marriage has existed forever because of its rock solid basis in genetics and sexual reproduction and 4th grade sex ed.   You can't hide behind some laws that ban sexual practices you like and want to get rid of laws that ban sexual practices you do like if you admit the sexual practice you like cannot be proven to be anything more than a choice.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Hey Genius.  By that moronic definition murder, cannibalism, and rape are natural and no one is stupid enough to legalize it just because it occurs in nature.


Natural, yes. That doesn't make them good. Or are you under the impression that "natural" also means "good"? It would certainly explain why conservatives are so desperate to declare homosexuality unnatural.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Natural, yes. That doesn't make them good. Or are you under the impression that "natural" also means "good"? It would certainly explain why conservatives are so desperate to declare homosexuality unnatural.


what? :Thinking:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> what?


It's self-explanatory.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So what if homosexuality is a choice or not? If two straight guys wanted to get married, they should be able to also. *Marriage is not about procreation*, if it was, then infertile couples or post-menopausal women would not be allowed to get married. Also, sex is not just about procreation. If that was true, humans would not be able to have sex unless the woman was ovulating and birth control would be illegal. We don't base our laws on things that are natural or not because the word "natural" is meaningless. Everything that exists is "natural". So do yourselves a favor and find a new word.


Sorry, but it is about procreation.  Or specifically about the social aspects of family and reproduction:  The selection of a permanent mate; RECOGNITION of that selection by the community.  Sex is dynamite; it can be a blessing or it can be destructive and even lethal.  Stable human cultures have determined that a permanent bonding, one man to one woman, is the way a stable community; a stable family that can care for its young.  Marriage is a blessing of that bond.  What would in other situations be condemned, is instead elevated and celebrated.

In that way, a family unit is created; with strong physical and emotional bonds.  In that stable unit children can be raised in relative safety and stability.  Later as the couple get older, the family is where they can expect to receive care - care given of love and devotion, not impersonal, resentful care by unionized government employees.

It's about procreation but it's about much more.  It's ALSO about the community's WILL to celebrate that bonding.  Now - this may shock you - but two men jamming penii up each other's rectums are not things normal people want to celebrate.  They see it and want to retch.

So...since marriage is a celebration, given of the community...YOU have no RIGHT to FORCE OTHERS to accept your deviant habits and practices.

----------


## kilgram

> Sorry, but it is about procreation.  Or specifically about the social aspects of family and reproduction:  The selection of a permanent mate; RECOGNITION of that selection by the community.  Sex is dynamite; it can be a blessing or it can be destructive and even lethal.  Stable human cultures have determined that a permanent bonding, one man to one woman, is the way a stable community; a stable family that can care for its young.  Marriage is a blessing of that bond.  What would in other situations be condemned, is instead elevated and celebrated.
> 
> In that way, a family unit is created; with strong physical and emotional bonds.  In that stable unit children can be raised in relative safety and stability.  Later as the couple get older, the family is where they can expect to receive care - care given of love and devotion, not impersonal, resentful care by unionized government employees.
> 
> It's about procreation but it's about much more.  It's ALSO about the community's WILL to celebrate that bonding.  Now - this may shock you - but two men jamming penii up each other's rectums are not things normal people want to celebrate.  They see it and want to retch.
> 
> So...since marriage is a celebration, given of the community...YOU have no RIGHT to FORCE OTHERS to accept your deviant habits and practices.


If I cannot procreate, cannot I marry with my girlfriend?

Well, then I think that Europeans are not normal people. Americans only are normal people, obviously. They are perfect.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Sorry, but it is about procreation.  Or specifically about the social aspects of family and reproduction:  The selection of a permanent mate; RECOGNITION of that selection by the community.  Sex is dynamite; it can be a blessing or it can be destructive and even lethal.  Stable human cultures have determined that a permanent bonding, one man to one woman, is the way a stable community; a stable family that can care for its young.  Marriage is a blessing of that bond.  What would in other situations be condemned, is instead elevated and celebrated.
> 
> In that way, a family unit is created; with strong physical and emotional bonds.  In that stable unit children can be raised in relative safety and stability.  Later as the couple get older, the family is where they can expect to receive care - care given of love and devotion, not impersonal, resentful care by unionized government employees.
> 
> It's about procreation but it's about much more.  It's ALSO about the community's WILL to celebrate that bonding.  Now - this may shock you - but two men jamming penii up each other's rectums are not things normal people want to celebrate.  They see it and want to retch.
> 
> So...since marriage is a celebration, given of the community...YOU have no RIGHT to FORCE OTHERS to accept your deviant habits and practices.


Hey, as long as you guys stop claiming to be for small government, I don't give a shit what you believe or support in regards to marriage.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Hey, as long as you guys stop claiming to be for small government, I don't give a shit what you believe or support in regards to marriage.


Marriage is society - not government.  Government only REFLECTS society - or that's how our system was supposed to work.

You tyrant wannabees...YOU wanted, and now have, top-down dictatorial bloated government.  That's not enough, though - you want to drive the CULTURE, too!  You are pushing people to their limits; and when they reach them...it ain't pretty.

You need to read some history - instead of playing with each other's bodily orifices.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Marriage is society - not government.


Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, it's been made a government issue now that the government gives benefits to married couples and passes laws regarding marriage.




> You tyrant wannabees...


Wow, only the third sentence and you're already full of shit. How am I a "tyrant wannabee," exactly? Do be specific.




> YOU wanted, and now have, top-down dictatorial bloated government.


I do? Really? Do show me where I've advocated this.




> That's not enough, though - you want to drive the CULTURE, too!  You are pushing people to their limits; and when they reach them...it ain't pretty.


More slavering, rabid threats of violence over silly disagreements. 




> You need to read some history - instead of playing with each other's bodily orifices.


I am a student of history. Try me.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, it's been made a government issue now that the government gives benefits to married couples and passes laws regarding marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, only the third sentence and you're already full of shit. How am I a "tyrant wannabee," exactly? Do be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> I do? Really? Do show me where I've advocated this.
> ...


And K.O. with a few sentences. Good post.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-26-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Which one of you is a sock for the other?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Which one of you is a sock for the other?


Neither. We are our own people. We just happen to agree. What's wrong, can't take the heat?

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

heat.   lol

----------


## JustPassinThru

And then your sock thanks you!

I'm touched.   :Gay:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And then your sock thanks you!
> 
> I'm touched.


Are you and Calypso related by any chance? You seem to have the same tactic. Put up an argument, get it shot down, get asked some questions you can't answer, give up all pretense of trying to argue and just resort to personal insults. 

It's okay, though. I'm smiling, because I know what this tactic means.  :Kick:

----------


## Calypso Jones

Do you think Sinestro/TP that it might be that we both(and others)know you're wrong and one day if you are lucky you will realize it and you will kick yourself because we told you so.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Do you think Sinestro/TP that it might be that we both(and others)know you're wrong and one day if you are lucky you will realize it and you will kick yourself because we told you so.


I've considered it, but you've yet to prove it. I'm receptive. I've gone from hardcore conservative Republican, to minarchist, to libertarian anarcho-capitalist, to voluntary socialist all in a span of five years, all because I'm willing to listen to strong arguments and sufficient evidence. 

Offer some of that, and I'll consider what you have to say. But quitting the argument and resorting to personal attacks rather than just admitting you don't have an answer will not help you.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I've considered it, but you've yet to prove it. I'm receptive. I've gone from hardcore conservative Republican, to minarchist, to libertarian anarcho-capitalist, to voluntary socialist all in a span of five years, all because I'm willing to listen to strong arguments and sufficient evidence. 
> 
> Offer some of that, and I'll consider what you have to say. But quitting the argument and resorting to personal attacks rather than just admitting you don't have an answer will not help you.


that tells me you are easily swayed by a persuasive argument.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> that tells me you are easily swayed by a persuasive argument.


If that's what you want to read into it.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Its not my place to prove homosexuality is a choice.  You want to change the law.  It is up to you to prove to the rest of us in the real world that homosexuality is NOT a choice. But you can't.


Disagreed on the question.  The question is "Should Americans be deprived of rights and privileges given to others based on sexual preference".  It's up to you to prove why homosexuals should be deprived of the 1100+ privileges and benefits given to married couples by Federal law.  

Let's make this simple.  Cut all Federal benefits and privileges to married couples and we don't have a problem with the 14th Amendment regarding fags, lesbos and other people you don't like.

In fact, let's go further.  Cut all benefits to parents.  I'm tired of subsidizing other people's little bastards and bitches.  Fuck them.  If they want to have kids fine, but why the FUCK should I have to pay for it?  Sound good, Tex?

----------


## Calypso Jones

Equal economic benefits do not provide justification for Catholics and other Christians or people of traditional sexual morality (in Christian Western Civilization) to use his or her democratic influence to institute legal recognition of, and thus implicit encouragement of, immoral behavior. Furthermore altering the definition of marriage for the benefit of same-sex couples establishes a precedent that the definition of marriage can be changed to fit whatever is popular or acceptable at any given time thus providing the possibility of future legalization of group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. With no consistent definition of what a marriage or a family is these terms will be _without meaning_, perhaps leading to the abandonment of marriage all together.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Disagreed on the question.  The question is "Should Americans be deprived of rights and privileges given to others based on sexual preference".  It's up to you to prove why homosexuals should be deprived of the 1100+ privileges and benefits given to married couples by Federal law.  
> 
> Let's make this simple.  Cut all Federal benefits and privileges to married couples and we don't have a problem with the 14th Amendment regarding fags, lesbos and other people you don't like.
> 
> In fact, let's go further.  Cut all benefits to parents.  I'm tired of subsidizing other people's little bastards and bitches.  Fuck them.  If they want to have kids fine, but why the FUCK should I have to pay for it?  Sound good, Tex?


We've talked that one to death.  The only way you can make the case you're *deprived* of rights, is to redefine the meaning of marriage.

You can marry exactly the same choice of people I, and every other male, can marry.  The opposite of who any female can marry.

You can NOT marry anyone you choose.  You can't marry animals or inanimate objects or blood relatives or children.  Or persons of the same sex.

That applies to you; to me; to every other person in this nation.  How is that "unequal"?

I'll answer for you:  It is NOT.  So let it go; you're not clever; you're annoying.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Equal economic benefits do not provide justification for Catholics and other Christians or people of traditional sexual morality (in Christian Western Civilization) to use his or her democratic influence to institute legal recognition of, and thus implicit encouragement of, immoral behavior. Furthermore altering the definition of marriage for the benefit of same-sex couples establishes a precedent that the definition of marriage can be changed to fit whatever is popular or acceptable at any given time thus providing the possibility of future legalization of group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. With no consistent definition of what a marriage or a family is these terms will be _without meaning_, perhaps leading to the abandonment of marriage all together.


It is not the government's job to promote morality.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It is not the government's job to promote morality.



Nope.

And it's not the government's PLACE, to FORCE cultural changes down the gullets of The People.

The culture is to steer the government, in our system.  Not the government control and direct the culture.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Nope.
> 
> And it's not the government's PLACE, to FORCE cultural changes down the gullets of The People.
> 
> The culture is to steer the government, in our system.  Not the government control and direct the culture.


I somewhat agree, which is why I think we need to remove marriage from the government's purview completely. All marriage laws are unconstitutional because the federal government was given no right to recognize or regulate marriage.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I somewhat agree, which is why I think we need to remove marriage from the government's purview completely. All marriage laws are unconstitutional because the federal government was given no right to recognize or regulate marriage.


As long as there's tax breaks for children; and AFDC payments for children whom the breadwinner is absent, there's going to be definitions on "Marriage."  The way around that is a Flat Tax...and I can already hear the screams; feel the spittle flying.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I somewhat agree, which is why I think we need to remove marriage from the government's purview completely. All marriage laws are unconstitutional because the federal government was given no right to recognize or regulate marriage.


Are you ready for when the public rejects, by referendum, homosexual marriage?  Because they HAVE, in every state it's been put to the ballot.

That's the culture steering the government.  And when homosexual activists lose, they go crying to the nearest Federal Court.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Are you ready for when the public rejects, by referendum, homosexual marriage?  Because they HAVE, in every state it's been put to the ballot.


Actually, that's blatantly false. Three states have legalized gay marriage by public referendum. Regardless, though, that should not be put to a vote. Government has no business getting involved in it, period. Or are you really prepared to have the idiot population we have voting on every power of government? My gods, man, we'd be a dictatorship in a day.




> That's the culture steering the government.  And when homosexual activists lose, they go crying to the nearest Federal Court.


Right, because nobody else (aka conservatives) ever does that. *eyeroll*

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Equal economic benefits do not provide justification for Catholics and other Christians or people of traditional sexual morality (in Christian Western Civilization) to use his or her democratic influence to institute legal recognition of, and thus implicit encouragement of, immoral behavior. Furthermore altering the definition of marriage for the benefit of same-sex couples establishes a precedent that the definition of marriage can be changed to fit whatever is popular or acceptable at any given time thus providing the possibility of future legalization of group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. With no consistent definition of what a marriage or a family is these terms will be _without meaning_, perhaps leading to the abandonment of marriage all together.


Government should not be in the bedrooms of Americans nor dictating morals to them.  There's just the law.  What two consenting adults choose to do should be their business, no one elses.  Especially not government's.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-27-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We've talked that one to death.  The only way you can make the case you're *deprived* of rights, is to redefine the meaning of marriage.


Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?  What is defined in the Constitution is equal treatment under the law.  By not applying the law equally across the land, we weaken our own rights under the Constitution.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-27-2013),thedarkdaimon (09-30-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Equal economic benefits do not provide justification for Catholics and other Christians or people of traditional sexual morality (in Christian Western Civilization) to use his or her democratic influence to institute legal recognition of, and thus implicit encouragement of, immoral behavior. Furthermore altering the definition of marriage for the benefit of same-sex couples establishes a precedent that the definition of marriage can be changed to fit whatever is popular or acceptable at any given time thus providing the possibility of future legalization of group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. With no consistent definition of what a marriage or a family is these terms will be _without meaning_, perhaps leading to the abandonment of marriage all together.


But marriage HAS changed. Do we still have arranged marriages? Is a dowry still required? Of course not, because marriage has CHANGED.

----------


## Roadmaster

> But marriage HAS changed. Do we still have arranged marriages? Is a dowry still required? Of course not, because marriage has CHANGED.


 Not from two men and two women.

----------

texmaster (10-01-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Can't best them in an argument...this is a mission they're on; to spam and disrupt and plant their Talking Points.  All you can do is call them on their lies.

I just wish I was as rich and with as much time to waste as some of these gay blades...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Can't best them in an argument...this is a mission they're on; to spam and disrupt and plant their Talking Points.  All you can do is call them on their lies.
> 
> I just wish I was as rich and with as much time to waste as some of these gay blades...


I'm dismayed, but not surprised you believe in selective application of our Constitution.    The solution here is simply to eliminate the 1138 benefits the U.S. government gives to married couples.  Do that and there will be no Constitutional problem under the 14th Amendment.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm dismayed, but not surprised you believe in selective application of our Constitution.    The solution here is simply to eliminate the 1138 benefits the U.S. government gives to married couples.  Do that and there will be no Constitutional problem under the 14th Amendment.


More dishonest Talking Points.

There IS NO "selective application."  This has been talked to death; if you won't respond to logical, factually-correct responses...then we have nothing to discuss.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> More dishonest Talking Points.
> 
> There IS NO "selective application."  This has been talked to death; if you won't respond to logical, factually-correct responses...then we have nothing to discuss.


Then do as you say and stop responding to my posts.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Not from two men and two women.


Yes, it has. It's a social construct and society has more or less decided that it's okay.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Can't best them in an argument...this is a mission they're on; to spam and disrupt and plant their Talking Points.  All you can do is call them on their lies.
> 
> I just wish I was as rich and with as much time to waste as some of these gay blades...


Right, because everyone who disagrees with you must be gay. That's not at all immature and illogical.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Then do as you say and stop responding to my posts.


Or better yet, he should start posting logical, factually correct posts for us to respond to in the first place.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Or better yet, he should start posting logical, factually correct posts for us to respond to in the first place.


That would be a refreshing change but as likely as asking all the zoo chimps to stop flinging poo and having them comply.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-01-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

:Wanker:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> 


You can't get a job sitting around jerking off all day, son.

----------


## Perianne

> 


Geez.  That "smiley" is jerking off????? lol, terrible.

----------


## texmaster

> Government should not be in the bedrooms of Americans nor dictating morals to them.  There's just the law.  What two consenting adults choose to do should be their business, no one elses.  Especially not government's.


No one is talking about getting into bedrooms.  You are arguing with no one on that point.

----------


## texmaster

> Disagreed on the question.  The question is "Should Americans be deprived of rights and privileges given to others based on sexual preference".  It's up to you to prove why homosexuals should be deprived of the 1100+ privileges and benefits given to married couples by Federal law.


Factually incorrect.  There is no right specified anywhere in the Constituion on sexual preference.     You are making up law that doesn't exist.




> Let's make this simple.  Cut all Federal benefits and privileges to married couples and we don't have a problem with the 14th Amendment regarding fags, lesbos and other people you don't like.
> 
> In fact, let's go further.  Cut all benefits to parents.  I'm tired of subsidizing other people's little bastards and bitches.  Fuck them.  If they want to have kids fine, but why the FUCK should I have to pay for it?  Sound good, Tex?


Marriage has a stabilizing nature for children being raised.   That must be considered.   Just because some people want to redefine marriage and force others to go with their beliefs doesn't mean we should let them.

----------


## texmaster

> Actually, that's blatantly false. Three states have legalized gay marriage by public referendum. Regardless, though, that should not be put to a vote. Government has no business getting involved in it, period. Or are you really prepared to have the idiot population we have voting on every power of government? My gods, man, we'd be a dictatorship in a day.


What a moronic statement.    The very reason for proposittions is to pass law voted on by people.  Why should the people give up that right?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> What a moronic statement.    The very reason for proposittions is to pass law voted on by people.  Why should the people give up that right?


It's direct democracy, which is mob rule, which is not what the founders envisioned. There's a difference between voting on propositions for things like roads and taxes that affect everyone, and voting on whether or not people should have privileges discriminately applied to only one group of people. 

It sets a precedent. Eventually, you'll have California Democrats voting to strip the bill of rights from conservatives.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Factually incorrect.  There is no right specified anywhere in the Constituion on sexual preference.


Exactly!  So why are you seeking to deny Americans their rights under the Constitution based on sexual preference?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Exactly!  So why are you seeking to deny Americans their rights under the Constitution based on sexual preference?


Why are YOU intent on denying ALL OF AMERICA, _ITS_ rights to REJECT a sexual perversion damned by our religious tradition, proven to be a vector for a terminal disease, and abhorred by all civilized culture through all of history?

That is what "marriage" is - it's a SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and CELEBRATION of two people of opposite genders (I can't believe I have to say that) who commit their bonding for the _purpose of procreation_.

Did you get that?  MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL STATUS.   An announcement to the community.

When the community rejects it...you seek to use the law to FORCE us to accept something repulsive.

Where are OUR rights?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why are YOU intent on denying ALL OF AMERICA, _ITS_ rights to REJECT a sexual perversion damned by our religious tradition, proven to be a vector for a terminal disease, and abhorred by all civilized culture through all of history?


Why do you get so excited about what other consenting adult Americans do in their own home?  What are you?  Some kind of oppressive asshole?  How many times do you use the words fag, ******, bitch and kike a week?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Where are OUR rights?


 They hope to take ours. These militant gays are pushing and trying the Churches, religious buildings. and Christian market hoping to put them out of business. They say it shouldn't concern us, but they attack us.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They hope to take ours. These militant gays are pushing and trying the Churches, religious buildings. and Christian market hoping to put them out of business. They say it shouldn't concern us, but they attack us.


A good reason to support the Constitution and all of its Amendments.

It's the assholes who selectively choose how to apply the Constitution who are weakening our rights as Americans. I hope you can see this truism.

----------


## Roadmaster

> A good reason to support the Constitution and all of its Amendments.


Not really, they have been attacking freedom of Religion for some time now. It's not the same anymore. We have a right to believe as we do and expect them not to harm our children or anyone else's children gay or not. They are trying to say we don't have a right to believe because that makes us intolerant or racist.  Which is stupid they are not a race. I don't have to approve of their lifestyle to leave them alone as long as they don't think they will walk over us.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Not really, they have been attacking freedom of Religion for some time now.


And the Religious Right has been attacking both the First and Fourteenth Amendments since Anita Bryant in 1977.  You don't have to agree with them.  All I'm saying is that if we don't support our Constitution fully, then we weaken it.

Just because I supported the First Amendment rights of Nazis to march in Skokie doesn't mean I'm a Nazi-lover. It just means I support the Constitution.  If you do too, you might consider your position on such matters.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why do you get so excited about what other consenting adult Americans do in their own home?  What are you?  Some kind of oppressive asshole?  How many times do you use the words fag, ******, bitch and kike a week?


Here again, you're deliberately confusing two different things.

You want to bugger your BFF...that's between you, him, his proctologist, and your immunologist.  I don't CARE...so long as I don't have to look at it.

If you want to shove it in our FACES...that's what marriage IS, a statement before God and community that this man and this woman are bonded till death do us part...if you want to grind your perversion in our FACES by DEFACING the sacrament of matrimony...that's an insult to everyone to whom it means anything.

TWO...DIFFERENT...THINGS.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Here again, you're deliberately confusing two different things.


Deliberately?  There you go again projecting your own fears and hatreds.  

Look, dude.  I don't care if you hate having to blow your building manager to make ends meet or bend over the hot water heater to pay your electric bill.  Hating gays for your own weaknesses isn't the best way to become one with the Lord.   If you want to become a better Christian, consider letting go of your hate, stop blaming others for your problems and start considering how you can become a better Christian.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Attack, attack, attack.

Call names.  Go ahead...I'm HOMOPHOBIC!

Shift and slant the argument.

Someone who does that...HAS no argument.

Only an agenda.  An agenda being rammed through through fear; fear of being labeled something socially un-acceptable.

Pendulum swings, boy.  We are looking at hard, hard times ahead; and we're not going to have time or patience for your kind of childlike perversion and legal hooliganism.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Attack, attack, attack.


 Yup, that's what you do.  



> Here again, you're deliberately confusing two different things.





> Why are YOU intent on denying ALL OF AMERICA, _ITS_ rights to REJECT a sexual perversion damned by our religious tradition, proven to be a vector for a terminal disease, and abhorred by all civilized culture through all of history?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Attack, attack, attack.
> 
> Call names.  Go ahead...I'm HOMOPHOBIC!
> 
> Shift and slant the argument.
> 
> Someone who does that...HAS no argument.
> 
> Only an agenda.  An agenda being rammed through through fear; fear of being labeled something socially un-acceptable.
> ...


It's kind of hilarious, because you just described your own tactic. All you've done since day one of your posting here is insult people you disagree with and invent strawmen of their arguments. Then you want to whine and cry like a bitch when it gets turned back on you.

----------


## The XL

> Why are YOU intent on denying ALL OF AMERICA, _ITS_ rights to REJECT a sexual perversion damned by our religious tradition, proven to be a vector for a terminal disease, and abhorred by all civilized culture through all of history?
> 
> That is what "marriage" is - it's a SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and CELEBRATION of two people of opposite genders (I can't believe I have to say that) who commit their bonding for the _purpose of procreation_.
> 
> Did you get that?  MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL STATUS.   An announcement to the community.
> 
> When the community rejects it...you seek to use the law to FORCE us to accept something repulsive.
> 
> Where are OUR rights?


Religion and the feelings of the majority have no bearing on the Constitution or the government.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Why are YOU intent on denying ALL OF AMERICA, _ITS_ rights to REJECT a sexual perversion damned by our religious tradition, proven to be a vector for a terminal disease, and abhorred by all civilized culture through all of history?


Now which religious tradition is that, the official religion of America? Oh, that's right, we don't have an official religion, we accept all religions (and even no religion). Of course, if we rejected everything that each religion is against we wouldn't have much of anything left.

Sex is a vector for terminal diseases, should we outlaw sex? 

The ancient Greeks, the pre-Communist Chinese and the Japanese all accept homosexuality. Just to name a few.




> That is what "marriage" is - it's a SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and CELEBRATION of two people of opposite genders (I can't believe I have to say that) who commit their bonding for the _purpose of procreation_.
> 
> Did you get that?  MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL STATUS.   An announcement to the community.


Sigh... Once again. If marriage was for the purpose of procreation, then why are infertile couples allowed to marry? Why are post-menopausal women allowed to marry? Really, that argument is getting old.

What is really funny is that you say that marriage is for the purpose of procreation but at the same time, agree that a marriage is a social acknowledgement and celebration of two people. Why does have to be people of opposite gender?




> When the community rejects it...you seek to use the law to FORCE us to accept something repulsive.
> 
> Where are OUR rights?


So if the community rejected the marriage between races or between different religions, that's ok? We are not trying to force anything on anyone, we just want to allow any consenting adults who want to get married, be able to do so. Why is that so bad?

Oh, and I hate to tell you, but you don't have the right NOT to be repulsed.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-02-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

Study done.   

Kids in homosexual union households are less likely to complete high school.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/chi...te-high-school

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Study done.   
> 
> Kids in homosexual union households are less likely to complete high school.
> 
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/chi...te-high-school


So, what do you conclude from that?

----------


## Katzndogz

Children raised by same sex households have the same kind of dysfunctions as any child raised in a single sex household by single parents.   They simply cannot learn interactions between the sexes.   There are no role models.   Boys learn how to treat women from the way their father treats their mother.  Girls learn what to expect by watching their parents.   Such instruction has passed from the family to movies and television.   Since that's all contrived, it isn't helping.

The primary purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children.   That's what it has always done.  Because that's the PRIMARY purpose, it doesn't mean that all other purposes are prohibited, it just means that's the primary reason.

The entire institution of marriage has been incrementally destroyed for decades, since the 70s at least.   We had to destroy marriage.  Had there been no destruction, had there been no broken homes, the whole question of same sex marriage would never have come up.   First the intact family had to be devalued.   Now that it pretty much has and its importance diminished, the left can talk about alternative relationships.   The one we had is no longer working.  By design!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Children raised by same sex households have the same kind of dysfunctions as any child raised in a single sex household by single parents.   They simply cannot learn interactions between the sexes.   There are no role models.   Boys learn how to treat women from the way their father treats their mother.  Girls learn what to expect by watching their parents.   Such instruction has passed from the family to movies and television.   Since that's all contrived, it isn't helping.


While I can see that being a problem, I don't see it being a big problem.  Are you suggesting single parents be made illegal?  

Do you have any data to support your  post?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Study done.   
> 
> Kids in homosexual union households are less likely to complete high school.
> 
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/chi...te-high-school


Old hat. Here is what was said about the study and Mark Regnerus, the study's author:

"The sociologists brief was directly challenged in an amicus brief filed in late February by the American Sociological Association, Regnerus professional organization. In that brief, authors argued that Regnerus data did not support his papers conclusions and addressed the briefs attacks on studies that have found no differences among outcomes of children raised by straight parents versus children raised by gay parents."

And even more damning:

"As The American Independent reported last month, the Witherspoon Institute, the conservative think tank that funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, pushed to have the studys results out before major decisions of the Supreme Court, according to documents obtained through a public records request.Among those documents  which are still being released in chunks  is a document titled Mark Regnerus Media Training, which encouraged the professor to focus on the fact that his study was a large, random, nationally representative study, unlike the majority of the existing research on gay parenting. He was told to avoid politics.

The origin of this training document, which is undated, is unknown. David Ochsner, director of public affairs at the University of Texas College of Liberal Arts, said he did not believe the guidelines were issued by UT, and he said Regnerus told him he could not remember where they came from. Witherspoon Institute President Luis Tellez said they were not issued by the Witherspoon Institute.

Regnerus key points to make included:


This study does not ascribe a cause to the effects, it simply reports the data.

For many years, gay advocates have claimed that there are no meaningful differences between children of same-sex couples and other children. This study shows this not to be true.

Young adults raised in a same-sex household are
[list key findings such as more likely to have considered suicide, etc.]."

Studies are not supposed to have conclusions before they have the data.

To read more, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3049309.html

----------


## Katzndogz

> While I can see that being a problem, I don't see it being a big problem.  Are you suggesting single parents be made illegal?  
> 
> Do you have any data to support your  post?


Why not just take a look at the data concerning children of divorced parents.   In the 70s, divorce was considered to be better for children than being raised in intact families.  Parents who got divorced were doing the right thing.   Now, of course, children from such broken homes are "disadvantaged" children raised in single parent homes are disadvantaged.   I doubt you will see any data coming out that addresses the disadvantage of children raised in homosexual households.   We are being socially engineered.   Data that does not support engineering efforts will not see the light of day for many decades to come.  Then it will be too late to do anything about it.

Making things that are unacceptable also illegal is a liberal social engineering delight!   Single parents don't need to be made illegal.  Just stop encouraging single parenting.  Take single parenting out of the criteria for optimum child development.   Remove homosexual households from the list of optimum child development.   It's there, but not to be encouraged.

When I had my law office opened, I formed MANY homosexual families.  I had an opportunity to watch them as these children grew.  Some families took special care and had a person of the opposite sex closely involved with the child's life.  Sometimes it was a grandparent, sometimes the child's actual biological parent, the sibling of the parents.  Someone.   Those that did not raised dysfunctional children into dysfunctional adults.  These children went from therapy with a child psychologist right into therapy as an adult.   These children never truly understand why they cannot form appropriate relationships with others.  Just like any other person raised in a single sex household.  A boy raised by a single mother may learn that male behavior consists of being transitory.   He never saw his mother form a stable relationship and provided him with a series of daddys or uncles.  He does the same thing.  Witness the dysfunction in the black community where transitory relationships are the norm.   How big a problem is that?   20 years ago it wasn't a big problem.  Today it's a huge problem.

California governor Jerry Brown recognized the damage done in single or same sex parenting.  He just signed a bill allowing for multiple parents of a child.  What data do you think HE used?   This is a way, the first tentative way, of addressing the damage done by same sex parenting without actually coming out and saying so.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> When I had my law office opened, I formed MANY homosexual families.  I had an opportunity to watch them as these children grew.  Some families took special care and had a person of the opposite sex closely involved with the child's life.  Sometimes it was a grandparent, sometimes the child's actual biological parent, the sibling of the parents.  Someone.   Those that did not raised dysfunctional children into dysfunctional adults.  These children went from therapy with a child psychologist right into therapy as an adult.   These children never truly understand why they cannot form appropriate relationships with others.  Just like any other person raised in a single sex household.  A boy raised by a single mother may learn that male behavior consists of being transitory.   He never saw his mother form a stable relationship and provided him with a series of daddys or uncles.  He does the same thing.  Witness the dysfunction in the black community where transitory relationships are the norm.   How big a problem is that?   20 years ago it wasn't a big problem.  Today it's a huge problem.


Your anecdotal testimony is appreciated.  Thank you.  As a lawyer(?) you should know that single witness testimony of one area over one period doesn't mean it's universal. Like police who mostly see the dregs of society and, therefore, often think the worst of _all_ society, the situations you witnessed are obviously the problematic ones, not the functional ones. 




> Why not just take a look at the data concerning children of divorced parents.


I'd love to which is part of why I asked you for evidence of your position.  If you are a lawyer, I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of presenting verifiable evidence to make your case.

----------


## catfish

homosexuality is a biological anomaly

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> homosexuality is a biological anomaly


So is Left-handedness, some blood types and both very high and very low IQ.  

As it is, I fit into the Left-handed, relatively rare blood type and a little further out on the edge of the IQ Bell curve than average....your call as to which end.  :Big Grin: 

I'm a "biological anomaly".

----------

The XL (11-03-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> So is Left-handedness, some blood types and both very high and very low IQ.  
> 
> As it is, I fit into the Left-handed, relatively rare blood type and a little further out on the edge of the IQ Bell curve than average....your call as to which end. 
> 
> I'm a "biological anomaly".


Do you know of any homosexual man or woman in good health that doesn't produce reproductive material?

If you want to embarrass yourself further, just let me know.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Do you know of any homosexual man or woman in good health that doesn't produce reproductive material?
> 
> If you want to embarrass yourself further, just let me know.


How am I embarrassing myself in your eyes and why should I care what you think?

As for the homos, I can only assume most fit within the normal biology of human beings.  If a female is fertilized by sperm at the appropriate time, she'll become pregnant.  This is why artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are big among gays.

----------


## catfish

> Do you know of any homosexual man or woman in good health that doesn't produce reproductive material?
> 
> If you want to embarrass yourself further, just let me know.


on the surface that seems like a shut the hell up answer.....a homo couple cannot reproduce....if left natural selection they wouldn't exist so must conclude it is more of a choice than a biological need.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> on the surface that seems like a shut the hell up answer.....a homo couple cannot reproduce....if left natural selection they wouldn't exist so must conclude it is more of a choice than a biological need.


I'm sure they would be smart enough to do as some do now; fuck a member of the opposite sex purely for the purpose of procreation.

----------


## texmaster

> How am I embarrassing myself in your eyes and why should I care what you think?
> 
> As for the homos, I can only assume most fit within the normal biology of human beings.  If a female is fertilized by sperm at the appropriate time, she'll become pregnant.  This is why artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are big among gays.


Try to keep up.   Pretending that homosexuality itself is not a biological anomaly is to deny the basic biological sexual reaction of all humans.

  Artificial insemination is not natural.    Its sad this actually had to be explained to you.

And by not answering such a basic question you have proven your argument is an unsupported theory.

----------


## texmaster

> on the surface that seems like a shut the hell up answer.....a homo couple cannot reproduce....if left natural selection they wouldn't exist so must conclude it is more of a choice than a biological need.


Its a shut down answer to the question of homosexuality being natural which is a laughable claim.   The very fact that homosexuality continues to exist without a natural pattern only proves it is not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Try to keep up.   Pretending that homosexuality itself is not a biological anomaly is to deny the basic biological sexual reaction of all humans.
> 
>   Artificial insemination is not natural.    Its sad this actually had to be explained to you.
> 
> And by not answering such a basic question you have proven your argument is an unsupported theory.


Try to use your head for something other than an eyeglass holder.  I showed how homosexuality could survive regardless if it is genetic or purely by choice.

Do you think heterosexuality is genetic or choice?  Prove your answer.

----------


## texmaster

> Try to use your head for something other than an eyeglass holder.  I showed how homosexuality could survive regardless if it is genetic or purely by choice.


You proved nothing.    There is no evidence of homosexuality being genetic.




> Do you think heterosexuality is genetic or choice?  Prove your answer.


Unlike you I will easily prove it.  There is a biological sexual reaction in all humans when sexually stimulated.  The body prepares for natural procreation.   Natural procreation requires heterosexual sex proving heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality is not genetic.    When you can find homosexuals that stop producing reproductive material you can return to your bullshit theory about homosexuality being natural or genetic.   Until then its just a pipe dream based on faith not fact.

Still waiting for your evidence that homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form.

----------


## Calypso Jones

http://nypost.com/2013/11/03/two-men...or-first-time/

two men marry at West Point Chapel for first time.

I am embarrassed for half my country.  You wanna know why the middle east hates us?  it's this kinda crap.    They RESPECT Power and Force.     It's stupid Ship like this that shows them all we are decadent and worse.

----------

texmaster (11-03-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> http://nypost.com/2013/11/03/two-men...or-first-time/
> 
> two men marry at West Point Chapel for first time.
> 
> I am embarrassed for half my country.  You wanna know why the middle east hates us?  it's this kinda crap.    They RESPECT Power and Force.     It's stupid Ship like this that shows them all we are decadent and worse.


So we should live under Muslim rules and let them decide our standards?

----------


## Calypso Jones

ohgoodgrief

Does anyone else not get this?

----------


## The XL

Oh fuck, the Middle East doesn't hate us because of our freedom, or because of blowback, it's because of teh gays.

It's all been figured out now.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-03-2013)

----------


## The XL

> homosexuality is a biological anomaly


One of the many.  Yet, no one seems to care about the others.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-03-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Oh fuck, the Middle East doesn't hate us because of our freedom, or because of blowback, it's because of teh gays.
> 
> It's all been figured out now.


It's like exotix and LaPierre, lol.

----------

The XL (11-03-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ohgoodgrief
> 
> Does anyone else not get this?


That you're confused? Oh, I'm sure your ideological allies don't get that, but then, being your ideological allies, they are also confused.

----------


## The XL

I honestly have no idea why conservatives freak the fuck out so much about gays.  Sure, their are the closet gays, and the ones who blindly follow their religion and want to force it on everyone else, but what about the rest of them?  Why is this such a big issue to them?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-03-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I honestly have no idea why conservatives freak the fuck out so much about gays.  Sure, their are the closet gays, and the ones who blindly follow their religion and want to force it on everyone else, but what about the rest of them?  Why is this such a big issue to them?


Hell if I know. It may just be as simple as a self-conscious desire to control.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Unlike you I will easily prove it.  There is a biological sexual reaction in all humans when sexually stimulated.  *The body prepares for natural procreation.*   Natural procreation requires heterosexual sex proving heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality is not genetic.    When you can find homosexuals that stop producing reproductive material you can return to your bullshit theory about homosexuality being natural or genetic.   Until then its just a pipe dream based on faith not fact.
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence that homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form.


When I see an attractive naked woman beckoning me for sex my first thought isn't "Hey, let's make a baby!" It's not my last thought either.  In fact, it's not on my mind at all.  So your assertion that people have sex for procreation is completely baseless.

Dream on, dude.  Play your politically and religiously based games about sex, but I believe God gave us brains for a reason.  Your choice as to use yours or not.

----------

catfish (11-03-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-03-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> When I see an attractive naked woman beckoning me for sex my first thought isn't "Hey, let's make a baby!" It's not my last thought either.  In fact, it's not on my mind at all.  So your assertion that people have sex for procreation is completely baseless.
> 
> Dream on, dude.  Play your politically and religiously based games about sex, but I believe God gave us brains for a reason.  Your choice as to use yours or not.


LOL   You really need me to break out the crayons don't you. 

*The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes it genetic!   You can't control the fact that when a human is sexually stimulated the body prepares for natural procreation aka heterosexual sex.  That's the entire point genius.

The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.*

I can't believe once again the most basic arguments have to be explained to you.

Third time: Still waiting for your evidence that homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> LOL   You really need me to break out the crayons don't you.


What do crayons have to do with it?

----------



----------


## Karl

AH the good old PROCREATION argument 
 @texmaster let me ask you this when 2ELDERLY heterosexual couple get MARRIED do they have PROCREATION on their minds if they are even CAPAPLE at their age

By your logic @texmaster you would deny MARRIAGE to draught elderly couples as we right


> LOL   You really need me to break out the crayons don't you. 
> 
> *The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes it genetic!   You can't control the fact that when a human is sexually stimulated the body prepares for natural procreation aka heterosexual sex.  That's the entire point genius.
> 
> The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.*
> 
> I can't believe once again the most basic arguments have to be explained to you.
> 
> Third time: Still waiting for your evidence that homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form.

----------


## texmaster

> AH the good old PROCREATION argument


Its called SCIENCE.  What you refuse to acknowledge.   I'm sure its killing you I'm not making a religious argument.   :Headbang: 




> @texmaster let me ask you this when 2ELDERLY heterosexual couple get MARRIED do they have PROCREATION on their minds if they are even CAPAPLE at their age
> 
> By your logic @texmaster you would deny MARRIAGE to draught elderly couples as we right


LOL  I made the argument for heterosexuality to be natural and genetic and not homosexuality and I proved it in spades.    
*
And getting old doesn't change the biological nature of humans.*

Seriously that's one of the weakest most pathetic arguments I've heard on this issue.

----------


## Karl

You whole ARGUMENT is that you are vehemently ANTI GAY and will support anything that ostracizes the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender community 


> Its called SCIENCE.  What you refuse to acknowledge.   I'm sure its killing you I'm not making a religious argument.  
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  I made the argument for heterosexuality to be natural and genetic and not homosexuality and I proved it in spades.    
> *
> And getting old doesn't change the biological nature of humans.*
> 
> Seriously that's one of the weakest most pathetic arguments I've heard on this issue.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Seriously that's one of the weakest most pathetic arguments I've heard on this issue.


You're very good with insults, but not so good answering questions.   Including the one I posted above.  Are you just hiding?  Afraid to answer?  Don't know?

----------


## texmaster

> What do crayons have to do with it?


Obviously you have trouble following the arguments so the crayons are necessary to break it down for you.    And you ducking the very argument I just made only displays your cowardice and lack of belief in your own argument.

Thanks for being predictable.




> You're very good with insults, but not so  good answering questions.   Including the one I posted above.  Are you  just hiding?  Afraid to answer?  Don't know?


You haven't answered a single question I posed to you and you speak of cowardice.   Spare me.

Your cowardice is your inability to quote my argument and respond.  Instead you quote a single sentence and run away like a coward from the actual argument.   I quote every single thing you say and respond directly.   Thats the difference between us.

----------


## Karl

There  @texmaster what  @Sinestro said

Marriage is a SOCIAL INSTITUTION not a SCIENCE 


> Where's the science, exactly? I see a lot of BS and no science.
> 
> Nevermind that "gay marriage" cannot be scientifically proven wrong, as marriage is a social institution and not science.

----------


## Karl

Here's a couple OTHER good points that show how OBSURD your argument is 


> There's a difference between _homosexuality_ in science and _gay marriage_ in science. You're conflating the two. Homosexuality does exist in nature, and I personally believe it is nature's way of preventing overpopulation. That's just me, though. I don't particularly care what it is or why. I am who I am, and I don't care who approves or doesn't. 
> 
> So, what's your scientific proof that a very unscientific social institution is "wrong"?





> Where is marriage seen in nature? Are there any species in the animal kingdom which issue marriage licenses and perform ceremonies?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Obviously you have trouble following the arguments so the crayons are necessary to break it down for you.    And you ducking the very argument I just made only displays your cowardice and lack of belief in your own argument.


What took you so long to admit you were just trolling, flaming and making personal attacks?  Jeez.




> You haven't answered a single question I posed to you and you speak of cowardice. Spare me.
> 
> Your cowardice is your inability to quote my argument and respond. Instead you quote a single sentence and run away like a coward from the actual argument. I quote every single thing you say and respond directly. Thats the difference between us.


Why should I answer your ignorant questions? Obviously you are uneducated and just a loud-mouth who gets off hating on others.  Why should I waste any more time on you than suits me?

----------


## The XL

> Its not my place to prove homosexuality is a choice.  You want to change the law.  It is up to you to prove to the rest of us in the real world that homosexuality is NOT a choice. But you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you are confused but do try and keep up.   See Males and Females in nature complement each other.  Their sexual organs were made to be used for procreation with each other.   That is the natural and genetic state of heterosexuality.  Where is your made up evidence that homosexuality can boast any claim to be genetic or natural?
> 
> This should be good.


Over 1,500 species practice homosexuality.  That in of itself shows it's genetic.  Along with 99% of testimony from gay people, and the unfortunate incidents like gay teens killing themselves for being gay, presumably because they are surrounded by ignorant, stupid friends and family with the same idiotic, hateful views that you have.

In any case, for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise, their is a community of people that prefer the other sex.  And as long as the state exists in marriage, they have a perfectly legitimate case for equal rights.

What does procreation have to do with any of this?  It is irrelevant to marriage, as infertile heteros can marry.  Marriage is just a contract, anyhow.

----------


## texmaster

> Over 1,500 species practice homosexuality.  That in of itself shows it's genetic.


Bullshit. By that moronic logic cannibalism is genetic as well as inbreeding just because they exist in other species.    A pathetically failed argument.   




> Along with 99% of testimony from gay people, and the unfortunate incidents like gay teens killing themselves for being gay, presumably because they are surrounded by ignorant, stupid friends and family with the same idiotic, hateful views that you have.


So you aren't smart enough to back up your claims with actual facts.  No surprise there.




> In any case, for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise, their is a community of people that prefer the other sex.  And as long as the state exists in marriage, they have a perfectly legitimate case for equal rights.


By that moronic logic no group of people could be denied marriage by making it a new right and arguing the very fact a community exists in society means they deserve this new right. So by that argument you are for pedophiles getting married.  After all they are a community in our society denied your new "right"  Of course you didn't think before you came up with such a dumbass argument so go ahead and try to wiggle your way out of this one.




> What does procreation have to do with any of this?  It is irrelevant to marriage, as infertile heteros can marry.  Marriage is just a contract, anyhow.


You really are slow aren't you.   Time to break out the crayons again.   The arguyment for procreation was not to claim its a requirement for marriage but to prove the genetic fact of heterosexuality and deny the lie that homosexuality is genetic.

Do try and keep up.

----------


## texmaster

> You whole ARGUMENT is that you are vehemently ANTI GAY and will support anything that ostracizes the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender community


So you can't support your positions and run away like a gutless coward from arguing against mine.    

This is me shocked.

----------


## texmaster

> What took you so long to admit you were just trolling, flaming and making personal attacks?  Jeez.


Whining about having your ass handed to you isn't flattering.




> Why should I answer your ignorant questions? Obviously you are uneducated and just a loud-mouth who gets off hating on others.  Why should I waste any more time on you than suits me?


So you aren't here to debate.  You are here to whine then run away from my arguments or making any argument to support your beliefs.

Color me shocked.

----------


## Karl

@texmaster ain't nobody RUNNING AWAY why run away and MISS OUT on you PISSING YOUR PANTS 

PLEASE

----------


## texmaster

> @texmaster ain't nobody RUNNING AWAY why run away and MISS OUT on you PISSING YOUR PANTS 
> 
> PLEASE


You are.  And you did it again by demanding my argument then running away from responding when it was given. 

All you can do is falsely label my argument and believe by labeling it means you aren't a coward for not being able to respond to its facts.

Its a gutless tactic but one I expect from liberals.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

@S L H ever notice how certain people fall in to the same pattern of name-calling like "coward" and "running away"?  My first thought is that they are projecting feelings they have for themselves.  Another is that they are really tough behind a keyboard and an anonymous name.   

I often wonder what such people are like IRL.  I'm guessing most are nothing like their online persona and that says a lot about their personalities and character.

----------


## Perianne

> I often wonder what such people are like IRL.  I'm guessing most are nothing like their online persona and that says a lot about their personalities and character.


I wonder about that, too.  I think a lot of people act online like they would like to be in real life.  You know, tough and mouthy.  I am actually nicer online than I am in real life.  I have been referred to as a bitch sometimes.  So, maybe I, too, am acting online like I would like to be in real life.   Who knows?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I wonder about that, too.  I think a lot of people act online like they would like to be in real life.  You know, tough and mouthy.  I am actually nicer online than I am in real life.  I have been referred to as a bitch sometimes.  So, maybe I, too, am acting online like I would like to be in real life.   Who knows?


I think honest, confident people are more themselves.  People with suck-ass lives tend to think of the Internet as a virtual life like "the Sims".   While this doesn't mean they act like assholes, for men, it often does.

----------


## Perianne

> I think honest, confident people are more themselves.  People with suck-ass lives tend to think of the Internet as a virtual life like "the Sims".   While this doesn't mean they act like assholes, for men, it often does.


I think you are right.  Some people are looking for a fight.  I don't and never have.  So, if Max doesn't agree with me on things, so what?  I can't look down on you for not being as smart as I am, right?   :Smile: 

I seriously have considered about every issue there is.  I have made my decisions about where I stand and I stick with that.  Other people have different opinions.  If there were a better opinion than mine, then I would have choosen that other opinion.  So, therefore I am always right about everything.  I don't know why people can't understand that.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-05-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think you are right.  Some people are looking for a fight.  I don't and never have.  So, if Max doesn't agree with me on things, so what?  I can't look down on you for not being as smart as I am, right?  
> 
> I seriously have considered about every issue there is.  I have made my decisions about where I stand and I stick with that.  Other people have different opinions.  If there were a better opinion than mine, then I would have choosen that other opinion.  *So, therefore I am always right about everything.*  I don't know why people can't understand that.


Spoken like a true American Woman.   :Big Grin:

----------

Perianne (11-05-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> Spoken like a true American Woman.


Is there any wonder now why I am still single?  lol

----------


## The XL

> Bullshit. By that moronic logic cannibalism is genetic as well as inbreeding just because they exist in other species.    A pathetically failed argument.


The fact that 1500 species of animals practice homosexuality blows up your whole fucking argument, and you're too stupid to see it.  Inbreeding and cannibalism would be genetic in said species, it would seem.  Perhaps as a genetic anomaly, but no one is arguing that being gay is anything more than a genetic anomaly.




> So you aren't smart enough to back up your claims with actual facts.  No surprise there.


Except I just did.  The fact that many species practice it is irrefutable proof.  The one who hasn't been able to back up anything would be you, which isn't much of a surprise, seeing as how you're a terrible poster.  That fact that nearly every gay person says as much is icing on the cake.  




> By that moronic logic no group of people could be denied marriage  by making it a new right and arguing the very fact a community exists in  society means they deserve this new right. So by that argument you are  for pedophiles getting married.  After all they are a community in our  society denied your new "right"  Of course you didn't think before you  came up with such a dumbass argument so go ahead and try to wiggle your  way out of this one.


Children cannot consent.  Adults can.  This really isn't rocket science, but I guess even low level comprehension is too much to ask from you.





> You really are slow aren't you.   Time to break out the crayons again.    The arguyment for procreation was not to claim its a requirement for  marriage but to prove the genetic fact of heterosexuality and deny the  lie that homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> Do try and keep up.


How does the lack of reproduction prove that homosexuality isn't genetic?  What kind of dumb argument is that?  


At the end of the day, you're not a bright guy, it's that simple.  I think you try hard, but genetically, you're at your limit.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

This whole argument is pointless. Whether or not it is "natural" is completely irrelevant.

----------

The XL (11-05-2013)

----------


## The XL

> This whole argument is pointless. Whether or not it is "natural" is completely irrelevant.


Agreed.  Still, it's pretty obvious it's genetic.  Is some random animal with low intellect going be like, "lulz, time to be gay today?"

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-05-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

Then lets look at the facts over 50% of the gay community in Atlanta Georgia has HIV. That's just the ones who got tested because many don't want to know. Being Bi only puts more people in danger if a person isn't having safe sex. The black population has the most HIV. Just from 30 years ago no one talks about this and it's crazy how many are infected.

----------


## The XL

> Then lets look at the facts over 50% of the gay community in Atlanta Georgia has HIV. That's just the ones who got tested because many don't want to know. Being Bi only puts more people in danger if a person isn't having safe sex. The black population has the most HIV. Just from 30 years ago no one talks about this and it's crazy how many are infected.


That's likely in large part due to practicing unsafe sex.

----------


## Roadmaster

> That's likely in large part do to practicing in unsafe sex.


 Yes and no. Most if they are with a person over 2 months will just stop guarding themselves because to them they are in a committed relationship without asking their partner to be tested. This needs to be addressed because the rate is alarming. Why do we keep hiding this number? Gays from all over go to Atlanta for sex. Not only gays but many black communities that discriminate against gays the men try to hide their sexuality having a girlfriend and a secret life spread it like wildfire.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Is there any wonder now why I am still single?  lol


You're just too much woman for any one man, Sweetie.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's likely in large part due to practicing unsafe sex.


You are being kind.  It's mostly due to unsafe sex.  We all know if a straight couple has sex where the man is wearing a condom, it's a woman making him do it.  If it's two men, that's just twice as likely no condoms will be worn.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Then lets look at the facts over 50% of the gay community in Atlanta Georgia has HIV. That's just the ones who got tested because many don't want to know. Being Bi only puts more people in danger if a person isn't having safe sex. The black population has the most HIV. Just from 30 years ago no one talks about this and it's crazy how many are infected.


I agree, this is serious. We should castrate and quarantine all homosexuals and blacks.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I agree, this is serious. We should castrate and quarantine all homosexuals and blacks.


Please drop the sarcasm.  Roadmaster made an good point.  Instead of bickering, we need solutions.  Obviously anyone who suggests that ignoring the problem or just dumping it on the group in question is being ignorant.  As Roadmaster's post alludes, but doesn't specifically say, the more people with AIDS, the more risk to the population in general.  Telling the truth shouldn't be considered a sin.  We need honest observations in order to find honest answers.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistic..._factsheet.pdf



> *By Risk Group*
> Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most 
> profoundly affected by HIV.
> • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections 
> among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from 
> the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008 [2]. 
> • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population 
> in the United States [4], in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of 
> new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new 
> ...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Please drop the sarcasm.  Roadmaster made an good point.  Instead of bickering, we need solutions.  Obviously anyone who suggests that ignoring the problem or just dumping it on the group in question is being ignorant.  As Roadmaster's post alludes, but doesn't specifically say, the more people with AIDS, the more risk to the population in general.  Telling the truth shouldn't be considered a sin.  We need honest observations in order to find honest answers.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistic..._factsheet.pdf


I'm sarcastic because I'm tired of hearing endless bitching. And that's all this is, bitching. Where are your solutions? I don't see any.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm sarcastic because I'm tired of hearing endless bitching. And that's all this is, bitching. Where are your solutions? I don't see any.


My solution is less sarcasm, more patience and persuasion. 



No, it's not easy and, no, I'm not a very good example.

----------


## texmaster

> The fact that 1500 species of animals practice homosexuality blows up your whole fucking argument, and you're too stupid to see it.  Inbreeding and cannibalism would be genetic in said species, it would seem.  Perhaps as a genetic anomaly, but no one is arguing that being gay is anything more than a genetic anomaly.


Your dumbass argument is based soley on the existence of something in a society.  There is ZERO evidence that because something exists in a society means its genetic.   This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen flown on this issue.

1500 PLUS species have practiced cannibalism.  No one is stupid enough to pretend because it exists automatically means its genetic.




> Except I just did.  The fact that many species practice it is irrefutable proof.  The one who hasn't been able to back up anything would be you, which isn't much of a surprise, seeing as how you're a terrible poster.  That fact that nearly every gay person says as much is icing on the cake.


A complete and total lie.   All you did was find something that exists in multiple species and pretend because it exists it must be genetic and I blew that away with examples of cannabilism and inbreeding practiced FAR more than homosexuality and ZERO evidence making it genetic.   You loose.  Again.





> Children cannot consent.  Adults can.  This really isn't rocket science, but I guess even low level comprehension is too much to ask from you.


Do try and keep up.    _If its a RIGHT then there is no age limitation_ genius.   Last time I checked civil RIGHTS were NOT limited to black adults.   My God the level of stupidity you are displaying is beyond pathetic.   

You can't hide behind laws against children because you don't like the sexual practice while demanding we abolish laws that ban sexual practices you do like and call it a right.   




> How does the lack of reproduction prove that homosexuality isn't genetic?  What kind of dumb argument is that?


Of course you would call it dumb because you aren't smart enough to see the obvious.   If homosexuality was genetic there would be no need for reproductive material or biological sexual reaction to instigate natural procreation since it isn't POSSIBLE with homosexuals.  Seriously, this has to be explained to you?




> At the end of the day, you're not a bright guy, it's that simple.  I think you try hard, but genetically, you're at your limit.


Says the dumbass who can't even understand the importance of a biological link when proving genetics.     Try going back to something your speed like pretending if something is done by multiple species that automatically makes it genetic without a shred of proof to back up that moronic claim.  :Smile:

----------


## texmaster

> This whole argument is pointless. Whether or not it is "natural" is completely irrelevant.


Of course it is if you want to pretend its the same as civil rights which were based on gender and racial skin color and features.

----------


## Karl

> Is there any wonder now why I am still single?  lol


NO I'm not the LEAST BIT surprised by that

----------


## Perianne

> I agree, this is serious. We should castrate and quarantine all homosexuals and blacks.





> Where are your solutions? I don't see any.


I know you were being sarcastic, but it would cut waaaaay down on AIDS and crime.

----------


## Perianne

> You're just too much woman for any one man, Sweetie.


I know, but it's the cross I have to bear.

----------


## Perianne

> Is there any wonder now why I am still single?  lol





> NO I'm not the LEAST BIT surprised by that


lol, always good to have fans.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Of course it is if you want to pretend its the same as civil rights which were based on gender and racial skin color and features.


Nope, that's not the point either. Try again.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I know, but it's the cross I have to bear.


Yes it is and I know exactly how you feel.  In my case, it's usually being the smartest guy in the room.

Of course, it doesn't help that sometimes I'm an asshole about it or become impatient with people who are slower.  
I'm working on it.

----------


## The XL

> Your dumbass argument is based soley on the existence of something in a society.  There is ZERO evidence that because something exists in a society means its genetic.   This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen flown on this issue.
> 
> 1500 PLUS species have practiced cannibalism.  No one is stupid enough to pretend because it exists automatically means its genetic.


It means it's a genetic anomaly, like being gay is.  A genetic anomaly is still genetic.  And no, I don't believe you have the capacity to understand it, but here it is anyway.




> A complete and total lie.   All you did was find something that exists  in multiple species and pretend because it exists it must be genetic and  I blew that away with examples of cannabilism and inbreeding practiced  FAR more than homosexuality and ZERO evidence making it genetic.   You  loose.  Again.


You did no such thing, actually.  Where is your proof that either is not genetic?  Lulz at you declaring victory.  As if your declarations mean shit.  If an animal does it, it means it's genetic.  Unless your honestly going to make the case that an animal of lower intellect chooses to be homosexual, or participate in homosexual behavior.





> Do try and keep up.    _If its a RIGHT then there is no age limitation_  genius.   Last time I checked civil RIGHTS were NOT limited to black  adults.   My God the level of stupidity you are displaying is beyond  pathetic.   
> 
> You can't hide behind laws against children because you don't like the  sexual practice while demanding we abolish laws that ban sexual  practices you do like and call it a right.


The only standard I and libertarians in general hold is the ability to consent.  If one cannot consent, it is considered rape, and their is no natural or Constitutional right to rape.  Do try and keep up, dolt.




> Of course you would call it dumb because you aren't smart enough to see  the obvious.   If homosexuality was genetic there would be no need for  reproductive material or biological sexual reaction to instigate natural  procreation since it isn't POSSIBLE with homosexuals.  Seriously, this  has to be explained to you?


It's a genetic anomaly, dummy.  Please, understand that something doesn't need to be commonplace or normal for it to be genetic.  Their are tons of genetic abnormalities.  




> Says the dumbass who can't even understand the importance of a  biological link when proving genetics.     Try going back to something  your speed like pretending if something is done by multiple species that  automatically makes it genetic without a shred of proof to back up that  moronic claim.


That's right, because what have you proven?  Oh......you haven't proven anything, huh?  While, on the other hand, I've proven that animals that have no reason otherwise engage in homosexual activity, do.  Unlike humans, they don't have the capacity to voluntarily make that choice for no good reason, like to be hip, or in, or merely to rustle the religious rights jimmies.  They do it because, for whatever reason, they are attracted to to their own sex. 

Don't blame me for your lack of intellect, blame your God.  Or perhaps, blame your genetics.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I think it has been pretty much shot down that it is genetic. hasn't it?   Homeosexjuals cannot have it both ways, or three ways which every the case may be.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think it has been pretty much shot down that it is genetic. hasn't it?   Homeosexjuals cannot have it both ways, or three ways which every the case may be.


There is strong evidence that sexual preference is primarily genetic even if all the details aren't known.  

Oddly, many gays don't want it to be genetic.   If it was so, then it can be "cured", right? 

The science of genetics is progressing very well including genetic modification.  It won't be long before prospective parents, at least those who can afford it, can design the "perfect" child.   Obviously there are some ethics questions in which to contend, but the science has often moved faster than the law and answers to ethical questions.

How many parents would spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ugly homo kid who looks like Chris Crocker or Chaz Bono?

leave-britney-alone-chris-crocker__big.jpg

----------


## Calypso Jones

I spose you got a link for that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I spose you got a link for that.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107170741.htm

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/07...ity/27619.html

----------


## Roadmaster

Women ignore the signs of a bi man. Especially in the black community in which many end up with HIV. Just because he marries her doesn't mean he still isn't doing things on the side. He doesn't consider himself homosexual if he likes women too. Studies have shown once men and women step over a line even though they call themselves heterosexual it can easily go into messing with underage of girls and boys.

----------


## texmaster

> Nope, that's not the point either. Try again.


Of course it is.  And if you had any courage at all you would have challenged it with something more than "no"

----------


## texmaster

> It means it's a genetic anomaly, like being gay is.  A genetic anomaly is still genetic.  And no, I don't believe you have the capacity to understand it, but here it is anyway.


Bullshit.   I'll say it again since you have trouble reading.   Just because something exists in a society or multiple species does not make it genetic and your laughable lack of proof of that belief and my ability to easily point to other things that exist in multiple species that aren't genetic completely blow away this pathetic argument.




> You did no such thing, actually.  Where is your proof that either is not genetic?  Lulz at you declaring victory.  As if your declarations mean shit.  If an animal does it, it means it's genetic.  Unless your honestly going to make the case that an animal of lower intellect chooses to be homosexual, or participate in homosexual behavior.


You can't be this stupid.   Just because you claim its genetic doesn't amke it genetic.    Where is your proof?    The existence itself means nothing which is why it was so easy for me to point to other things like cannibalism and incest

Answer me this genius, do you think incest is genetic?  It makes your definition of genetic simply by existing in multiple species and far more than homosexuality.    Don't run away this time.  Try answering the question.




> The only standard I and libertarians in general hold is the ability to consent.  If one cannot consent, it is considered rape, and their is no natural or Constitutional right to rape.  Do try and keep up, dolt.


I'll say it again since you were too stupid to read it the first time.  

You can't hide behind laws against children because you don't like the   sexual practice while demanding we abolish laws that ban sexual   practices you do like and call it a right.   

Your inability to address the obvious statement I made proves you have no faith in your argument. 




> It's a genetic anomaly, dummy.


Prove it, dummy.




> Please, understand that something doesn't need to be commonplace or normal for it to be genetic.  Their are tons of genetic abnormalities.


Then it should be easy to prove.   But so far you've been too gutless to do so.




> That's right, because what have you proven?  Oh......you haven't proven anything, huh?


I did prove it.  When you are ready to man up on the boilogical evidence I presented let us know.




> While, on the other hand, I've proven that animals that have no reason otherwise engage in homosexual activity, do.


Same with incest and cannibalism.   Where is your evidence they are genetic?   Oh thats right just like your bullshit claim about homosexuality being genetic, you have none.




> Unlike humans, they don't have the capacity to voluntarily make that choice for no good reason, like to be hip, or in, or merely to rustle the religious rights jimmies.  They do it because, for whatever reason, they are attracted to to their own sex.


To which you offer zero evidence whatsoever and I've disproven it by giving 2 examples of non genetic activities by far more species than you could ever find that have had a homosexual experience.

Your argument is so stupid I feel sorry for you.  No one should be this dumb this often.   But go ahead and keep ignoring the examples I gave.    It only proves my point.




> Don't blame me for your lack of intellect, blame your God.  Or perhaps, blame your genetics.


LOL   My genetics didn't need to come into play to defeat you.   Basic 4th grade sexual reproduction did.   Too bad you never graduated to that level.

----------


## texmaster

> I think it has been pretty much shot down that it is genetic. hasn't it?   Homeosexjuals cannot have it both ways, or three ways which every the case may be.


Of course you are correct.  They can't prove it.  All they can do is deny the facts we provide and ignore the challenges to their own laughable claims.

----------


## texmaster

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107170741.htm
> 
> http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
> 
> http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/07...ity/27619.html



HAHAHAHAHHA   Oh goody. Junk science theories to destroy from the far left.

Take the first one:

*About 10 years ago, Witelson and Dr. Cheryl McCormick, then a student of  Witelson's, demonstrated there is a higher proportion of left-handers  in the homosexual population than in the general population -- a result  replicated in subsequent studies which is now accepted as fact.*

A higher proportion is not fact.   Its a theory.   If it was a real then it would be found in 100% and they would have real factual data to back it up.   Nor could they prove that their theory was the primary reason for their findings for the brain patterns being genetic or developed from a lifetime of experience.  Pathetic.

And my favorite quote:

_this is not a litmus test for sexual orientation_

Oops! Didn't actually read the "study" did you Max?  LOL

Next!  Second link:

_There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an  individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian  orientation._

Bingo!    Once again you didn't read your own link.    Pathetic.

How about the third one?

_A new UK study suggests sexual orientation and “gender conformity” in women are both genetic traits._

Suggests huh.  Common start to this junk science studies.   They can't prove it so they "suggest"

_Research following these children to adulthood shows that between 50 to  80 per cent of gender nonconforming boys become gay, and about one-third  of such girls become lesbian._

How pathetic.  Just like the first study they can't find their theories in 100% of their subjects nor can they claim their findings were the major contributor to their decesion to be gay and this one is so bad they could barely get to 50% without being able to prove their "finding" was the reason and not the enviroment in which the child grew up.

Max do yourself a favor.    Don't bother posting these junk science studies.   I've seen them all and debunking them is child's play.  Face facts.   No one has proven despite the hundreds of studies that homosexuality is genetic, period.    

Might want to try actually reading the "study" as well before you post it.   You'll reduce your embarrassment.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Of course it is.  And if you had any courage at all you would have challenged it with something more than "no"


Please, tex. Stop the false bravado and delusions of grandeur. It may work in Texas, but in the rest of the country, we see through that act. I'm not the slightest bit afraid of you or anything you can present. 

And no, that's not the point. The point is that the government has no business being involved in this issue, and if you conservatives were honest about your beliefs, you'd agree with that simple statement and work WITH people like me in getting the government out of it. "Traditional marriage," as you call it, is a sham. It's not truly traditional. You look in the Bible, it never says anything about government. It says marriage is an eternal covenant between two people, G-d, and some witnesses. 

It's YOU folks who got the government involved in the first place and refuse to get it out of the business. You don't even get that if you got the government out of it, you'd never have to worry about having the "homosexual agenda" forced on you because _there would be no homosexual agenda_. Marriage would go back to being the private, non-government affair it used to be and everybody would win.

That, Mr. Self-Important, is the point.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (11-06-2013),Max Rockatansky (11-06-2013)

----------


## Karl

@Sinestro he has NO POINT @texmaster simply thinks he who SCREAMS the LOUDEST wins the battle why its not even a STRATEGY oh wait it is its the FAR RIGHT WING echo box strategy

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> @Sinestro he has NO POINT @texmaster simply thinks he who SCREAMS the LOUDEST wins the battle why its not even a STRATEGY oh wait it is its the FAR RIGHT WING echo box strategy


It's also the same strategy of my ex-wife.  I think it has more to do with people who are abusive and seeking to dominate, but lack the intellectual capacity to form a persuasive argument and/or lack the patience to discuss it with others.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-06-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oops! Didn't actually read the "study" did you Max? LOL





> Bingo! Once again you didn't read your own link. Pathetic.


Dude, you didn't read my post, didja?  

Your taunting and insults are tinged with desperation to prove a point in which you have zero standing.  The science shows there is a genetic link even if the strength of that link isn't fully understood.




> There is strong evidence that sexual preference is primarily genetic even if all the details aren't known.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-06-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Please, tex. Stop the false bravado and delusions of grandeur. It may work in Texas, but in the rest of the country, we see through that act. I'm not the slightest bit afraid of you or anything you can present. 
> 
> And no, that's not the point. The point is that the government has no business being involved in this issue, and if you conservatives were honest about your beliefs, you'd agree with that simple statement and work WITH people like me in getting the government out of it. "Traditional marriage," as you call it, is a sham. It's not truly traditional. You look in the Bible, it never says anything about government. It says marriage is an eternal covenant between two people, G-d, and some witnesses. 
> 
> It's YOU folks who got the government involved in the first place and refuse to get it out of the business. You don't even get that if you got the government out of it, you'd never have to worry about having the "homosexual agenda" forced on you because _there would be no homosexual agenda_. Marriage would go back to being the private, non-government affair it used to be and everybody would win.
> 
> That, Mr. Self-Important, is the point.


Agreed government should get out of marriage.    The forum has discussed before that both the Left and Right want Big Brother to intrude on our lives; each side just has a different agenda on what the intrusion means.  For the Right it is sex.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-06-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Agreed government should get out of marriage.    The forum has discussed before that both the Left and Right want Big Brother to intrude on our lives; each side just has a different agenda on what the intrusion means.  For the Right it is sex.


gov't should get out of marriage?  That's not what you mean at all.  If gov't got out of marriage then there would be no question that homosexuality would be kicked to the curb.   Perhaps you mean you don't want voting on it seeing as that doesn't generally work out well, but rather have the courts rule that it is constitutional in spite of everything else saying that it IS NOT.

----------

texmaster (11-06-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> gov't should get out of marriage?  That's not what you mean at all.  If gov't got out of marriage then there would be no question that homosexuality would be kicked to the curb.   Perhaps you mean you don't want voting on it seeing as that doesn't generally work out well, but rather have the courts rule that it is constitutional in spite of everything else saying that it IS NOT.


Did you miss my posts about the 14th Amendment conflict and how there were two solutions?  You never answered my replies to your comments on them.  Why?

Let's try again, do you think We, the People should eliminate the 1138 rights, benefits and privileges the Federal government gives to married couples?  If no, then why not?  Why the special benefits?  

On a side note, should parents be allowed special tax breaks over those who don't have kids?  If you think parents should have special benefits and others taxed to pay for those kids, please explain why you think so.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> gov't should get out of marriage?  That's not what you mean at all.  If gov't got out of marriage then there would be no question that homosexuality would be kicked to the curb.   Perhaps you mean you don't want voting on it seeing as that doesn't generally work out well, but rather have the courts rule that it is constitutional in spite of everything else saying that it IS NOT.


No, I mean get the government out of marriage. That means no voting, no courts, no legislation, no amendments, no benefits, no licenses. It means THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (11-06-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> No, I mean get the government out of marriage. That means no voting, no courts, no legislation, no amendments, no benefits, no licenses. It means THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE.


Out of interest, would divorce settlements still go through a court of law?

----------



----------


## Karl

> out of interest, would divorce settlements still go through a court of law?


good point

----------


## texmaster

> Please, tex. Stop the false bravado and delusions of grandeur. It may work in Texas, but in the rest of the country, we see through that act. I'm not the slightest bit afraid of you or anything you can present.


Your inability to address my arguments say otherwise.   Instead of blustering about how not afraid you are of me how about actually addressing the arguments I present.




> And no, that's not the point. The point is that the government has no business being involved in this issue, and if you conservatives were honest about your beliefs, you'd agree with that simple statement and work WITH people like me in getting the government out of it. "Traditional marriage," as you call it, is a sham. It's not truly traditional. You look in the Bible, it never says anything about government. It says marriage is an eternal covenant between two people, G-d, and some witnesses.


Why would I care what the Bible says?   Your own ignorance of my position is once again on display for all to see.   Never have I used a religious argument ever.  But I'm not surprised you tried to paint me with it.   Religious bigotry is a common tactic of bigoted liberals on this issue.




> It's YOU folks who got the government involved in the first place and refuse to get it out of the business. You don't even get that if you got the government out of it, you'd never have to worry about having the "homosexual agenda" forced on you because _there would be no homosexual agenda_. Marriage would go back to being the private, non-government affair it used to be and everybody would win.
> 
> That, Mr. Self-Important, is the point.


The ignorance of your statement is incredible.   Who spearheaded hate crime law?    Affirmative action?     The far left nutballs who look for reasons to create new law for all of their special interest groups.   You weren't working with our side you are actively trying to create new law for government to control our lives and if you actually understood the laws being proposed you would know this but instead you are too busy running away from my factual evidence about homosexuality and a lack of factual evidence to support changing a law.

You want to "Work" with us?  Fine.  Give us the actual justification for only allowing 2 person adult homosexual marriage.    How hard is that?   No one on the left I have ever debated can do it.    They throw out "fairness" and "rights" and not think about who else would qualify for their expansive justification for state approved marriage.

So go ahead, and shock me with your argument.

----------


## texmaster

> Dude, you didn't read my post, didja?  
> 
> Your taunting and insults are tinged with desperation to prove a point in which you have zero standing.  The science shows there is a genetic link even if the strength of that link isn't fully understood.


Unlike you I actually quoted your links and backed up my position.  You like a typical coward ignored all of the points I made and instead just attack.

Your links were destroyed and you can't even muster up the courage to address the facts I presented from your own links.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> No, I mean get the government out of marriage. That means no voting, no courts, no legislation, no amendments, no benefits, no licenses. It means THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE.


anarchy?  every one does as they please.   Walk around naked, have sex with animals and children in the sight of anyone because there is no governing authority?   well okay.  As long as guns are still in the hands of decent people.   Want that?

----------

texmaster (11-06-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> anarchy?  every one does as they please.   Walk around naked, have sex with animals and children in the sight of anyone because there is no governing authority?   well okay.  As long as guns are still in the hands of decent people.   Want that?


Yeah, human beings can't be trusted in the absence of a strong, invasive central government. We'd all turn into paedophiles and nudists.  :Geez:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-06-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> Yeah, human beings can't be trusted in the absence of a strong, invasive central government. We'd all turn into paedophiles and nudists.


No.  We'd just allow it which is exactly what lazy general arguments for gay marriage do when they can't make the actual argument for what they are specifically asking for to change current law.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Out of interest, would divorce settlements still go through a court of law?


Depends on the system. Courts still exist in an anarchist society, the only difference is you go to them when you have a dispute to resolve. I don't really think divorce would be as big of a deal with government out of marriage, though. What's yours is yours, what's not is not, just break your contract and leave.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Your inability to address my arguments say otherwise.   Instead of blustering about how not afraid you are of me how about actually addressing the arguments I present.


I'm not addressing your arguments because they have nothing to do with anything I'm saying.




> Why would I care what the Bible says?   Your own ignorance of my position is once again on display for all to see.   Never have I used a religious argument ever.  But I'm not surprised you tried to paint me with it.   Religious bigotry is a common tactic of bigoted liberals on this issue.


Where did I say you were making religious arguments? I believe in the Bible, numbskull. I was making the religious argument.




> The ignorance of your statement is incredible.   Who spearheaded hate crime law?    Affirmative action?     The far left nutballs who look for reasons to create new law for all of their special interest groups.   You weren't working with our side you are actively trying to create new law for government to control our lives and if you actually understood the laws being proposed you would know this but instead you are too busy running away from my factual evidence about homosexuality and a lack of factual evidence to support changing a law.


Where have I proposed new laws? Where? Show me. 

Also, affirmative action and hate crimes laws are completely irrelevant. I'm talking about marriage laws.




> You want to "Work" with us?  Fine.  Give us the actual justification for only allowing 2 person adult homosexual marriage.    How hard is that?   No one on the left I have ever debated can do it.    They throw out "fairness" and "rights" and not think about who else would qualify for their expansive justification for state approved marriage.


No, I'm not, because that's not the point. I want the government out of the marriage business, period. Why can't you address that? Every opportunity you've had to address that, you throw out AA, hate crimes legislation, and whether or not homosexuality is natural. 

Do you have anything to say regarding the government's responsibility to have any business in marriage? Yes or no.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Out of interest, would divorce settlements still go through a court of law?


That's not the marriage per se, but the division of a former partnership's assets.  The court should have no say in whether a couple can get divorced, but the couple should have a legal recourse to resolve any disputes on the division of assets.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> anarchy?  every one does as they please.   Walk around naked, have sex with animals and children in the sight of anyone because there is no governing authority?   well okay.


Anarchy is not a lack of government, it's a lack of a state. Government is two people getting together to make decisions. In an anarchist community, the community can still say there are certain things they do not find acceptable. Only in NAMBLA's anarchy would sick bastards be having sex with children.




> As long as guns are still in the hands of decent people.   Want that?


I am a firm opponent of gun control, so yep.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Anarchy is not a lack of government, it's a lack of a state. Government is two people getting together to make decisions. In an anarchist community, the community can still say there are certain things they do not find acceptable.


That's a misrepresentation of government, but let's go with that.  How do 10,000 people get together to have their say?  Do you still use Robert's Rules of Order or does everyone just stand up one by one and speak for 5 minutes?  Do you know how long that would take?  Not just for 10,000 people to speak about, say, building a new windmill, but the actual discussion on how to pay for it and then vote on it? 

Just so you know  10,000 people speaking for 5 minutes (not counting the minute in between speakers) is 50,000 minutes or 833.33 hours.  That's 104.2 8-hour _days_.

Meanwhile, as you and your 9,999 neighbors are gathered in one spot discussing a new windmill,  my army is raiding the countryside, burning your crops, destroying your dams and burning your bridges and barns. 
 Once you're hungry enough, I'll send a parley team in to negotiate your surrender.

----------


## texmaster

> I'm not addressing your arguments because they have nothing to do with anything I'm saying.


No one forced you to intervene.  But if you do be prepared to defend the moronic arguments who are coming to the rescue to.




> Where did I say you were making religious arguments? I believe in the Bible, numbskull. I was making the religious argument.


So you falsely imply my argument is about marriage references to the Bible then you back away when I catch you?    Did you even read what you wrote?   Do I have to embarrass you further by quoting your own words?




> Where have I proposed new laws? Where? Show me.


Your side genius.   




> Also, affirmative action and hate crimes laws are completely irrelevant. I'm talking about marriage laws.


Wrong again.  You made the dumbass argument its my side that wants to get involved in marriage and I destroyed that with the invasive laws your side has championed.   Do try and keep up.




> No, I'm not, because that's not the point.


Of course it is but you running away from the challlenge isn't a surprise.




> I want the government out of the marriage business, period. Why can't you address that? Every opportunity you've had to address that, you throw out AA, hate crimes legislation, and whether or not homosexuality is natural.


Every opportunity?  I brought those up when you made the dumbass claim it was my side that was invasive.   You want to change privileges for marriage that have existed since the birth of this country yet you cannot justify why the law should be changed for your small sexual group.  Its that cowardice and inability to defend yourself that is the issue here and one you've refused to address multiple times.




> Do you have anything to say regarding the government's responsibility to have any business in marriage? Yes or no.


I see no reason to change it.  You are the one that does yet you cannot justify why it should.   It isn't my job to make your argument for your desire to change current laws.

This is so typical of the far left.   You want to change the law then act as if its the current law that needs to be justified when you can't make your own argument to change it in the first place.

Do you even know how to change law in the government?   Here's a hint, its not by claiming the current law has to be justified for existing genius.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No one forced you to intervene.  But if you do be prepared to defend the moronic arguments who are coming to the rescue to.


I didn't come to the rescue of any argument. I came in and made my own, one you're still refusing to acknowledge while simultaneously demanding that I acknowledge yours.




> So you falsely imply my argument is about marriage references to the Bible then you back away when I catch you?    Did you even read what you wrote?   Do I have to embarrass you further by quoting your own words?


I made the Biblical argument for myself. I never claimed anywhere that you made that argument. Quote me all you want, you'll never see me say "Your Bible says this so you should believe it."




> Your side genius.


I don't have a side in American politics. My side is anti-government, so obviously my side isn't proposing new laws.




> Wrong again.  You made the dumbass argument its my side that wants to get involved in marriage and I destroyed that with the invasive laws your side has championed.   Do try and keep up.


Yes, about marriage. Then like an idiot, you cite AA and hate crimes, which have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with marriage.




> Of course it is but you running away from the challlenge isn't a surprise.


You are such a fucking liar. I never made that argument, so it's impossible for me to run away from that argument. 




> Every opportunity?  I brought those up when you made the dumbass claim it was my side that was invasive.   You want to change privileges for marriage that have existed since the birth of this country yet you cannot justify why the law should be changed for your small sexual group.  Its that cowardice and inability to defend yourself that is the issue here and one you've refused to address multiple times.


Okay, then set the record straight. Do you support getting the government out of marriage? 




> I see no reason to change it.  You are the one that does yet you cannot justify why it should.   It isn't my job to make your argument for your desire to change current laws.


I don't want to change the laws, I want to eliminate them. I did justify why they should be eliminated. The government has no responsibility making those laws. Marriage is between two people, G-d, and some witnesses. Nothing there about government. 




> This is so typical of the far left.   You want to change the law then act as if its the current law that needs to be justified when you can't make your own argument to change it in the first place.


I made my argument to eliminate it three times. Stop lying.

Why can't you address my position honestly? Why do you have to lie and invent strawmen? I'm just curious.

----------


## texmaster

> I didn't come to the rescue of any argument. I came in and made my own, one you're still refusing to acknowledge while simultaneously demanding that I acknowledge yours.


You didn't come on your own.   You came to the rescue of someone else by injecting your opinion on the natural argument against homosexuality.    Be a man for God's sake and don't pretend you didn't.




> I made the Biblical argument for myself. I never claimed anywhere that you made that argument. Quote me all you want, you'll never see me say "Your Bible says this so you should believe it."


So you are going to make me embarrass you yet again.   Your choice:

_"Traditional marriage," as you call it, is a sham. It's not truly  traditional. You look in the Bible, it never says anything about  government. It says marriage is an eternal covenant between two people,  G-d, and some witnesses._

You equated my argument of traditional marriage with the Bible.   Lying about what you did when its so easily proven.   Let's hope you learned your lesson this time.




> I don't have a side in American politics. My side is anti-government, so obviously my side isn't proposing new laws.


Of course you have a side.   Jesus Christ you can't be this stupid.   You want gay marriage yet you can't give a reason why it should be allowed.   That is the liberal side




> Yes, about marriage. Then like an idiot, you cite AA and hate crimes, which have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with marriage.


One position doesn't make a side moron.   That's why the examples were used.    Your dumbass words:

_It's YOU folks who got the government involved in the first place and refuse to get it out of the business._

Thats a general statement you made about my side without a single mention of it only being about marriage.  That's why the examples were used.     Liberal revisionism on parade.  Pathetic.     You really need to stop lying when its so easy to rat you out.




> You are such a fucking liar. I never made that argument, so it's impossible for me to run away from that argument.


LOL   Once again I can quote you running away again and again from addressing the arguments I made.

My Challenge:

_Of course it is if you want to pretend its the same as civil rights  which were based on gender and racial skin color and features._

You running away:

_Nope, that's not the point either. Try again._

My challenge:

_You want to "Work" with us?  Fine.  Give us the actual justification for only allowing 2 person adult homosexual marriage.     How hard is that?   No one on the left I have ever debated can do  it.    They throw out "fairness" and "rights" and not think about who  else would qualify for their expansive justification for state approved  marriage._

You running away:

*No, I'm not, because that's not the point.*

The only liar here is you.   How many times am I going to have to use your own words against you before you figure out you are way out of your league?




> Okay, then set the record straight. Do you support getting the government out of marriage?


For the second time no.   I see no reason to change the law based on nothing.    How many times do I have to say it before you actually read it?




> I don't want to change the laws, I want to eliminate them. I did justify why they should be eliminated. The government has no responsibility making those laws. Marriage is between two people, G-d, and some witnesses. Nothing there about government.


Your opinion about the law is not a reason to change the law.   Claiming the law is dumb just because you believe it is isn't an argument for changing law.   Its a dumbass opinion based on nothing but your feelings and emotions.   Come back when you have some factual argument to make.  

For God's sake even off the top of my head I could make an insurance argument against government being in marriage but you couldn't even think that little by yourself.   Talk about pathetic.

Do I have to spoon feed your own arguments to you now as well as correcting you?   Not sure if I have that kind of time.




> I made my argument to eliminate it three times. Stop lying.
> 
> Why can't you address my position honestly? Why do you have to lie and invent strawmen? I'm just curious.


  Because you are a liar.   You give an opinion for a law to be changed with zero factual evidence to support your claim.

Do you really think you could present your opinion to a court or for a state wide proposition with the only meat of why you want to change the law is because you think the "government no responsibility making those laws"

WHY?   What is your FACTUAL DATA for that opinion?    Does everything have to be spoon fed to you when you aren't busy lying about your own words?

----------


## Roadmaster

13% is African American in the US and they have 50% of all new aids cases that get tested. Homosexuals are spreading this among themselves and others. They don't get 20 years in prison most only get 2 years for knowingly giving someone HIV. These DL men are spreading it to women. What are we going to look like 10 years from now? How many people have to die to say this behavior is normal. Africa is a mess and many women, children and men dying. We should be putting alarms on TV but the press is hiding it. One out of 7 every Hispanic  has HIV. That's the cold hard facts and white men are messing black men and vise-versa. When It came out I knew  no one with HIV,  now I probably know at least 12 but these are gay white men. Do they always have safe sex, no. A few are bi and will use safe sex if they are not drunk or if she ask but they won't tell her. How would you feel to have sex with someone you trust, stated getting flu-like systems, headaches, loosing weight, very sour throat thinking it was the flu only to find out you have HIV. Some don't have signs but 70% do. Go to a prosecute and she won't tell you, she needs the money only to bring it back to a wife or girlfriend. If they get it, then it's too late to say you are sorry. This is not something you take two shoots and go home, this is for life. The fact is many men don't like to wear condoms and because it can take up to 10 to be blown AIDS they  ignore it.

----------

Calypso Jones (11-10-2013),texmaster (11-07-2013)

----------


## Rudy2D

> Oh, just *<<PA removed>>*.


Such language.   :Rofl:

----------


## Rudy2D

> Turn the other cheek only works once, then you run out of cheeks to turn.


Slapped your cheeks right off, did he?  Sounds like a _maiming_ case to me.   :Smile:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Slapped your cheeks right off, did he?  Sounds like a _maiming_ case to me.


Yeah, but I'm an anarchist, so there's no government to adjudicate my dispute. Oops!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oh, just *<<PA removed>>*.


When you let people get under your skin or let them rile you into a purely emotional response, they win.  

My humble suggestion is to have the confidence that most people can see through bullshit.  That they can see bullying for what it is.  That they can see injustice for what it is.   Just stand your ground on what is right and just then let people decide for themselves which one is the better idea; the person fighting for the rights of all under the Constitution of the United States of America or the person who wants to carve a out a group of second class Americans with themselves on top.

----------


## texmaster

> Oh, just *<<PA removed>>*.


What a shocker.   You can't debate so you throw out a 4th grade insult and run away like a coward.

Thanks for staying predictable.

And next time when you want a law changed have something more than your feelings for the reason to do it.

----------


## texmaster

So let's review the pro gay marriage position.

*They can't prove its genetic so they can't equate it to race, gender or heterosexuality.

They can't give us an actual specific argument for only allowing 2 person adult homosexual marriage*

The two most important points and they can't even directly answer them.   Without being able to factually argue for your position you have no hope of winning a debate.

----------


## texmaster

> When you let people get under your skin or let them rile you into a purely emotional response, they win.  
> 
> My humble suggestion is to have the confidence that most people can see through bullshit.  That they can see bullying for what it is.  That they can see injustice for what it is.   Just stand your ground on what is right and just then let people decide for themselves which one is the better idea; the person fighting for the rights of all under the Constitution of the United States of America or the person who wants to carve a out a group of second class Americans with themselves on top.


If you actually beelieved what you are typing then you wouldn't have celebrated what the courts did in  California to the will of the people vote twice banning gay marriage.

But that doesn't matter to you or your friends.   You don't care about the will of the American people so don't pretend you are the righteous ones when you stomp on the votes by your fellow Americans against gay marriage.

----------

Calypso Jones (11-07-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Another lie.  You fired the first shot calling me a liar.   All I did was point to your own words and made you eat them.    Whine all you like you aren't going to be able to rewrite history.   
> 
> You just ran into someone who actually can do the research and give back exactly what you dish out and now that you're exposed you run away crying from the debate.  Typical of a bully.


ouchy

----------

texmaster (11-07-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If you actually beelieved what you are typing then you wouldn't have celebrated what the courts did in  California to the will of the people vote twice banning gay marriage.
> 
> But that doesn't matter to you or your friends.   You don't care about the will of the American people so don't pretend you are the righteous ones when you stomp on the votes by your fellow Americans against gay marriage.


You have a habit of being rather fast and loose with insults and assumptions.

Who are my "friends" and when did I celebrate courts going against "the will of the people"?  The fact I see the issue as a 14th Amendment issue and that the courts acted in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend....or you just don't give a shit.

This isn't the first time today I've seen a self-named "conservative" bitch about the Constitution being applied to other people but whine when they are seen as defending their own Constitutional rights.  

If several counties in Texas voted to deny whites certain rights and that legislation was shot down by the courts, would you be so quick to bitch and whine about the courts going against the "will of the people"? 

I fully support the rights of citizens to make their own decisions for their localities and States.  However, those decisions must pass a Constitutional test.  Even though you obviously don't agree, I'm certain many true Americans and supporters of the Constitution do agree.

----------


## texmaster

> You have a habit of being rather fast and loose with insults and assumptions.


Its not an assumption.  Its a fact.




> Who are my "friends" and when did I celebrate courts going against "the will of the people"?  The fact I see the issue as a 14th Amendment issue and that the courts acted in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend....or you just don't give a shit.


There is nothing in the 14th ammendment that specifies gay marriage.   If you keep claiming there is then cite the direct quote.

And you just admitted you do support crapping on the votes of Americans in California so once again its not an assumption you agreed with it, its a fact.

BTW, if you had actually done your homework you would know *the court did not rule that the 14th amendment covers gay marriage*. They cowardly refused to take the case because they claimed it should never have been brought in front of them in the first place.

But that would require you actually researching before you make your claims which we have seen from history is completely foreign to you.




> This isn't the first time today I've seen a self-named "conservative" bitch about the Constitution being applied to other people but whine when they are seen as defending their own Constitutional rights.


You can't even quote what the Consittion says and you're lecturing me?  Go ahead and quote it and I'll destroy this argument along with your others.




> If several counties in Texas voted to deny whites certain rights and that legislation was shot down by the courts, would you be so quick to bitch and whine about the courts going against the "will of the people"?


Of course not because race is a proven genetic trait unlike homosexuality.   You keep wanting to equate the two but when challenged on how they are equal you run away.




> I fully support the rights of citizens to make their own decisions for their localities and States.  However, those decisions must pass a Constitutional test.  Even though you obviously don't agree, I'm certain many true Americans and supporters of the Constitution do agree.


You do realize I'm setting you up do you not?  Go ahead, quote the Constitution that specifies gay marriage.

We'll wait.    Your loose interpretation will be your downfall once again.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Its not an assumption.  Its a fact.


About as factual as your claim that genetics have nothing to do with sexual preference.  At what age did you choose to be straight?  Did you experiment first? Try out both sides and then choose or did your parents choose for you?




> There is nothing in the 14th ammendment that specifies gay marriage. If you keep claiming there is then cite the direct quote.


Obviously.  It has to do with all the rights, privileges and benefits granted to married couples.  The Equal Protection clause.  Just eliminate all of those rights, privileges and benefits and we'll be good.

Oh, wait.  I bet you're married and don't want to give up all those Federal benefits.

----------


## Trinnity

*You are ALL wrong on this issue unless you understand THIS:

The federal govt should not be involved in marriage/social issues at all BECAUSE it's not authorized by the Constitution. THAT is the problem. 

And any issue the People deem to be a matter of govt oversight is reserved by the Constitution to be a matter of state governance.* *The individual states in fact, have no business overseeing marriage at all, either, as far an I'm able to discern. It's a religious matter and that's not at all the purview of the state to regulate.  

As for estate matters and power of attny with regard to property and the rights of significant others' to administer medical decisions for loved ones and be in attendance at the hospital bedside, and at births (etc), THAT is a matter for a personal attorney to handle.* 

In addition, a civil union is a legal construct that encompasses the above personal powers mentioned above and imo, can and should be handled by lawyers. Some "progressive" churches now marry gays and marriage as a religious matter is a matter to handled ONLY by the religious organization. Until we get govt out of our personal lives, we'll be dealing with this crap ad nauseam. 
_

Don't any of you want the govt the fuck out of your personal business???_

----------


## Trinnity

*Sorry, y'all. I had to close the thread briefly to clean up the fighting. 
Then I got side-tracked and forgot I'd closed it.
It's open again.*

----------


## Perianne

> About as factual as your claim that genetics have nothing to do with sexual preference.  At what age did you choose to be straight?  Did you experiment first? Try out both sides and then choose or did your parents choose for you?


Even though I am about as conservative as anyone can be, I agree with you, Max, that homosexuality is not always chosen.  Did this guy have any chance at not being gay:




Look at his face.  Gay as they come.  He probably did not choose to have a fag face.  

On the other hand, certain people are sexually attracted to, and want to have sex with, little kids.  It is not the gay (or pedophile) tendency that is wrong.  It is acting on those lusts that is wrong.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

I don't see why some people find the idea of getting the government out of marriage so abhorrent.

----------


## Perianne

> I don't see why some people find the idea of getting the government out of marriage so abhorrent.


I don't find it abhorrent.  I think the government has its fingers into wayyyyy too many things.

----------

texmaster (11-07-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> I don't see why some people find the idea of getting the government out of marriage so abhorrent.


It's the only practical way to settle this, and the founders were right to realize it - genius you could say, but in fact they'd learned the hard way from generations and even centuries of monarchistic rule. And now we have a president who fancies himself as a king because he views this country and it's contents as his possessions. Make no mistake, that's now he sees it because he's a sociopathic narcissist. Anyone who doubts that, isn't seeing the real him.

----------

Calypso Jones (11-07-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-07-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> About as factual as your claim that genetics have nothing to do with sexual preference.  At what age did you choose to be straight?  Did you experiment first? Try out both sides and then choose or did your parents choose for you?


I didn't have to.  Genetics did.  Until you can man up and actually acknowledge the biological sexual reactions humans have to sexual stimuli there is no helping you.

Your inability to acknowledge basic science facts is just sad.

And your inability to address the direct quotes in your own links admitting they cannot prove homosexuality is genetic when they are presented to you doesn't help you either.




> Obviously.  It has to do with all the rights, privileges and benefits granted to married couples.  The Equal Protection clause.  Just eliminate all of those rights, privileges and benefits and we'll be good.
> 
> Oh, wait.  I bet you're married and don't want to give up all those Federal benefits.


By that moronic logic citing the equal protection clause no sexual practice could be omitted.  None.   You can't call it a right and cite the equal protection clause as your justification then turn around and limit it only to sexual practices you prefer.   This is what you are not thinking through.

Quote the part of the equal protection clause you believes justifies it and I will prove your defintion has no limits on any sexual practice.

Still waiting for the quote Max.

----------


## texmaster

> I don't find it abhorrent.  I think the government has its fingers into wayyyyy too many things.


Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone while the same people present it hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone while the same people present it hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath.


Explain this.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Explain this.


see if this helps. I hope i'm not stepping on your toes Tex.

Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone, while the same people who present it, hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath.

----------

texmaster (11-07-2013)

----------


## Network



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> see if this helps. I hope i'm not stepping on your toes Tex.
> 
> Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone, while the same people who present it, *hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath*.


It doesn't. It fixes the grammar, but doesn't really explain what he means by it. Particularly the last part, which I bolded.

----------


## texmaster

> Explain this.


Read it:

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

*Any and all persons.  *   It doesn't limit it to only homosexuals but ANY people.

If you broaden the definition of the 14th amendment to include homosexual marriage which it NEVER EVER specifies then you cannot limit your new marriage right when the context states clearly ANY and ALL persons.

It doesn't limit by age or number either so this new "right" of yours has no limits for marriages of any type by age or number not just sexual preference.  

This is exactly why it is so moronic to pretend homosexuality is included but in the same breath you think you can limit the marriage types.   Once you open that door, ANY and ALL persons have this new right no matter their age or number.   

Got it now?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> 


THAT is SO WEIRD>  I couldn't at first make out that it was a cat.   The ears look like huge hoods over the eyes which in reality are the entrance to the ear canal.  Look at that thing again.  It's like something from some 'alien planet'.

----------

Network (11-07-2013)

----------


## Network

> THAT is SO WEIRD>  I couldn't at first make out that it was a cat.   The ears look like huge hoods over the eyes which in reality are the entrance to the ear canal.  Look at that thing again.  It's like something from some 'alien planet'.



lol. demon cat found this thread interesting.

----------


## texmaster

> Explain this.


Read it:

_All persons born or naturalized in the  United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of  the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall  make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or  immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State  deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

*Any and all persons.  *   It doesn't limit it to only homosexuals but ANY people.

If you broaden the definition of the 14th amendment to include  homosexual marriage which it NEVER EVER specifies then you cannot limit your new  marriage right when the context states clearly ANY and ALL persons.

It doesn't limit by age or number either so this new "right" of yours  has no limits for marriages of any type by age or number not just sexual  preference.  

This is exactly why it is so moronic to pretend homosexuality is  included but in the same breath you think you can limit the marriage  types.   Once you open that door, ANY and ALL persons have this new  right no matter their age or number.   

Got it now?





> see if this helps. I hope i'm not stepping on your toes Tex.
> 
> Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone, while the same people who present it, hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath.


Exactly right.   The liberals and gay mafia screaming the 14th amendment gives them this new right have not read the equal protection clause.   Not only does it not say a word about homosexuality, if its interpreted to include homosexual marriage it has now opened to the doors to any marriage of any number of age because the amendment states ANY and ALL persons are eligable. 

This is why we have the ability to make NEW amendments so we don't bastardize other amendments to include groups they never ever included in the first place.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I didn't have to.  Genetics did.  Until you can man up and actually acknowledge the biological sexual reactions humans have to sexual stimuli there is no helping you.


Sorry, dude, but I passed biology 101, human sexuality and a host of related classes.  You didn't answer the question about when you decided you'd rather play with pussy than suck a man's dick.  Too embarrassing for you?  How did you choose your sexual preference, TM?




> By that moronic logic citing the equal protection clause no sexual practice could be omitted.


What does sexual practice have to do with my post?  I wrote about special Federal rights, privileges and benefits specifically granted to married couples but denied to unmarried ones.  As a self-labelled conservative, I thought you'd be in favor of reducing the size of Federal reach and eliminating such special rights.   

Is it because you are married that you don't want to give up these 1138 Federal rights and benefits?  Are you a hypocrite, @texmaster?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Read it:
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> *Any and all persons.  *   It doesn't limit it to only homosexuals but ANY people.
> 
> If you broaden the definition of the 14th amendment to include homosexual marriage which it NEVER EVER specifies then you cannot limit your new marriage right when the context states clearly ANY and ALL persons.
> 
> It doesn't limit by age or number either so this new "right" of yours has no limits for marriages of any type by age or number not just sexual preference.  
> ...


Sure, but it has nothing to do with what was said. Perianne's post, which you quoted, was in response to my post, which had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

----------


## texmaster

> Sorry, dude, but I passed biology 101, human sexuality and a host of related classes.  You didn't answer the question about when you decided you'd rather play with pussy than suck a man's dick.  Too embarrassing for you?  How did you choose your sexual preference, TM?


Going to lie again Max?

My post:  

*I didn't have to.  Genetics did.*

Thats the answer genius.

If you actually passed biology which I highly doubt from your answers so far answer this simple question:  

Do normal homosexuals produce reproductive material and when sexually stimulated their bodies prepare for natural procreation?   Easy answer even for you.  Let's start there.




> What does sexual practice have to do with my post?  I wrote about special Federal rights, privileges and benefits specifically granted to married couples but denied to unmarried ones.  As a self-labelled conservative, I thought you'd be in favor of reducing the size of Federal reach and eliminating such special rights.   
> 
> Is it because you are married that you don't want to give up these 1138 Federal rights and benefits?  Are you a hypocrite, @texmaster?


Please try and keep up Max.   Obviously you haven't read the 14th ammendment.


_All persons born or naturalized in the  United States,  and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of  the United  States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall  make or  enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or  immunities of  citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State  deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

*Any and all persons.  *   It doesn't limit it to only homosexuals but ANY people.

If you broaden the definition of the 14th amendment to include   homosexual marriage which it NEVER EVER specifies then you cannot limit  your new  marriage right when the context states clearly ANY and ALL  persons.

It doesn't limit by age or number either so this new "right" of yours   has no limits for marriages of any type by age or number not just sexual   preference.


Do you get it now Max?    Can you even acknolwedge what it says?

----------


## texmaster

> Sure, but it has nothing to do with what was said. Perianne's post, which you quoted, was in response to my post, which had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.


You obviosuly didn't even read what I said did you.

My post you repled to:  *Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone while the  same people present it hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the  same breath.

*What he said: * 
I don't find it abhorrent. I think the government has its fingers into wayyyyy too many things.
*

You asked me to explain this.   I did citing government law.   Is this just another lame attempt at not acknowledging the reality of a poor justification for changing the law?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You obviosuly didn't even read what I said did you.
> 
> My post you repled to:  *Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone while the  same people present it hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the  same breath.
> 
> *What he said: * 
> I don't find it abhorrent. I think the government has its fingers into wayyyyy too many things.
> *
> 
> You asked me to explain this.   I did citing government law.   Is this just another lame attempt at not acknowledging the reality of a poor justification for changing the law?


No. I'm not going to repeat myself again. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm talking about eliminating it completely. The government has no authority, constitutional or otherwise, to meddle in marriage. Nowhere in the constitution can it even be _hinted_ at having that power. So, as the constitution states, it is a power that belongs to the states. 

I'd argue even the states shouldn't have the power, that no government at any level has the authority, but constitutionally speaking, if you want the government to recognize or regulate marriage, it is NOT the federal government that can do it.

----------


## Trinnity

> Its the lazy general justification that applies to everyone while the same people present it hypocritically pretend it can be limited in the same breath.


Uh ......... wut?  :Thinking:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Uh ......... wut?


Oh, good. I'm not the only one that doesn't see how what he said applies to what Peri and I said.

----------

Perianne (11-08-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Uh ......... wut?


He said "This beer's great, but I gotta pee.  C'ya!"

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Going to lie again Max?


I'll leave all the lying to you. 

Why are you dodging the choice question, TM?  When and how did you decide you like pussy more than dick?  Taste test?  A little experimentation?  

I'm curious how those who think sexual preference is choice choose their sexual preference.  I was born with a natural desire for women, but people who claim to choose their sexual preference are curious to me.  Mainly because I think they are bisexuals living in a heterosexual world where homosexuality is condemned by many.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-08-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'll leave all the lying to you. 
> 
> Why are you dodging the choice question, TM?  When and how did you decide you like pussy more than dick?  Taste test?  A little experimentation?  
> 
> I'm curious how those who think sexual preference is choice choose their sexual preference.  I was born with a natural desire for women, but people who claim to choose their sexual preference are curious to me.  Mainly because I think they are bisexuals living in a heterosexual world where homosexuality is condemned by many.


I don't particularly care if it's a choice or genetic or whatever. I am what I am, and I don't give a shit if bigots like tex don't like it. 

That said, I never chose to be attracted to men. *shrug*

----------


## Trinnity

> Oh, good. I'm not the only one that doesn't see how what he said applies to what Peri and I said.


There was a word wrong in the sentence or something, and I couldn't figure it out.

----------


## texmaster

> No. I'm not going to repeat myself again. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm talking about eliminating it completely.


Without a single fact to justify your case.




> The government has no authority, constitutional or otherwise, to meddle in marriage. Nowhere in the constitution can it even be _hinted_ at having that power. So, as the constitution states, it is a power that belongs to the states.


Your opinion means nothing if you can't back it up.   Why would the government not have the right to regulate marriage?   You give zero facts to back up why it should be removed.




> I'd argue even the states shouldn't have the power, that no government at any level has the authority, but constitutionally speaking, if you want the government to recognize or regulate marriage, it is NOT the federal government that can do it.


Really.   So you should have no problem with states that have different laws on how they regulate marriage.     Are you now claiming you actually support states rights on marriage?

----------


## texmaster

> Uh ......... wut?


Its simple.  Gay advocates run around claiming they have a "right" to marriage and cite the 14th amendment as their justification.  But when you read the equal protection clause:



_All persons born or naturalized in the  United States,   and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of  the United   States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall  make or   enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or  immunities of   citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State  deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

*Any and all persons.  *   It doesn't limit it to only homosexuals but ANY people.

If you broaden the definition of the 14th amendment to include    homosexual marriage which it NEVER EVER specifies then you cannot limit   your new  marriage right when the context states clearly ANY and ALL   persons.

It doesn't limit by age or number either so this new "right"    has no limits for marriages of any type by age or number not just sexual    preference.

Perfect example.  A pedo says they have a right to marry and cites the exact same clause.    How could you stop it from a legal perspective if you've already ruled that the equal protection clause includes the "right" to marry?     You can't.    Any and all persons has no age limitation in the justification.

A polygamist would make the exact same argument.   There is no numeric limitation in the equal protection clause.   Any and all persons is the standard so a number cannot be added to infringe on this new right either.

That is the reality of expanding the equal protection clause.   Once you expand it to include marriage "right" you take off any limitation on any marriage of any kind or number.

----------


## texmaster

> I'll leave all the lying to you. 
> 
> Why are you dodging the choice question, TM?  When and how did you decide you like pussy more than dick?  Taste test?  A little experimentation?  
> 
> I'm curious how those who think sexual preference is choice choose their sexual preference.  I was born with a natural desire for women, but people who claim to choose their sexual preference are curious to me.  Mainly because I think they are bisexuals living in a heterosexual world where homosexuality is condemned by many.


My God do you ever stop lying?    I post your lie explain how you lied with direct quotes and you don't even have the courage to address any of it.   Instead you ignore all of it and run away like a typical coward.

Can you actually debate any topic or do you just enjoy lying about your own words and running away when they are exposed?   Do you really think by not quoting it, its just going to go away?

For the third time since you continue to lie about my answer.   I didn't decide, genetics decided for me.

Second time I've asked you this:

*Do normal homosexuals produce reproductive material and when sexually  stimulated their bodies prepare for natural procreation?   Easy answer  even for you.  Let's start there.*

Answer the question Max as I've answered yours or are you going to run away again?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> My God do you ever stop lying?    I post your lie explain how you lied with direct quotes and you don't even have the courage to address any of it.   Instead you ignore all of it and run away like a typical coward.


Sorry, but your unfounded accusations, like several of your posts, are beyond reason.  You accuse me of lying, but won't state what that lie is supposed to be.  Then you claim sexual preference is a choice, yet you refuse to answer when you chose to be a hetero or bisexual yourself.  Why are you afraid to tell the truth?

Let's back up.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  *Do you believe sexual preference is a choice or genetics? *

----------


## texmaster

> Sorry, but your unfounded accusations, like several of your posts, are beyond reason.  You accuse me of lying, but won't state what that lie is supposed to be.


LOL Another lie.    And so easily proven.

You keep claiming I'm dodging the question about what made me like women.   I said it was genetics every time.  3 times you lied and said I didn't answer your question.   That's the lie on your part.   Can't make it any simpler for you Max.




> Then you claim sexual preference is a choice, yet you refuse to answer when you chose to be a hetero or bisexual yourself.  Why are you afraid to tell the truth?


Another lie.  Show me where I ever said heterosexuality is a choice.  Back up your lie.

You are so typical of a liberal poster.   You lie about what you've been told and you refuse to answer any questions posed to you or address the factual inaccuracies in your own links.




> Let's back up.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  *Do you believe sexual preference is a choice or genetics? *


For the 4th time for heterosexuality *NO*.   *It is genetic as I proved*.   Homosexuality having *ZERO* basis in genetics has never been proven to be anything other than a choice.

3rd time.  Answer my question.


*Do normal healthy homosexuals produce reproductive material and when  sexually  stimulated their bodies prepare for natural procreation?    Easy answer  even for you.  Let's start there.

Answer the question Max.
*

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Without a single fact to justify your case.
> 
> Your opinion means nothing if you can't back it up.   Why would the government not have the right to regulate marriage?   You give zero facts to back up why it should be removed.


Actually, I gave one in the post you quoted. The constitution never list recognition and regulation of marriage in the powers of the federal government, which means that power rests with the states. That's a fact.




> Really.   So you should have no problem with states that have different laws on how they regulate marriage.     Are you now claiming you actually support states rights on marriage?


I have never argued against states rights.

----------


## texmaster

> Actually, I gave one in the post you quoted. The constitution never list recognition and regulation of marriage in the powers of the federal government, which means that power rests with the states. That's a fact.


Speeding tickets are also not in the consitution yet they are legal right now.  Just because its not listed in the Constitution doesn't make it illegal for the government to put laws around it.




> I have never argued against states rights.


Answer the question then.   Are you against states making their own laws against gay marriage?     Answer the question.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Speeding tickets are also not in the consitution yet they are legal right now.  Just because its not listed in the Constitution doesn't make it illegal for the government to put laws around it.


Wrong. The constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Speeding tickets deter speeding, and speeding harms more than the speeder. It fits within the federal government's constitutional authority. Not that it matters, though, because speeding tickets are the states, not the federal government.




> Answer the question then.   Are you against states making their own laws against gay marriage?     Answer the question.


Yes and no. They have the power, but I do not believe they have the responsibility.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> For the 4th time for heterosexuality *NO*.   *It is genetic as I proved*.   Homosexuality having *ZERO* basis in genetics has never been proven to be anything other than a choice.


You've proven no such thing and to claim so means you are either lying or severely mentally ill.  Which is it?

----------


## texmaster

> Wrong. The constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Speeding tickets deter speeding, and speeding harms more than the speeder. It fits within the federal government's constitutional authority. Not that it matters, though, because speeding tickets are the states, not the federal government.


Oh spare me. Speeding is only 1 of 10,000 different laws not in the Constitution which have federal laws around them so cut the BS.   

And of course you are dead wrong that Federal authorities cannot give you a speeding ticket.  But then that's no shocker you didn't research your response.

http://www.cvb.uscourts.gov/faq.html




> Yes and no. They have the power, but I do not believe they have the responsibility.


My God you couldn't be more wishy washy if you tried.   You can't have it both ways slick.  Either you support states rights to make their own laws or you don't.

----------


## texmaster

> You've proven no such thing and to claim so means you are either lying or severely mentally ill.  Which is it?


Still lying huh Max.  Typical.  My quote where I proved heterosexuality is genetic and it was a response to you directly in post #121.

*The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes  it genetic!   You can't control the fact that when a human is sexually  stimulated the body prepares for natural procreation aka heterosexual  sex.  That's the entire point genius.

The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.


So once again Max is lying about evidence given to him over and over again.   Now we can all sit back and pretend to be surprised.*


And Max is still running from every question posed to you on this subject like a gutless coward.    Typical of a liberal troll.  You lack the balls to actually have a real debate so any time you are challenged you run away with tail tucked between your legs and every time you duck the debate you prove my point.

Come back when you can actually man up and not run away from every question posed to you.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Still lying huh Max.  Typical.  My quote where I proved heterosexuality is genetic and it was a response to you directly in post #121.


Dude, your insults are childish.  You remind me of a 13 year old trying to act like a tough guy.   Please stop or at least have the courtesy to protect the State's honor by changing your username to Louismaster or Master Baiter.  Anything but Tex.

As for your proof, it isn't even though I've already posted sexual preference is genetic.  The sticking point is that you believe heterosexuality is genetic but that homosexuality is choice.  That concept is more fucked up than a football bat for several reason.  Either way, while your bolded comment has elements of truth in it, that doesn't make it completely true nor does it prove that heterosexuality is genetic.  Ever hear of Pavlov's dog?




> LOL You really need me to break out the crayons don't you. 
> 
> *The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes it genetic! You can't control the fact that when a human is sexually stimulated the body prepares for natural procreation aka heterosexual sex. That's the entire point genius.
> 
> The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.*
> 
> I can't believe once again the most basic arguments have to be explained to you.
> 
> Third time: Still waiting for your evidence that homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> Dude, your insults are childish.  You remind me of a 13 year old trying to act like a tough guy.   Please stop or at least have the courtesy to protect the State's honor by changing your username to Louismaster or Master Baiter.  Anything but Tex.


LOL  I know Max.   You are so frustrated someone is calling you out when you lie and able to back it up with factual evidence.   Your inability to stay on the subject is living proof of that.   You enjoy the childish insults because its all you've got.

If you actually had the courage to debate you would do it not run each and every time I expose the lies in your claims or challenge you to answer a question.

The 13 year olds are the ones that run from a challenge and can't answer back when their facts are exposed to be a fraud.  That would be you.




> As for your proof, it isn't even though I've already posted sexual preference is genetic.


LOL  No you didn't.   You posted 3 links and each one I found hard facts where every single one admitted they cannot prove homosexuality is genetic.

And instead of debating the facts of their own words you ran away like the coward you are just like you do every single time your arguments are dis-proven or challenged.    




> The sticking point is that you believe heterosexuality is genetic but that homosexuality is choice.  That concept is more fucked up than a football bat for several reason.


Wow!  Look at all that hard data you cited!   Typical Max.  All emotion no facts.




> Either way, while your bolded comment has elements of truth in it, that doesn't make it completely true nor does it prove that heterosexuality is genetic.  Ever hear of Pavlov's dog?


Yes.  And its obvious you never have read it:

*The conditioned response is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus*

The act of the body responding to sexual stimuli preparing for natural procreation is not a neutral stimulus.    Of course if you had actually read the detail of Pavlov's dog you would have known that.

And more:

_The CS usually produces no particular response at first, but after conditioning it elicits the conditioned response or CR_.  

After puberty it is always the response from the body.  Its not learned after conditioning.  But once again you would have actually had to read what you were citing and of course that once again has proven to be too much for you.

I know I'm going to regret taking the 10 seconds to type this out since all you do is run from every challenge I've made to you but specifically in that bolded response to you what part of any of that is not factual?   You said its not "completely true" then explain what part of it isn't true because I can cite basic science texts to support it any day of the week. 

Your argument only works if you can justify why homosexual marriage and ONLY 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of changing law and you can't do it.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> LOL  I know Max.   You are so frustrated someone is calling you out when you lie and able to back it up with factual evidence.   Your inability to stay on the subject is living proof of that.   You enjoy the childish insults because its all you've got.


Not even close, but you are free to play all the games you like by yourself.  Still doesn't mean you proved anything scientifically no matter how hard you pull on it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Oh spare me. Speeding is only 1 of 10,000 different laws not in the Constitution which have federal laws around them so cut the BS.


Of course they are, but they are still unconstitutional. 




> And of course you are dead wrong that Federal authorities cannot give you a speeding ticket.  But then that's no shocker you didn't research your response.
> 
> http://www.cvb.uscourts.gov/faq.html


Where did I say federal authorities can't administer speeding tickets? 




> My God you couldn't be more wishy washy if you tried.   You can't have it both ways slick.  Either you support states rights to make their own laws or you don't.


Right. I said they had the power. I do not think they should, however. This isn't hard to grasp.

----------


## Karl

> You've proven no such thing and to claim so means you are either lying or severely mentally ill.  Which is it?


I say its a combination of BOTH

----------


## texmaster

> Not even close, but you are free to play all the games you like by yourself.  Still doesn't mean you proved anything scientifically no matter how hard you pull on it.


I prove it each and every time you run from a challenge Max which is quite frequently.

----------


## texmaster

> Of course they are, but they are still unconstitutional.


Prove it.




> Where did I say federal authorities can't administer speeding tickets?


You said it was a state matter and it obivously isn't limited to states.  Please don't bother denying it unless you want me to embarrass you with your own words.




> Right. I said they had the power. I do not think they should, however. This isn't hard to grasp.


Based on what?    Why should they not?  Just because you don't personally like it?

----------


## The XL

> Bullshit.   I'll say it again since you have trouble reading.   Just because something exists in a society or multiple species does not make it genetic and your laughable lack of proof of that belief and my ability to easily point to other things that exist in multiple species that aren't genetic completely blow away this pathetic argument.


Haha, wait a minute.  Before I go further in this debate, where is *your* proof that it isn't genetic?  You haven't done one fucking thing to prove that.  All you've done is deny, deny, deny, but you don't even have a case.  You've made wild assertions with no argument. 

Go ahead, make your scientific case.  I'll be waiting.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> Haha, wait a minute.  Before I go further in this debate, where is *your* proof that it isn't genetic?  You haven't done one fucking thing to prove that.  All you've done is deny, deny, deny, but you don't even have a case.  You've made wild assertions with no argument. 
> 
> Go ahead, make your scientific case.  I'll be waiting.


LOL  I'm not the one who wants to change the law.   But the proof is easy.   Homosexuals still have the same biological sexual reaction heterosexuals do when sexually stimulated.    The body prepares for natural procreation.  If homosexuality was genetic why would they continue to produce reproductive fluids and why would their bodies prepare for natural heterosexual procreation when sexually stimulated?


Go ahead, I'd love to hear you try and explain that.   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## The XL

> LOL  I'm not the one who wants to change the law.   But the proof is easy.   Homosexuals still have the same biological sexual reaction heterosexuals do when sexually stimulated.    The body prepares for natural procreation.  If homosexuality was genetic why would they continue to produce reproductive fluids and why would their bodies prepare for natural heterosexual procreation when sexually stimulated?
> 
> 
> Go ahead, I'd love to hear you try and explain that.


You're the one who wants the state in the institution of marriage, yet wants to withhold the right for gays to marry, so the burden of proof is on you.

Bodily functions aren't going to change in the instance of an anomaly or a defect, so I'm not sure how this constitutes as proof of anything.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> LOL  I'm not the one who wants to change the law.   But the proof is easy.   Homosexuals still have the same biological sexual reaction heterosexuals do when sexually stimulated.    The body prepares for natural procreation.  If homosexuality was genetic why would they continue to produce reproductive fluids and why would their bodies prepare for natural heterosexual procreation when sexually stimulated?
> 
> 
> Go ahead, I'd love to hear you try and explain that.


Kids with cerebral palsy can't walk, so why are they born with legs?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013),The XL (11-09-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Kids with cerebral palsy can't walk, so why are they born with legs?


This is the point I was trying to make, but you showed it better with a good example.

Just because a defect or anomaly hits in one area, doesn't mean the rest of the body and its functions will be changed.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I say its a combination of BOTH


While there is that distinct possibility, I'd need more factual evidence to determine if it either or both.  I do know it has to be at least one.

----------


## texmaster

> You're the one who wants the state in the institution of marriage, yet wants to withhold the right for gays to marry, so the burden of proof is on you.


Wrong again.  I'll say it real slow just for you.   

You want the change the law. The burden is on you.    No one proposes a bill then demands the other side come up with a defense argument when they have none of their own.   




> Bodily functions aren't going to change in the instance of an anomaly or a defect, so I'm not sure how this constitutes as proof of anything.


LOL  It goes to the heart of the question on genetics.   How could homosexuals continue in a society since they cannot procreate?  Can you explain your extreme lack of scientific knowledge?

And why do they continue to produce sexual reproductive fluids when their very nature makes it impossible.

Go ahead second time.  Let's see you come up with an answer.   But you'll probably just run away as usual.

----------


## texmaster

> Kids with cerebral palsy can't walk, so why are they born with legs?


Cerebral palsy is a result of *brain damage* genius. Obviously you speak from experience.  

_
Cerebral Palsy


                                                                                                                                                               Cerebral palsy is a result of brain damage. The severity of each case is dependent on the extent of brain damage. 
Fetal Damage


                                                                                                                                                               Fetal damage, such as a fetal stroke or infection, can lead  to the development of brain damage associated with cerebral palsy. The  fetus is most vulnerable to damage during the first five months of  pregnancy. 
Birth Complications


                                                                                                                                                               Birth complications, such as not receiving enough oxygen at  birth, can cause cerebral palsy. Underweight babies and babies born  prematurely are also vulnerable to developing CP. 
Traumatic Injury


                                                                                                                                                               In rare cases, cerebral palsy develops after birth. A  traumatic injury during infancy causes this to happen. Such an injury  can occur from child abuse or an automobile accident. 

Read more:  http://www.ehow.com/facts_5754330_ce...#ixzz2kBw3V8qt_

My God this has to be one of the most pathetic attemps on this subject I've ever seen.

Its so sad the most basic things have to be explained to uneducated liberals.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Cerebral palsy is a result of *brain damage* genius. Obviously you speak from experience.  
> 
> _
> Cerebral Palsy
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                Cerebral palsy is a result of brain damage. The severity of each case is dependent on the extent of brain damage.
> Fetal Damage
> 
> ...


Thanks for the much-needed elaboration. Now, whilst you rage about how much of an uneducated swine I am, I can sit back and gawk at the unabashed irony as a self-proclaimed social conservative espouses Lamarckist evolutionism to back up his hatred of gays.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Prove it.


Can't prove a negative. It's your turn to do some legwork and show how it is constitutional, since you clearly believe it is.




> You said it was a state matter and it obivously isn't limited to states.  Please don't bother denying it unless you want me to embarrass you with your own words.


Feel free to quote me all you want. Every time you do, it only confirms my point. 

Now, if you'd like to stop acting like a ten year old who won the race by pushing all the other kids down, we can get back to arguing like adults.




> Based on what?    Why should they not?  Just because you don't personally like it?


Just like everyone else, yes. Unlike you, I do not think the government has the authority to get involved in private matters. Marriage is a private matter that is no business of the government's, or any one else's save for the people getting married.

----------


## Network

The State involvement in the Religious Ritual of Marriage.

Wrong answer.

----------


## The XL

> Wrong again.  I'll say it real slow just for you.   
> 
> You want the change the law. The burden is on you.    No one proposes a bill then demands the other side come up with a defense argument when they have none of their own.   
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  It goes to the heart of the question on genetics.   How could homosexuals continue in a society since they cannot procreate?  Can you explain your extreme lack of scientific knowledge?
> 
> And why do they continue to produce sexual reproductive fluids when their very nature makes it impossible.
> ...


Incorrect, sir.  The law is discriminatory, so the burden of proof solely lies on you to *prove* it, something you have not done.

A genetic anomaly wouldn't interfere with any other function of the body.  Being gay doesn't exclude one from having procreation abilities, just like being born deaf doesn't mean you won't be born without ears.

Lulz at me running away from the likes of you.  You have nothing to offer scientifically in this discussion.  Hell, you have nothing to offer period.  You're just a shitty faux con-servative.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013)

----------


## Network

> Incorrect, sir.  The law is discriminatory, so the burden of proof solely lies on you to *prove* it, something you have not done.
> 
> A genetic anomaly wouldn't interfere with any other function of the body.  Being gay doesn't exclude one from having procreation abilities, just like being born deaf doesn't mean you won't be born without ears.
> 
> Lulz at me running away from the likes of you.  You have nothing to offer scientifically in this discussion.  Hell, you have nothing to offer period.  You're just a shitty faux con-servative.



Merry me

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013),The XL (11-09-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> Thanks for the much-needed elaboration. Now, whilst you rage about how much of an uneducated swine I am, I can sit back and gawk at the unabashed irony as a self-proclaimed social conservative espouses Lamarckist evolutionism to back up his hatred of gays.


Yes becuase I demand you be accurate in your facts I must hate gay people.  So typical of the far left.  You loose the argument because you weren't smart enough to research your examples so the last thing you have is accusing me of gay bashing.

Please, go ahead and display your continued ignorance and stupidity crying about the fact you used an example a 4th grader could destroy.

----------


## texmaster

> Incorrect, sir.  The law is discriminatory, so the burden of proof solely lies on you to *prove* it, something you have not done.


LOL Wrong again.   You want to change the law.  It is not invalid just because you claim its discriminatory.  Try again.




> A genetic anomaly wouldn't interfere with any other function of the body.  Being gay doesn't exclude one from having procreation abilities, just like being born deaf doesn't mean you won't be born without ears.


LOL Wow another moronic exmaple with no evidence.

Let me educate you as well on your dumbass example.

_Deafness is an etiologically heterogeneous trait with many known genetic  and environmental causes. Genetic factors account for at least half of  all cases of profound congenital deafness, and can be classified by the  mode of inheritance and the presence or absence of characteristic  clinical features that may permit the diagnosis of a specific form of  syndromic deafness.  The identification of more than 120 independent genes for deafness has  provided profound new insights into the pathophysiology of hearing, as  well as many unexpected surprises._

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12784229

Children born deaf have a proven genetic disorder.   Say it with me.  PROVEN.    Your religion that gays are genetic has zero scientific basis whatsoever and that is the difference.

Your dumbass example only proves you don't have a clue what the difference is between scientifically backed genetics and theories.


Brekaing out the crayons for the uneducated far left


*Can a deaf person choose to hear?   Nope

Can a homosexual choose to procreate?  Yep*

LOL The entertainment is priceless   :Smiley ROFLMAO: 




> Lulz at me running away from the likes of you.  You have nothing to offer scientifically in this discussion.  Hell, you have nothing to offer period.  You're just a shitty faux con-servative.


Lulz at your inability to explain why homosexuals produce genetic material when their entire sexual preference would make it impossible to utilize.

Using your example a person with ears would have to use them for something else than hearing while maintaining their ability to hear to make your dumbass comparison believeable.  But of course you didn't think through your example so what a surprise you embarrass yourself once again.

*Come back when you figure out the difference between being born without hearing and being born with the ability to procreate heterosexually but choosing not too.*

LOL What a dumbass argument.

----------


## The XL

Something you seem to have a hard time understanding is the fact that the burden of proof is on you.  You are the one who is trying to deny rights, not the other way around.  As long as the state is involved with marriage the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is a choice, something you cannot do.  With no concrete proof either way, the overwhelming testimony from gay people, the only people that actually know for sure, is the only thing to go on, and the overwhelming amount of gays say that it was not a choice, even those who aren't looking to get married.

Now that we've established that, the ball is in your court to prove that it is a choice.  I won't be expecting much, considering which side of the issue you happen to be on, and the fact that you're a low level poster in general.

As far as the hearing issue goes, that was merely one example, there are hundreds of more.  Regardless, at the end of the day, you haven't shown how it's a choice.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-09-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> Something you seem to have a hard time understanding is the fact that the burden of proof is on you.  You are the one who is trying to deny rights, not the other way around.  As long as the state is involved with marriage the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is a choice, something you cannot do.  With no concrete proof either way, the overwhelming testimony from gay people, the only people that actually know for sure, is the only thing to go on, and the overwhelming amount of gays say that it was not a choice, even those who aren't looking to get married.
> 
> Now that we've established that, the ball is in your court to prove that it is a choice.  I won't be expecting much, considering which side of the issue you happen to be on, and the fact that you're a low level poster in general.
> 
> As far as the hearing issue goes, that was merely one example, there are hundreds of more.  Regardless, at the end of the day, you haven't shown how it's a choice.


Yes there are hundreds more just as stupid as your deaf example.   Please, continue to provide them and I will continue to embarrass you.


As far as your "right" is concerned, name one law, ANY law proposal where it was presented that the justification remained with the current law to continue to exist and there was ZERO evidence, justification or argument made for the change in the law by the person or group making the argument that actually got passed by the federal government.

Go ahead XL, embarrass yourself further  :Smile:

----------


## The XL

> Yes there are hundreds more just as stupid as your deaf example.   Please, continue to provide them and I will continue to embarrass you.
> 
> 
> As far as your "right" is concerned, name one law, ANY law proposal where it was presented that the justification remained with the current law to continue to exist and there was ZERO evidence, justification or argument made for the change in the law by the person or group making the argument.
> 
> Go ahead XL, embarrass yourself further




Like I said prior, in a deadlocked area, testimony is the only thing to go on.  And seeing as how this is mere conjecture for anyone who is not gay or bisexual, they would be the experts in the field.  And the overwhelming majority have claimed that it was not a choice.  So, until proven otherwise, that's the strongest and most logical answer.  Ergo, the burden of proof is on your side.  Should be easy, right?  Haha.

Now that we've settled that, go ahead and prove that it's genetic.  I'll be waiting.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yes becuase I demand you be accurate in your facts I must hate gay people.  So typical of the far left.  You loose the argument because you weren't smart enough to research your examples so the last thing you have is accusing me of gay bashing.
> 
> Please, go ahead and display your continued ignorance and stupidity crying about the fact you used an example a 4th grader could destroy.


The burden of proof is on you. Unless you're going to continue citing an evolutionist theory discredited a century ago to back up your assertion homosexuality is a choice, I'm still waiting for a convincing case on your behalf.

But clearly, you'd rather go all grammar Nazi on the examples I provide.

----------


## texmaster

> Like I said prior, in a deadlocked area, testimony is the only thing to go on.  And seeing as how this is mere conjecture for anyone who is not gay or bisexual, they would be the experts in the field.  And the overwhelming majority have claimed that it was not a choice.  So, until proven otherwise, that's the strongest and most logical answer.  Ergo, the burden of proof is on your side.  Should be easy, right?  Haha.


LOL   So you couldn't come up with a single proposed law ever found in federal law that met your dumbass criteria.    No surprise there you ran away once again like a gutless coward.

I've heard some moronic arguments but pretending the only people who can comment on the genetic or natural state of homosexuals would be the people who directly beneift has to be one of the dumbest arguments ever uttered on this topic. 

What's next XL?  Having only murderers comment on the jail time for murderers because they are the only ones with experience on the subject?   :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  




> Now that we've settled that, go ahead and prove that it's genetic.  I'll be waiting.


I already have multiple times.  You are too gutless to address it but re-posting it is no problem.

*The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes heterosexuality genetic for all humans.    You can't control the fact that when a human is sexually   stimulated the body prepares for natural procreation aka heterosexual   sex. 

The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.*


Come back when you have the balls to actually address the facts I present and the challenges I pose to you instead of running away like a coward.

----------


## texmaster

> The burden of proof is on you. Unless you're going to continue citing an evolutionist theory discredited a century ago to back up your assertion homosexuality is a choice, I'm still waiting for a convincing case on your behalf.


LOL   You want to embarass yourself too huh.

*The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes  heterosexuality genetic for all humans.    You can't control the fact  that when a human is sexually   stimulated the body prepares for natural  procreation aka heterosexual   sex. 

The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.

*Go ahead Gerrad, prove any of that false.




> But clearly, you'd rather go all grammar Nazi on the examples I provide.


Translation, Tex is mean because when I post my argument he finds the factual flaws in it and then makes fun of me for being stupid.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> LOL   You want to embarass yourself too huh.
> 
> *The biological sexual reaction is NOT voluntary that's what makes  heterosexuality genetic for all humans.    You can't control the fact  that when a human is sexually   stimulated the body prepares for natural  procreation aka heterosexual   sex. 
> 
> The very fact homosexuals have the exact same biological sexual reaction when sexually stimulated proves my point.
> 
> *Go ahead Gerrad, prove any of that false.


You're taking this round in circles again. Just because there is a mental abnormality, doesn't mean the body's going to physically adapt itself to it - unless, as stated, you subscribe to a discredited school of evolutionism.



> Translation, Tex is mean because when I post my argument he finds the factual flaws in it and then makes fun of me for being stupid.


Maybe you can cut down on the kindergarten insults, dullard, and dedicate that such famously beautiful mind to stringing together a convincing scientific case against homosexuality.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-10-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

@texmaster, you're forgetting a post. I could use your tactic and suggest you're "running away like a coward," but I recognize that some people have lives outside of forums or don't care to carry on an argument further, and none of these facts imply cowardice. 

Post 262

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> @texmaster, you're forgetting a post. I could use your tactic and suggest you're "running away like a coward," but I recognize that some people have lives outside of forums or don't care to carry on an argument further, and none of these facts imply cowardice. 
> 
> Post 262


I've found that those who frequently play the ITG card and call others cowards are often describing themselves.  It's annoying, but also fascinating from a psychological point of view.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (11-11-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> You're taking this round in circles again. Just because there is a mental abnormality, doesn't mean the body's going to physically adapt itself to it - unless, as stated, you subscribe to a discredited school of evolutionism.


So you can't dispute it.   We got it.    Come back when you actually have proof if your religious beliefs on homosexuality.




> Maybe you can cut down on the kindergarten insults, dullard, and dedicate that such famously beautiful mind to stringing together a convincing scientific case against homosexuality.


I already have.  You've admitted you can't dispute a single fact I gave while providing none of your own.    Its not like this is a new song for you.

----------


## texmaster

> @texmaster, you're forgetting a post. I could use your tactic and suggest you're "running away like a coward," but I recognize that some people have lives outside of forums or don't care to carry on an argument further, and none of these facts imply cowardice. 
> 
> Post 262


LOL I just missed it.  Its not like the active cowardice you display when you continue to run away from every direct challege I pose to you.   

Be happy to embarrass you some more Sinestro  :Smile: 




> Can't prove a negative. It's your turn to do some  legwork and show how it is constitutional, since you clearly believe it  is.


So you made a claim you can't prove.  This is me shocked.




> Feel free to quote me all you want. Every time you do, it only confirms my point.


LOL So when I expose you lying about your claims I'm proving your point how exactly?

Your words:

_Not that it matters, though, because speeding tickets are the states, not the federal government._

I proved that to be yet another lie by finding factual evidence that the federal government does write speeding tickets.   

Its incredible you actually deny you say things only to embarass yoruself when I present them.




> Now, if you'd like to stop acting like a ten year old who won the race  by pushing all the other kids down, we can get back to arguing like  adults.


Adults have the courage to answer direct questions and not lie about their own words forcing the actual adults to quote them again confronting the lies.




> Just like everyone else, yes. Unlike you, I do not think the government  has the authority to get involved in private matters. Marriage is a  private matter that is no business of the government's, or any one  else's save for the people getting married.


So its a feeling you have not hard factual evidence to change current law to allow for gay marriage.  Yes we got that.   You have no factual evidence only a belief in how you feel federal power should be utilized.    I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Thank you @Sinestro for reminding me of this post.  It allowed me to confront another of your lies about your own words and expose you have nothing but your own personal opinion to justify changing current law  :Smile:

----------


## Karl

WOW this is STILL going ON weeks later

This is almost as pathetic as MistyBlue and RichClems endless pissing contests

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-11-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> I've found that those who frequently play the ITG card and call others cowards are often describing themselves.  It's annoying, but also fascinating from a psychological point of view.


LOL    Funny you should play pictures.


Here's another one of your moronic liberal buddies who also tried to out debate me on this issue.  I exposed his lies on gay marriage and tore down each and every argument he made and this is the best he came up with.




I was hoping your picture was going to be better.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So you made a claim you can't prove.  This is me shocked.


Not really. It's simple debate etiquette. You don't prove negatives, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement. That would be you. 

Why are you refusing to present the argument on your own?




> LOL So when I expose you lying about your claims I'm proving your point how exactly?
> 
> Your words:
> 
> _Not that it matters, though, because speeding tickets are the states, not the federal government._
> 
> I proved that to be yet another lie by finding factual evidence that the federal government does write speeding tickets.   
> 
> Its incredible you actually deny you say things only to embarass yoruself when I present them.


You need to learn the difference between "lying" and "wrong." I told no lie, because a lie is delivering a knowingly false statement. I did not know my statement wasn't entirely accurate, so it wasn't a lie. 




> Adults have the courage to answer direct questions and not lie about their own words forcing the actual adults to quote them again confronting the lies.


I've answered every direct question you've posed. You, on the other hand, have not reciprocated.




> So its a feeling you have not hard factual evidence to change current law to allow for gay marriage.  Yes we got that.   You have no factual evidence only a belief in how you feel federal power should be utilized.    I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.


Now you're the one lying. I've made it clear as crystal that I don't want to "change the law to allow for gay marriage," and that what I am advocating is getting rid of the law altogether. I've given legitimate, factual reasons for doing so, reasons you have yet to counter. You can insult my honor by calling me a liar all you want, it won't make me forget that you haven't actually countered my arguments.

What justification do you have to allow the federal government to meddle in the business of marriage?

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-11-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> WOW this is STILL going ON weeks later
> 
> This is almost as pathetic as MistyBlue and RichClems endless pissing contests


Yes, but the good news is no one has shot anybody yet.

----------


## Trinnity

> Wrong. The constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Speeding tickets deter speeding, and speeding harms more than the speeder. It fits within the federal government's constitutional authority. Not that it matters, though, because speeding tickets are the states, not the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. They have the power, but I do not believe they have the responsibility.


They do not. Speeding is a matter of state and local jurisdiction, NOT a federal.

----------


## Trinnity

*This thread is a flaming mess.  You guys are done.*

----------

