PDA

View Full Version : W/O using religion, can someone give me any good reasons why Gays should not marry?



JustAlex
08-06-2012, 03:48 PM
C'mon, I want some good reasons why gays should not be allow to be married, without using religious beliefs.


For example, I can give you plenty of reasons without using religion why Pedophilia is bad.

I can give you good reasons why Interracial marriage is good.....and remember up until 1968, in certain places (Primarily 'The South', interracial marriage was ILLEGAL!)


So, why am I asking this question.....because one day (Whether you like it or not) the gay marriage issue will make it to the supreme court and they will have to decided on it without using religion.


Can anyone guess what the verdict will be?

ALADOG
08-06-2012, 03:54 PM
C'mon, I want some good reasons why gays should not be allow to be married, without using religious beliefs.


For example, I can give you plenty of reasons without using religion why Pedophilia is bad.

I can give you good reasons why Interracial marriage is good.....and remember up until 1968, in certain places (Primarily 'The South', interracial marriage was ILLEGAL!)


So, why am I asking this question.....because one day (Whether you like it or not) the gay marriage issue will make it to the supreme court and they will have to decided on it without using religion.


Can anyone guess what the verdict will be?

Very simply put, all through the animal kingdom, sexual contact/relations are used for procreation. There has NEVER been a case of homosexual relations resulting in offspring. I understand that there are hermaphrodidic animals that have both organs but strictly homosexual relations do not produce offspring.

mrveggieman
08-06-2012, 03:56 PM
I was just going to ask the same question. To be honest even though I do agree that God is against gay marriage, he is also against devil worship but devil worship is protected by the first amendment just like we have laws in this country to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. To me there is no secular non religious reason to justify gays from getting married.

mrveggieman
08-06-2012, 03:57 PM
Very simply put, all through the animal kingdom, sexual contact/relations are used for procreation. There has NEVER been a case of homosexual relations resulting in offspring. I understand that there are hermaphrodidic animals that have both organs but strictly homosexual relations do not produce offspring.


So using that logic people who do not want/cannot have kids should not be married either.

JustAlex
08-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Very simply put, all through the animal kingdom, sexual contact/relations are used for procreation. There has NEVER been a case of homosexual relations resulting in offspring. I understand that there are hermaphrodidic animals that have both organs but strictly homosexual relations do not produce offspring.
So basically you're saying they should not marry because they can't reproduce.

GREAT.....now we should ban ALL men and women who are sterile from getting married!

Also, any married couple that doesn't produce a child within X number of years, their marriage should be dissolved.


It's only fair if you're using that argument...

ALADOG
08-06-2012, 04:04 PM
So using that logic people who do not want/cannot have kids should not be married either.
I keep a matchbox full of rocks on my desk to make me always remember the liberals lack of knowledge and comprehension. AKA Dumb as a box of rocks. I will make this as simple as possible, no one mentioned anything about intentitons of having children, only whether it is possible. When the possibility does not exist, there can be no useful purpose for it. 99% of the aniimal world mates or has sexual relations due to instinct. If they were all homosexual, they would become extent in one generation.

mrveggieman
08-06-2012, 04:06 PM
I keep a matchbox full of rocks on my desk to make me always remember the liberals lack of knowledge and comprehension. AKA Dumb as a box of rocks. I will make this as simple as possible, no one mentioned anything about intentitons of having children, only whether it is possible. When the possibility does not exist, there can be no useful purpose for it. 99% of the aniimal world mates or has sexual relations due to instinct. If they were all homosexual, they would become extent in one generation.

So tell me again what does that have to do with gays not being able to marry again?

ALADOG
08-06-2012, 04:07 PM
So basically you're saying they should not marry because they can't reproduce.

GREAT.....now we should ban ALL men and women who are sterile from getting married!

Also, any married couple that doesn't produce a child within X number of years, their marriage should be dissolved.


It's only fair if you're using that argument...

As usual you confuse logic with distortion.

JustAlex
08-06-2012, 04:08 PM
I keep a matchbox full of rocks on my desk to make me always remember the liberals lack of knowledge and comprehension. AKA Dumb as a box of rocks. I will make this as simple as possible, no one mentioned anything about intentitons of having children, only whether it is possible. When the possibility does not exist, there can be no useful purpose for it. 99% of the aniimal world mates or has sexual relations due to instinct. If they were all homosexual, they would become extent in one generation.
Dude, your argument is falling apart.

What if a man/woman is sterile, they can't reproduce even if they wanted to, why should they be allowed to marry?

Also, about your animal kingdom comments:

First of all, humans are part of the animal kingdom.

Secondly, TONS of animals participate in homosexual sex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

mrveggieman
08-06-2012, 04:09 PM
You are failing to come up with any logical reason why gays are cannot get married. Even under the current laws people are still going to be gay. Do you think that legalizing gay marriage is going to somehow make more people become gay. You are either gay or you are not. It doesen't get any more cut and dry than that. There has and always be more straight people than gay people. The straight ones who can have kids will continue to reporduce. Your logic is completely flawed.

ALADOG
08-06-2012, 04:13 PM
Dude, you're argument is falling apart.

What if a man/woman is sterile, they can't reproduce even if they wanted to, why should they be allowed to marry?

Also, about your animal kingdom comments:

First of all, humans are part of the animal kingdom.

Secondly, TONS of animals participate in homosexual sex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Again this is why I keep a box of rocks on my desk. It is impossible for a rock to think or reason.


My point of view is valid but you are not capable of understanding or using valid logic.

ALADOG
08-06-2012, 04:14 PM
You are failing to come up with any logical reason why gays are cannot get married. Even under the current laws people are still going to be gay. Do you think that legalizing gay marriage is going to somehow make more people become gay. You are either gay or you are not. It doesen't get any more cut and dry than that. There has and always be more straight people than gay people. The straight ones who can have kids will continue to reporduce. Your logic is completely flawed.

You have no logic at all

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 04:14 PM
I keep a matchbox full of rocks on my desk to make me always remember the liberals lack of knowledge and comprehension. AKA Dumb as a box of rocks. I will make this as simple as possible, no one mentioned anything about intentitons of having children, only whether it is possible. When the possibility does not exist, there can be no useful purpose for it. 99% of the aniimal world mates or has sexual relations due to instinct. If they were all homosexual, they would become extent in one generation.

So a woman who is barren, or a man with a non-existent sper count should never be allowed to marry.

This isn't "dumb as a box of rocks liberal" this is what you just said.

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 04:15 PM
You have no logic at all

This response tells me you have nothing to stand on and know your reasoning is flawed.
If you had something to stand on, you'd have actually responded with something other than a minor insult.

mrveggieman
08-06-2012, 04:17 PM
You have no logic at all

I'm not going to respond back to your insult because it will violate this sites TOS. I will say that you have failed to prove any reason whatsoever why gays cannot get married but you have proved without a shadow of a doubt the fallacy of the conservative way of thinking.

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 04:19 PM
ALADOG, the only one ignoring logic here is you. If you think homosexuals shouldn't marry because they can't procreate, then what is your stance on people who are sterile. Procreation isn't possible for them, so they shouldn't get married too, right?

JustAlex
08-06-2012, 04:22 PM
Aladog, your reasoning is not valid and now three members have explained it to you.

shrewsbury
08-06-2012, 05:10 PM
Alex, I think they should be allowed to marry but no one that does not produce children should receive the benefits that are now associated with marriage, the only exception would be the disabled.

you can marry whom ever you want or how many you want, a guy can marry a guy and a woman for all I care, but the benefits should be left for those raising a family. otherwise all of you could work and get your own benefits.

JustAlex
08-06-2012, 05:18 PM
Alex, I think they should be allowed to marry but no one that does not produce children should receive the benefits that are now associated with marriage, the only exception would be the disabled.

you can marry whom ever you want or how many you want, a guy can marry a guy and a woman for all I care, but the benefits should be left for those raising a family. otherwise all of you could work and get your own benefits.
What if gays adopt?

What if a lesbian couple gets artificial insemination?

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 05:43 PM
Alex, I think they should be allowed to marry but no one that does not produce children should receive the benefits that are now associated with marriage, the only exception would be the disabled.

you can marry whom ever you want or how many you want, a guy can marry a guy and a woman for all I care, but the benefits should be left for those raising a family. otherwise all of you could work and get your own benefits.

I think the only thing a childless couple shouldn't get is benefits related to having children, not the marriage itself.

habsheaven
08-06-2012, 06:10 PM
People's definition of what a marriage represents is so narrow-minded. For me a marriage is a commitment between two or more individuals that want to express their commitment to each other in front of their community and be recognized by their community as married.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-06-2012, 07:27 PM
People's definition of what a marriage represents is so narrow-minded. For me a marriage is a commitment between two or more individuals that want to express their commitment to each other in front of their community and be recognized by their community as married.
What is Canada stance on gay marriage , and do you guys have people in the street protesting for Gay marriage ?

habsheaven
08-06-2012, 07:49 PM
What is Canada stance on gay marriage , and do you guys have people in the street protesting for Gay marriage ?

Gay marriage is legal, therefore; we do not have to protest for it.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-06-2012, 07:53 PM
Gay marriage is legal, therefore; we do not have to protest for it.
Thanks !

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 09:43 PM
Funny thing, no one has lobbied for polygamy yet. A few news stories and some people complain when a polygamist is charged, but no real uproar over it.

shrewsbury
08-06-2012, 09:51 PM
I think the only thing a childless couple shouldn't get is benefits related to having children, not the marriage itself.

wickabee, perhaps something we agree upon?

[QUOTE]What if gays adopt?

What if a lesbian couple gets artificial insemination?[QUOTE]

alex, I could see this as an exception

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 09:53 PM
wickabee, perhaps something we agree upon?

Oh thank God. I was starting to think it would never happen, haha!

shrewsbury
08-06-2012, 09:54 PM
same here, my friend, same here!!!

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 12:08 AM
So, in the end no one could bring up a single good reason why gays should not marry?

I can't say I'm surprised, and all you guys should see this as the reason why gay marriage is inevitable.


If and when it makes it to the supreme court, this will be a landslide!

9-0 or 8-1.....there are ZERO good arguments as to why gays should not marry in a secular society.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 12:13 AM
Ok I'll put you down for one yes.

shrewsbury
08-07-2012, 12:15 AM
alex, maybe no one put up anything YOU thought was a good reason why?

almostkinda
08-07-2012, 12:19 AM
Im christian and live in the south and i think its horrible people say that they can't marry

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 12:22 AM
alex, maybe no one put up anything YOU thought was a good reason why?

No. The only argument I saw given was procreation. Being that no one has a problem with sterile straight couples or even straight couples who choose not to have children getting married and, as you've said before, what's fair for one is fair for all, that simply isn't a good enough reason.

I disagree with making the call here. I would have eaited longer.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 12:25 AM
alex, maybe no one put up anything YOU thought was a good reason why?
Um, no.

No one brought any good reasons, you yourself said you would be OK with gays getting married but that they shouldn't get the benefits that are associated with marriage.

That argument is also flawed because it's based on the idea that because gays can't naturally reproduce they don't deserve everything a hetero couple gets.

Well, if you want to go down that road then we have to change the rules for Sterile hetero couples.

It's only fair....


I agreed with Wickabee when he said this:

"I think the only thing a childless couple shouldn't get is benefits related to having children, not the marriage itself."



Gay marriage is inevitable because in a secular society (Which the U.S is) there are no good reasons why gay marriage should be illegal.


And BTW.....the more that conservatives and christians push to make marriage exclusively for hetero couples, the sooner it will be that this issue finally makes it to the SCOTUS.


Here's a little unknown fact.....the gay marriage issue has NEVER made it to the SCOTUS, quite frankly if you understand the way that SCOTUS has to rule on issues, you should know that this would indeed be a landslide victory for gays.


It's only a matter of time.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 02:59 PM
BUMP!

Still waiting for a good reason to come along.....I think I'll be waiting for a long time though...

duane1969
08-07-2012, 03:04 PM
Without using a person's right to live their life the way they choose, can you give me a good reason why two men or two women would marry?

It is very easy to blow someone else's position out of the water when you try to take away their primary reason for their position. It doesn't make you right. Winning an arguement that you intentionally slanted to ensure you would win is not winning.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 03:05 PM
Without using a person's right to live their life the way they choose, can you give me a good reason why two men or two women would marry?

It is very easy to blow someone else's position out of the water when you try to take away their primary reason for their position. It doesn't make you right. Winning an arguement that you intentionally slanted to ensure you would win is not winning.

His point is America is not supposed to be run based on religion. Therefor, if religion is the only argument there is, then there is no argumnet.

And I agree with him.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 03:07 PM
Without using a person's right to live their life the way they choose, can you give me a good reason why two men or two women would marry?

It is very easy to blow someone else's position out of the water when you try to take away their primary reason for their position. It doesn't make you right. Winning an arguement that you intentionally slanted to ensure you would win is not winning.
Um....you do know that the SCOTUS will one day rule on this matter and they will also take the religion aspect out, right?

BTW, I'm glad you at least are honest enough to agree that the ONLY reason people are against gay marriage is because of their religion.

There is not ONE single good secular reason why gays should not marry.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 03:34 PM
Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee

You have provided no legitimate rebuttal to my assertions. My statement is that the homosexual act in and of itself is incapable of procreation and has nothing to do with heterosexual acts which are ineffective due to physical infirmities. Your statements have no logic in this discussion at all.

When you have a legitimate answer other than because I say so, please feel free to respond. In the meantime, thanks for playing.

GAME / SET / MATCH goes to Aladog

mrveggieman
08-07-2012, 03:41 PM
Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee

You have provided no legitimate rebuttal to my assertions. My statement is that the homosexual act in and of itself is incapable of procreation and has nothing to do with heterosexual acts which are ineffective due to physical infirmities. Your statements have no logic in this discussion at all.

When you have a legitimate answer other than because I say so, please feel free to respond. In the meantime, thanks for playing.

GAME / SET / MATCH goes to Aladog

You keep repeating yourself over and over. Again for the 300th time not everyone who gets married wants to have kids. So that being said what is your non religious argument against gay marriage???

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 03:47 PM
Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee
yes?


You have provided no legitimate rebuttal to my assertions.
Oh, I strongly disagree. But hey, if you say it, then it must be true, let me try.
You came up with zero good reasons.
And now I'm right. Wow, that's easy.


My statement is that the homosexual act in and of itself is incapable of procreation and has nothing to do with heterosexual acts which are ineffective due to physical infirmities. Your statements have no logic in this discussion at all.
Those physical infirmities make heterosexual sex incapable of procreation. If your reasoning is strictly based on procreation, then you should be testing the fertility and sperm count of every single person who wants to get married, because if they can't procreate, they shouldn't be married. Your words, not mine.


When you have a legitimate answer other than because I say so, please feel free to respond. In the meantime, thanks for playing.
The legitimate answer has been given ad nauseum over several pages. When you can come up with something other that, "I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong" please feel free to respond. In the meantime, thanks for playing.


GAME / SET / MATCH goes to Aladog
Calling your own wins, nice. Unfortunately you've done nothing but ignore the arguments presented against your view. It's your argument that makes no sense. You say it's wrong for two men or two women to be married because they can't procreate, but a man and woman who don't have the ability to procreate is a-okay. How do you not see how hypocritical that is? Saying what you've said shows your issue is with homosexuality itself and not with marriage, or you would want barren couples to be forcibly divorced. Most of the people here who are against gay marriage are simply that, against gays being married. Judging by your ideas here, I have to think you're flat out anti-gay, homophobic, whatever you want to call it. I'll demonstrate:

You say:
Man+Man = No marriage because they cannot procreate
Woman+Woman = No marriage because they can't procreate
Man+Woman = Yes marriage because they can procreate
Barren Woman+infertile man = Yes marriage, even though they can't procreate

So you see, procreation obviously isn't your issue here. I'm not even including the fact that you probably have no problem with a man and woman getting married and deciding not to have kids.


I'll wait for an official to call the match, I wouldn't want to appear self-righteous and haughty.

duane1969
08-07-2012, 03:48 PM
Um....you do know that the SCOTUS will one day rule on this matter and they will also take the religion aspect out, right?

BTW, I'm glad you at least are honest enough to agree that the ONLY reason people are against gay marriage is because of their religion.

There is not ONE single good secular reason why gays should not marry.

If it was ONLY a secular issue then I would agree. It is not.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 03:50 PM
If it was ONLY a secular issue then I would agree. It is not.

If your's was a religious state, like all the Muslim countries you love so much, I'd agree with you. Being that your laws are not to be based on religion, I don't see how gay marriage won't pass once it his the SCOTUS.

mrveggieman
08-07-2012, 03:51 PM
If it was ONLY a secular issue then I would agree. It is not.


I agree that religion has stuck their nose in peoples business that don't concern them but we are supposed to have laws in this country to stop religion from overstepping their boundries.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 03:57 PM
You keep repeating yourself over and over. Again for the 300th time not everyone who gets married wants to have kids. So that being said what is your non religious argument against gay marriage???


There is no logic to your statement at all. We are talkiing aboout a sexual act, not the desire to have children. Typical liberal trying to justify his position with ludicrous statements that have no beairing on the subject. Come back when you have a legitimate point.

duane1969
08-07-2012, 03:58 PM
I agree that religion has stuck their nose in peoples business that don't concern them but we are supposed to have laws in this country to stop religion from overstepping their boundries.

That pendulum swings both ways. Secular lifestyles and homosexuality has stuck it's nose into my world too. In the last week I have seen references to homosexulaity on numerous TV shows including Days of Our Lives, Smash, Will & Grace (the list goes on), my choice of chicken sandwiches and cookies have been marred by the subject...homosexuality is not staying out of my life and business so I see no reason why I should stay out of "it's" business.

I do not have to respect other people's right to choose when their right to choose is taking away my right to choose. If they want to be gay and get married, fine, if they want to be in my face with it then they need to expect and understand that I will push back.

mrveggieman
08-07-2012, 03:59 PM
There is no logic to your statement at all. We are talkiing aboout a sexual act, not the desire to have children. Typical liberal trying to justify his position with ludicrous statements that have no beairing on the subject. Come back when you have a legitimate point.

Marriage is more than just sex. You realize that don't you?

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 04:01 PM
Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee

You have provided no legitimate rebuttal to my assertions. My statement is that the homosexual act in and of itself is incapable of procreation and has nothing to do with heterosexual acts which are ineffective due to physical infirmities. Your statements have no logic in this discussion at all.

When you have a legitimate answer other than because I say so, please feel free to respond. In the meantime, thanks for playing.

GAME / SET / MATCH goes to Aladog
I feel like we're going in endless circles, please notice that no one is defending your side of the argument, that's because it's flawed as we have already explained many times already.

Even if every single Hetero couple could and DID have children that is still not the purpose of marriage.....that is the purpose of building a family.

BTW, you do know that families can be made OUTSIDE of marriage, right?

We have all provided you legitimate answers to your assertion, and we all agree that it is not valid because there are millions of couples who get married that can't have children even if they wanted them.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:02 PM
duane

I heard a smart man once say something to the effect that the intrusions inito our freedoms and rights of one generation become the entitlements of the next eneration. The left has slowly eroded our society to were the previously unthinkable is now an entitlement.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:03 PM
There is no logic to your statement at all. We are talkiing aboout a sexual act, not the desire to have children. Typical liberal trying to justify his position with ludicrous statements that have no beairing on the subject. Come back when you have a legitimate point.

No we aren't. We are talking about marriage. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call marriage a sexual act (almost the exact opposite)

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:05 PM
You have convinced yourself that the irrelevent information you have used is legitimate. Justification by any means, the liberal mantra. And the reason there is no one suppporting my stance is the thread is primarily liberals and the conservatives have all taken a different tact.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:05 PM
I feel like we're going in endless circles, please notice that no one is defending your side of the argument, that's because it's flawed as we have already explained many times already.

Even if every single Hetero couple could and DID have children that is still not the purpose of marriage.....that is the purpose of building a family.

BTW, you do know that families can be made OUTSIDE of marriage, right?

We have all provided you legitimate answers to your assertion, and we all agree that it is not valid because there are millions of couples who get married that can't have children even if they wanted them.

It's just Ala's way. Ignore what you don't agree with and say it doesn't exist because you didn't read it. The tell everyone they have no logic, despite the fact you haven't read a word. Then arbitrarily change the topic from marriage to sex. I don't even want to get into the complexities of his procreation argument that excludes straight people.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:07 PM
You have convinced yourself that the irrelevent information you have used is legitimate. Justification by any means, the liberal mantra. And the reason there is no one suppporting my stance is the thread is primarily liberals and the conservatives have all taken a different tact.
Please say something valid.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:07 PM
No we aren't. We are talking about marriage. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call marriage a sexual act (almost the exact opposite)


The purpose of the family, which marriage is an integral part, is to propogate the race which includes having offspring and raising theem.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:08 PM
It's just Ala's way. Ignore what you don't agree with and say it doesn't exist because you didn't read it. The tell everyone they have no logic, despite the fact you haven't read a word. Then arbitrarily change the topic from marriage to sex. I don't even want to get into the complexities of his procreation argument that excludes straight people.

POT MEET KETTLE At least there is logic to my point where there is none to yours

duane1969
08-07-2012, 04:09 PM
duane

I heard a smart man once say something to the effect that the intrusions inito our freedoms and rights of one generation become the entitlements of the next eneration. The left has slowly eroded our society to were the previously unthinkable is now an entitlement.

That can certainly be seen in many instances.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:10 PM
The purpose of the family, which marriage is an integral part, is to propogate the race which includes having offspring and raising theem.

Marriage is not an integral part of having a family. I know a couple who have faithfully been together for over 30 years. They have 3 children and several pets and they are a wonderful family. Funny thing though, they never got married.

So you think gay people, who can't procreate themselves shouldn't get married, but you think a straight couple who, for whatever reason, can't, or decide not to procreate should be able to get married.

What's the difference between the two, other than one is a gay couple and the other isn't.

You also think marriage is an integral part of raising a family. I know it's not, as do many others.

I guess my question is, what's the weather like in 1954?

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:12 PM
POT MEET KETTLE At least there is logic to my point where there is none to yours

Actually I've done a pretty good job poking holes in you so-called logic, and you have yet to actually try and defend your stance. Just because you won't admit it doesn't mean it isn't there. If a straight couple with no chance of procreating can get married, why not a gay couple with no chance of procreating?

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:14 PM
Marriage is not an integral part of having a family. I know a couple who have faithfully been together for over 30 years. They have 3 children and several pets and they are a wonderful family. Funny thing though, they never got married.

So you think gay people, who can't procreate themselves shouldn't get married, but you think a straight couple who, for whatever reason, can't, or decide not to procreate should be able to get married.

What's the difference between the two, other than one is a gay couple and the other isn't.

You also think marriage is an integral part of raising a family. I know it's not, as do many others.

I guess my question is, what's the weather like in 1954?

Sorry that you are uanble to understand logic. You have no logic or ligitimate valid point so you resort to saying I am right and if you do not believe me, just ask me.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:15 PM
Actually I've done a pretty good job poking holes in you so-called logic, and you have yet to actually try and defend your stance. Just because you won't admit it doesn't mean it isn't there. If a straight couple with no chance of procreating can get married, why not a gay couple with no chance of procreating?

This has been explained but you refuse acknowledge the truth.

mrveggieman
08-07-2012, 04:15 PM
Sorry that you are uanble to understand logic. You have no logic or ligitimate valid point so you resort to saying I am right and if you do not believe me, just ask me.

I'm done with this for right now. I'm about to go home. Please provide a vaild argument for me to look at by the time I log back on to SCF.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 04:16 PM
The purpose of a marriage is very simple:

It is the union of people who wish to be together for the sake of LOVE.

Procreation is NOT necessary, SEX is also not necessary!

I have seen very elderly hetero couples who are not even able to have sex get married.....why did they do it?

Because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together as a union.....that is the only purpose of marriage.

mikesilvia
08-07-2012, 04:20 PM
I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I personally would do nothing to stop it and wouldn't fund or support groups that would try to stop it. I'm a firm believer in equal rights for all.

The only caveat is if a preacher would be forced to marry a gay couple against his will. I don't think people should be forced to marry anyone. I think there are plenty of people that will marry gay couples.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:28 PM
This has been explained but you refuse acknowledge the truth.

It has not been explained to me at all. There is no truth to acknowledge. You've not defended your point once yet.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:38 PM
Using the flawed logic of Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee

A person goes into a crowd and shoots into the crown, however, misses everyone. The shooter was not successful, therefore should not be prosecuted.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:45 PM
Using the flawed logic of Justalex, mrveggieman and Wickabee

A person goes into a crowd and shoots into the crown, however, misses everyone. The shooter was not successful, therefore should not be prosecuted.

Do you know what logic means? Because no one has said any of that. You want to talk about flawed, you're the one who called marriage a sexual act. You also said marriage is necessary for a family.

And you've still not defended your earlier homophobic remarks. All you've done is attack three posters for disagreeing with you and wanting you to actually defend your point instead of just attacking.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 04:53 PM
Do you know what logic means? Because no one has said any of that. You want to talk about flawed, you're the one who called marriage a sexual act. You also said marriage is necessary for a family.

And you've still not defended your earlier homophobic remarks. All you've done is attack three posters for disagreeing with you and wanting you to actually defend your point instead of just attacking.
Just because you do not have a valid poinit doesn't make me wrong. Come back when you have a point other than I am right and you are wrong. Hint use facts and logic.

*censored*
08-07-2012, 04:56 PM
Please provide a vaild argument for me to look at by the time I log back on to SCF.

While you're at it, ask sun not to rise. Your luck on the two will be about the same.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 04:59 PM
Just because you do not have a valid poinit doesn't make me wrong. Come back when you have a point other than I am right and you are wrong. Hint use facts and logic.

I did, but I can do it again. I'll put it in more of a point form so there isn't too much reading for you.
Fact 1: you think gays shouldn't be married
Fact 2: you think this because they can't procreate
Fact 3: you have no problem with a straight couple with the inability to procreate

Logic 1: if gays can't get married because they can't have kids, then why is it okay for barren couples to get married, they don't have kids? How is it different?
Logic 2: it's different because the gay couple is gay.
Logic 3: you're real issue has nothing to do with procreation, or you wouldn't be accepting of the couples in fact 3

Conclusion: The only difference between a gay couple and a straight barren couple is that the gay couple is gay. So your argument of procreation is null and void right there, as you're perfectly alright with straight marriages that have no chance of procreation. Either you don't know what you are saying or you are homophobic.

boba
08-07-2012, 05:10 PM
I know this is random (if you've been here long enough you know most of my posts are random) and has little to do with what you guys were talking about, so sorry haha.

I was just thinking, if gay people were born with a gay gene, or just being homosexual by nature, wouldn't there be an equation for it? Let's just look at the basic genetic equation

Homo is FF or ff, hetero is Ff or fF, say 2 heteros had a kid

F f


F FF Ff


f fF ff


The probability would be half your kids would be homo. Now I understand that this particular model would not work for a homosexual gene, but has there ever been a study proving the probability of your offspring being homosexual or proving it's completely random? Does anyone know? I think if there was a probability of a gay gene it could possibly exist, if it was random then I think that would prove it does not exist.

Sorry, it's a very random thought and might have some fallacies, but it was a thought I was just now having that didn't deserve it's own thread,so I figured I would post it here and get other peoples opinions.

shrewsbury
08-07-2012, 05:12 PM
so what if he thinks being a homosexual is bad? that is his right

i am not for gay marriage, but i am for homosexuals

and who gets to define marriage, i actually agree with aladog on his version, but not everything he is saying

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 05:16 PM
so what if he thinks being a homosexual is bad? that is his right

i am not for gay marriage, but i am for homosexuals

and who gets to define marriage, i actually agree with aladog on his version, but not everything he is saying

Just to clarify, are you talking the bit about marriage being integral to family?

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 05:39 PM
so what if he thinks being a homosexual is bad? that is his right

i am not for gay marriage, but i am for homosexuals

and who gets to define marriage, i actually agree with aladog on his version, but not everything he is saying

Many gays don't like this rationality.

To many of them it's like saying......I'm not for desegregation, but I'm for Black people.

I find it to be a contradiction as well.....you're for gay people but you're for denying rights?

That doesn't make sense to me.

boba
08-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Many gays don't like this rationality.

To many of them it's like saying......I'm not for desegregation, but I'm for Black people.

I find it to be a contradiction as well.....you're for gay people but you're for denying rights?

That doesn't make sense to me.

I think we have already been through why this example does not work, the only rights gays do not have is the word marriage and some ss benefits.

And I also wanted to say the the animal kingdom example brought up earlier shouldn't be used by either side. Some animals have humped pine trees, does that make it natural for humans to be pinusstrobussexual?

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 05:48 PM
pinusstrobussexual

I'd like to report foul language



...




...


I think

boba
08-07-2012, 05:53 PM
I'd like to report foul language



...




...


I think

The word is a result of a very quick, and very creepy, google search haha.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 05:55 PM
The word is a result of a very quick, and very creapy, google search haha.

Just wait until you're under investigation for something and they find that search on your computer.

I'm goin to start calling people that when they tick me off.

habsheaven
08-07-2012, 08:15 PM
Could we get some clarification from the conservatives in this thread. Duane and Jay, do you agree with ALADOG that gays should not get married because they cannot procreate, but sterile hetrosexuals should be allowed despite their inability to procreate? Please, if you agree with him explain his logic to us. If you do not agree with his logic, let him know. He obviously will not listen to reason if it is coming from the left. Throw the guy a lifeline and end this.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 08:16 PM
Listen to reason? He won't even explain his logic.

habsheaven
08-07-2012, 08:18 PM
Listen to reason? He won't even explain his logic.

That's why I am calling on Duane to talk to him. He already spoke directly to Duane once in the thread so I think Duane has the best shot at reasoning with him. Unless of course Duane agrees with his non-logic.

texansrangerfan73
08-07-2012, 08:21 PM
2 words that come to mind are Unnatural & Confusing to children that are not raised or was not raised in that kind of environment. Sorry this is JMHO.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 08:21 PM
That's why I am calling on Duane to talk to him. He already spoke directly to Duane once in the thread so I think Duane has the best shot at reasoning with him. Unless of course Duane agrees with his non-logic.

If Duane agrees with him, I'm sure he has a thought out reason. I probably don't agree with it, but he'll at least spell it out. That's all I ask.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 08:40 PM
2 words that come to mind are Unnatural & Confusing to children that are not raised or was not raised in that kind of environment. Sorry this is JMHO.
It can't be considered "Unnatural" since it does occur in nature...

As for "confusing" to children, there are plenty of things kids don't understand.

Besides, I'm not sure what children opinions have to do with marriage or any other decisions that adults do.

texansrangerfan73
08-07-2012, 08:45 PM
It can't be considered "Unnatural" since it does occur in nature...

As for "confusing" to children, there are plenty of things kids don't understand.

Besides, I'm not sure what children opinions have to do with marriage or any other decisions that adults do.
Well opinions vary my friend, you ask & I gave it.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 08:49 PM
2 words that come to mind are Unnatural & Confusing to children that are not raised or was not raised in that kind of environment. Sorry this is JMHO.

For unnatural, I will refer back to alex's post. It occurs in nature all the time.
For confusing, I'll say a lot of things are confusing for kids. I remember the first time I saw a one-legged man. I was 4 and it messed me up for days. Seriously. I can't see two married dudes being any worse than that. Frankly, I'd rather have to explain homosexuality to my kids than things like war, rape, torture and things like that. I really don't want to explain those things because they're horrible things. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell them, "Don't watch the news." That's what parenting is about, explaining things you wish you didn't have to to your kids. Homosexuality exists, they're going to run into it in some form eventually, whether they get married or not. I do, to some degree, see this argument, but in order to avoid confusing kids with homosexuality, you're going to have to outright ban it, not just the marriages.

Just my response to that.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 08:53 PM
I just want to make sure I understand the consistency of the pro homosexual marriage group. You are for bestiality, poligamy, incestual marriages, marriages between adults and children and that Jerry Sandusky did nothing wrong.

habsheaven
08-07-2012, 09:00 PM
I just want to make sure I understand the consistency of the pro homosexual marriage group. You are for bestiality, poligamy, incestual marriages, marriages between adults and children and that Jerry Sandusky did nothing wrong.

Based on that comment, I don't think you understand much of anything.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 09:00 PM
I just want to make sure I understand the consistency of the pro homosexual marriage group. You are for bestiality, poligamy, incestual marriages, marriages between adults and children and that Jerry Sandusky did nothing wrong.
OK, any credibility you had remaining just went out the window with this comment...

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:01 PM
I just want to make sure I understand the consistency of the pro homosexual marriage group. You are for bestiality, poligamy, incestual marriages, marriages between adults and children and that Jerry Sandusky did nothing wrong.

Please stay on topic. No one here has said anything even close to that (maybe on polygamy, but in another thread). You can't walk in, make a ridiculous and completely made up statement like that and expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'll also point out that's another post and STILL no defence of anything you've said. Just baseless accusations, attacks and insults. Please back up you claims with some sense of coherency or don't bother posting.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 09:03 PM
As usual no answer so you deflect with nothing in your response.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:05 PM
As usual no answer so you deflect with nothing in your response.

I actually did answer you. I can't control whether you read it or not, or comprehend it or not.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 09:05 PM
This last post uses more logic than all your posts combined. I see you still have no answer

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 09:05 PM
As usual no answer so you deflect with nothing in your response.
Dude, how do want anyone to respond to that comment?

When has anyone here said they are for bestiality, incest, or pedophilia?

That's a baseless comment and I don't think I should take it seriously.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Please stay on topic. No one here has said anything even close to that (maybe on polygamy, but in another thread). You can't walk in, make a ridiculous and completely made up statement like that and expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'll also point out that's another post and STILL no defence of anything you've said. Just baseless accusations, attacks and insults. Please back up you claims with some sense of coherency or don't bother posting.

Please explain why these statements are incorrect.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Aladog, where are your answers. We questioned you first.

Can you actually defend your point while using English and "logic" other than "I'm right because I think I'm right so you're wrong"?

You're the reason no real discussion can be had on this topic. Our side is talking, you're just spewing lies, deflections and nonsense. And you STILL haven't defended your point once in 10 pages.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 09:08 PM
Dude, how do want anyone to respond to that comment?

When has anyone here said they are for bestiality, incest, or pedophilia?

That's a baseless comment and I don't think I should take it seriously.

Not baseless. You want to redefine marriage so as to not trample on anyones rights so why not defend the rights of those I suggested.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:09 PM
Please explain why these statements are incorrect.

Why what you said is a baseless claim with no ounce of truth. I'll start with the fact that homosexuality has nothing to do with bestiality, polygamy or anything else you mentioned. Other than that it's just the rantings of someone with nothing on topic to say.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:11 PM
Not baseless. You want to redefine marriage so as to not trample on anyones rights so why not defend the rights of those I suggested.

Because beastiality is against the law.
Because polygamy is against the law.
Because homosexuality in NOT against the law.
Yes, I believce all law abiding citizens should be treated fairly. So I guess we better start getting sperm samples before we hand out those marriage licenses, right?

shrewsbury
08-07-2012, 09:12 PM
wickabee,

Just to clarify, are you talking the bit about marriage being integral to family?

yes, but I also know there are always exceptions

alex

Many gays don't like this rationality.

don't care what they like, it is my opinion, not theirs, and I would not stop it, I just don't like it

also desegregation is way differnt than gay marriage, not even in the same realm

and what is to reason, the guy is entitled to his own opinions, whether you guys like it or not

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 09:17 PM
Not baseless. You want to redefine marriage so as to not trample on anyones rights so why not defend the rights of those I suggested.
Guess what....marriage has already been redefined in recent history.

In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled that interracial marriage should be recognized......various states used to ban it!

It's right here if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

It's ONLY A MATTER OF TIME.....once the gay marriage issue makes it to the SCOTUS, it will finally be 100% legal in all 50 states whether you like it or not.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:19 PM
wickabee,


yes, but I also know there are always exceptions

alex


don't care what they like, it is my opinion, not theirs, and I would not stop it, I just don't like it

also desegregation is way differnt than gay marriage, not even in the same realm

and what is to reason, the guy is entitled to his own opinions, whether you guys like it or not

The first one is mine and I suppose you could go either way. I've seen marriages that ended in divorce and less than desirable families and I've seen people never married raise the most beautiful families I've ever known. I think if marriage is something that's important to you, then it's integral, but if not, it's just a piece of paper. My wife and I only got married to make our mom's (and my grandma) happy. Other than that, there was absolutely no reason for us to get married in order to have a family. I don't see it as being "integral" or necessary at all to get married before you start a family.

I think the second one was alex, but I'm with you. I get that you don't care what they like as, I'm sure, you understand they don't give a crap what you like either.

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 09:20 PM
Guess what....marriage has already been redefined in recent history.

In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled that interracial marriage should be recognized......various states used to ban it!

He's probably still mad about that too.

What, if he can say I'm in favour of bestiality, I can call him a racist. Tit for tat, so to speak.

shrewsbury
08-07-2012, 10:00 PM
wickabee,


it's just a piece of paper. My wife and I only got married to make our mom's (and my grandma) happy. Other than that, there was absolutely no reason for us to get married in order to have a family.

I can honestly say I would have never married if we weren't going to have kids, I see no need in it. So we are opposites in ways but have a hint of likeness (imagine that!!)

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 10:02 PM
wickabee,



I can honestly say I would have never married if we weren't going to have kids, I see no need in it. So we are opposites in ways but have a hint of likeness (imagine that!!)

Buddy, you and I are two sides of the same coin, methinks. We're always looking in opposite directions, but stand together when it matters...or something.

shrewsbury
08-07-2012, 10:13 PM
wickabee, that sounded pretty good, I can respect that, and opinions that differ from mine

Wickabee
08-07-2012, 10:15 PM
We should run for the White House. I'll just need to figure out where to hide my birth certificate.

boba
08-07-2012, 11:20 PM
We should run for the White House. I'll just need to figure out where to hide my birth certificate.

I'm sure Obama could help you out with that.

Sorry, couldn't let that one get by

boba
08-07-2012, 11:22 PM
Because beastiality is against the law.
Because polygamy is against the law.
Because homosexuality in NOT against the law.
Yes, I believce all law abiding citizens should be treated fairly. So I guess we better start getting sperm samples before we hand out those marriage licenses, right?

Wait, so if homosexuality was against the law, you would be against it?

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:24 PM
Because beastiality is against the law.
Because polygamy is against the law.
Because homosexuality in NOT against the law.
Yes, I believce all law abiding citizens should be treated fairly. So I guess we better start getting sperm samples before we hand out those marriage licenses, right?


As there is no legal basis for homosexual marriage. You are kinda mixed up; no equal rights for everyone as you suggest there should be. Alas a liberal shows his colors; iinconsistent views depending on which way the wind blows. When you have legitimate rebuttal to my original statements please come back. And just because you say it is so is not a legitimate position.

You obviously advoctae changing the law for homosexuals but not the others. How inconsistent can you be.

pspstatus
08-07-2012, 11:30 PM
As there is no legal basis for homosexual marriage. You are kinda mixed up; no equal rights for everyone as you suggest there should be. Alas a liberal shows his colors; iinconsistent views depending on which way the wind blows. When you have legitimate rebuttal to my original statements please come back. And just because you say it is so is not a legitimate position.

You obviously advoctae changing the law for homosexuals but not the others. How inconsistent can you be.

I think I have an answer for you. There are no victims in homosexual marriage. On the other hand people get hurt by underage marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:33 PM
The first one is mine and I suppose you could go either way. I've seen marriages that ended in divorce and less than desirable families and I've seen people never married raise the most beautiful families I've ever known. I think if marriage is something that's important to you, then it's integral, but if not, it's just a piece of paper. My wife and I only got married to make our mom's (and my grandma) happy. Other than that, there was absolutely no reason for us to get married in order to have a family. I don't see it as being "integral" or necessary at all to get married before you start a family.

I think the second one was alex, but I'm with you. I get that you don't care what they like as, I'm sure, you understand they don't give a crap what you like either.


Marriage has been a respected institution iin the civilized world for centuries. I thas been recognized worldwide as a union between a amle and female. Even the quasi-intelligent on the left recognize the breakup of the tradiitonal family is one of the primary roots of the decline in our society.

boba
08-07-2012, 11:34 PM
I think I have an answer for you. There are no victims in homosexual marriage. On the other hand people get hurt by underage marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality.

STDs, and btw, people get hurt in any type of relationship.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 11:35 PM
STDs
Are you saying heteros don't get STDs?



BTW.....still waiting for someone....anyone to give ONE, just ONE good secular reason why gays shouldn't marry.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:36 PM
I think I have an answer for you. There are no victims in homosexual marriage. On the other hand people get hurt by underage marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality.

But you are discriminating against them. We could not let that happen in our no discrmiination society. And you are sure 100% of these relationships are harmful?

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:37 PM
Are you saying heteros don't get STDs?



BTW.....still waiting for someone....anyone to give ONE, just ONE good secular reason why gays shouldn't marry.

Valid reasons have been provided. You chose not to acknowledge them.

boba
08-07-2012, 11:39 PM
Are you saying heteros don't get STDs?



BTW.....still waiting for someone....anyone to give ONE, just ONE good secular reason why gays shouldn't marry.


1 man, 1 woman for life it is very rare.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 11:39 PM
Valid reasons have been provided. You chose not to acknowledge them.
I choose not to acknowledge it because it's NOT a good reason, even your conservative friends won't agree with you.

JustAlex
08-07-2012, 11:41 PM
1 man, 1 woman for life it is very rare.
What's rare?

STDs for Heteros?

I disagree.....STDs are almost always the result of unprotected/reckless sex.

As long as Gay couples practice safe sex they're less likely to get an STD, just like any Hetero couple.

pspstatus
08-07-2012, 11:42 PM
1 man, 1 woman for life it is very rare.

It's incredibly rare for 1 man and 1 woman to stay together for life.

pspstatus
08-07-2012, 11:45 PM
But you are discriminating against them. We could not let that happen in our no discrmiination society. And you are sure 100% of these relationships are harmful?

It's not discrimination if the act being outlawed hurts someone. I'm pretty sure that most of those relationships are harmful because usually there is no consent from one of the parties involved.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:49 PM
I choose not to acknowledge it because it's NOT a good reason, even your conservative friends won't agree with you.


I must have missed the memo where an athesit was declared God and only his opiinion was valid. You have provided no valid repudiation of my statements, regardless as to how many times you say otherwise.

ALADOG
08-07-2012, 11:51 PM
It's not discrimination if the act being outlawed hurts someone. I'm pretty sure that most of those relationships are harmful because usually there is no consent from one of the parties involved.


But you are discriinating against them and when you change the game for homosexuals you must change it for all or you are a bigot like you like to call conserrvatives. Liberals make up the rules as they go.

boba
08-07-2012, 11:52 PM
Lets say 1 man and 1 woman did stay with each other their whole life, (as this is how God designed it) what are their chances of getting an std. Lets say you all do believe in God, would it not make sense that God made it where thats the only way to be safe and have sex? If everyone only had sex after they were married with the same person their whole life, would stds be a problem?

pspstatus
08-07-2012, 11:56 PM
But you are discriinating against them and when you change the game for homosexuals you must change it for all or you are a bigot like you like to call conserrvatives. Liberals make up the rules as they go.

First of all I never said conservatives were bigots. Secondly I'm not sure what else to say so I'll just repeat what I said before. It's not discrimination if the act being outlawed has a victim. Gay marriage hurts nobody. Pedophilia hurts children therefore outlawing pedophilia isn't discrimination. Third you call me a liberal but you don't know me so easy on the labels.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:00 AM
Lets say 1 man and 1 woman did stay with each other their whole life, (as this is how God designed it) what are their chances of getting an std. Lets say you all do believe in God, would it not make sense that God made it where thats the only way to be safe and have sex? If everyone only had sex after they were married with the same person their whole life, would stds be a problem?


If 1 man stayed with 1 man his whole life his risk of an STD would be just as low. And no STDs would probably not be a problem if people only had sex after they were married. That's really a moot point though because it's not something in the realm of possibility. But if that were the case two men or two women could wait to have sex until after marriage and just like hetero couples not have to worry about STDs.

JustAlex
08-08-2012, 12:02 AM
I must have missed the memo where an athesit was declared God and only his opiinion was valid. You have provided no valid repudiation of my statements, regardless as to how many times you say otherwise.

Myself, Wickabee, and Veggie have all refuted your statement over and over again and yet you keep asking for us to do it yet again...


Lets say 1 man and 1 woman did stay with each other their whole life, (as this is how God designed it) what are their chances of getting an std. Lets say you all do believe in God, would it not make sense that God made it where thats the only way to be safe and have sex? If everyone only had sex after they were married with the same person their whole life, would stds be a problem?
But what does this have anything to do with gay marriage?

A gay couple could stay together for the rest of their lives without having another partner.

BTW....a lesbian couple has a lot less chance of getting an STD than a Hetero couple, ever think of that???

boba
08-08-2012, 12:04 AM
If 1 man stayed with 1 man his whole life his risk of an STD would be just as low. And no STDs would probably not be a problem if people only had sex after they were married. That's really a moot point though because it's not something in the realm of possibility. But if that were the case two men or two women could wait to have sex until after marriage and just like hetero couples not have to worry about STDs.


The way gays have sex in and of itself can give you stds.

ALADOG
08-08-2012, 12:04 AM
First of all I never said conservatives were bigots. Secondly I'm not sure what else to say so I'll just repeat what I said before. It's not discrimination if the act being outlawed has a victim. Gay marriage hurts nobody. Pedophilia hurts children therefore outlawing pedophilia isn't discrimination. Third you call me a liberal but you don't know me so easy on the labels.


So you repeat that it is only discrimination if you say it is. If you don't say it is discrimination then we need not worry. It must not be discrimination. Forget about the definition of discrimination.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:06 AM
The way gays have sex in and of itself can give you stds.

How's that now?

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:08 AM
So you repeat that it is only discrimination if you say it is. If you don't say it is discrimination then we need not worry. It must not be discrimination. Forget about the definition of discrimination.


For real? I didn't say it's not discrimination if I say it isn't. It's not discrimination if the action can hurt someone. Doesn't that make sense?

boba
08-08-2012, 12:08 AM
How's that now?

Don't think I should describe it here, but I have a hard time believing you don't know how.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:10 AM
Don't think I should describe it here, but I have a hard time believing you don't know how.

I'm asking how gay sex causes STDs. Two gay people who have never had other partners can still pass STDs to each other?

JustAlex
08-08-2012, 12:10 AM
How's that now?
He's referring to Anal sex for gay men.

As for Lesbians, it is impossible for them to have natural intercourse so they actually have a lower chance of getting an STD than Hetero couples.

But like I said in a previous post.....if gays have safe sex, they don't have to worry, just like Heteros don't have to worry if they have safe sex.

Furthermore, Hetero couples also participate in Anal sex, so I really am failing to see the argument.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:15 AM
He's referring to Anal sex for gay men.

As for Lesbians, it is impossible for them to have natural intercourse so they actually have a lower chance of getting an STD than Hetero couples.

But like I said in a previous post.....if gays have safe sex, they don't have to worry, just like Heteros don't have to worry if they have safe sex.

Furthermore, Hetero couples also participate in Anal sex, so I really am failing to see the argument.

I took it to mean that he was saying gay sex can cause STDs.

boba
08-08-2012, 12:19 AM
He's referring to Anal sex for gay men.

As for Lesbians, it is impossible for them to have natural intercourse so they actually have a lower chance of getting an STD than Hetero couples.

But like I said in a previous post.....if gays have safe sex, they don't have to worry, just like Heteros don't have to worry if they have safe sex.

Furthermore, Hetero couples also participate in Anal sex, so I really am failing to see the argument.

I understand that. Heteros also have sex before they are married. What I'm saying is that if you follow the Bible in this area, you don't have to worry about stds. If you don't follow the Bible, then you do have to worry about stds.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:21 AM
I understand that. Heteros also have sex before they are married. What I'm saying is that if you follow the Bible in this area, you don't have to worry about stds. If you don't follow the Bible, then you do have to worry about stds.

So are you saying that if two gay people only have sex with each other after marriage that since they don't follow the Bible they can still get STDs?

boba
08-08-2012, 12:25 AM
I think I've made my point clear, I'm not interested in going in circles.

pspstatus
08-08-2012, 12:31 AM
I think I've made my point clear, I'm not interested in going in circles.

My bad I didn't mean for it to be like that. I just really am not clear on what you meant. That's ok though I will drop it.

Wickabee
08-08-2012, 12:40 AM
I understand that. Heteros also have sex before they are married. What I'm saying is that if you follow the Bible in this area, you don't have to worry about stds. If you don't follow the Bible, then you do have to worry about stds.

You're right. If everyone waited until marriage stds wouldn't be much of an issue. Why shouldn't gays have that option?

theonedru
08-08-2012, 12:44 AM
ignorance and fear are the usual top 2

habsheaven
08-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Will somebody on the right PLEASE put ALADOG out of his misery? If no one (who he normally agrees with) is going to speak up you might as well close this thread. His illogical responses have this discussion stuck in Bizarro world.

mrveggieman
08-08-2012, 12:10 PM
I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I personally would do nothing to stop it and wouldn't fund or support groups that would try to stop it. I'm a firm believer in equal rights for all.

The only caveat is if a preacher would be forced to marry a gay couple against his will. I don't think people should be forced to marry anyone. I think there are plenty of people that will marry gay couples.

OMG you must have read my mind that is my exact view on gay marriage. Somebody give this man some!

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

mrveggieman
08-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Lets say 1 man and 1 woman did stay with each other their whole life, (as this is how God designed it) what are their chances of getting an std. Lets say you all do believe in God, would it not make sense that God made it where thats the only way to be safe and have sex? If everyone only had sex after they were married with the same person their whole life, would stds be a problem?


If a man and a woman who never been with anyone else before, got married and were only with each other they probably would not have any occurances of stds. So what is your point? How many straight people actually do this? Are you suggesting that we scrap the 1st amendment and make following the bible the law of the land?

JustAlex
08-08-2012, 03:24 PM
Will somebody on the right PLEASE put ALADOG out of his misery? If no one (who he normally agrees with) is going to speak up you might as well close this thread. His illogical responses have this discussion stuck in Bizarro world.
Haha....don't you know they don't do that?

Fighting among each other is a big NO-NO....no matter how wrong one of them might be.

jdawg
08-08-2012, 10:47 PM
I personally am against gay marriage, but if my son came to me someday and said "dad i'm gay and i want to marry my boyfriend" i would support his decision 100% whether i agreed with it or not. who am i to judge who others find love and compassion for and from. as long as a gay man doesnt flirt with me then who the heck am i to tell him whats right or wrong..if he does flirt with me he probably catch an arse whopping, but as long as im left alone and they are happy its all good. should they get benefits for raising a child..sure if they are raising an adopted child why not..i know if i had to choose between a gay couple and a state sanctioned boarding place..id take the gay couple every time lol

theonedru
08-08-2012, 11:18 PM
I personally am against gay marriage, but if my son came to me someday and said "dad i'm gay and i want to marry my boyfriend" i would support his decision 100% whether i agreed with it or not. who am i to judge who others find love and compassion for and from. as long as a gay man doesnt flirt with me then who the heck am i to tell him whats right or wrong..if he does flirt with me he probably catch an arse whopping, but as long as im left alone and they are happy its all good. should they get benefits for raising a child..sure if they are raising an adopted child why not..i know if i had to choose between a gay couple and a state sanctioned boarding place..id take the gay couple every time lol


This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing posts I have read in awhile. Nothing like advocating some good old fashioned gay bashing eh. If a guy hit on me I am secure enough in my sexuality to not revert to violence and just let it be.

JustAlex
08-08-2012, 11:27 PM
I believe that certain men are just too insecure with their sexuality.....

For example, I know that I'm not gay, but if I was, I'd totally be OK with it, I don't find it weird one bit.

I don't find it disgusting either....I'm just not into it.


I've watched a lot of porn since I was a young teenager (LOL, I'm still 24 bear with me), and I've seen just about everything, nothing shocks me, and I've come to realize that Humans are lu™™™™l creatures that want to experiment many things with their bodies.


While some people discourage it and talk badly about that.....I certainly don't.....gays are as normal as straights....but that's just my opinion.

jdawg
08-08-2012, 11:31 PM
This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing posts I have read in awhile. Nothing like advocating some good old fashioned gay bashing eh. If a guy hit on me I am secure enough in my sexuality to not revert to violence and just let it be.


nothing to do with gay bashing at all...its my right to be able to walk into the world and not be made uncomfortable by others who are making sexual advances on me..and if they make me uncomfortable i dont care what their orientation is i have the right to put myself back into my comfort zone

theonedru
08-08-2012, 11:42 PM
nothing to do with gay bashing at all...its my right to be able to walk into the world and not be made uncomfortable by others who are making sexual advances on me..and if they make me uncomfortable i dont care what their orientation is i have the right to put myself back into my comfort zone

So instead of saying no thanks, im not interested or something to resolve it peacefully you think its your right to just beat them to make you feel like a big man and prove your manliness? Thats not ok in any way shape or form.

jdawg
08-08-2012, 11:58 PM
So instead of saying no thanks, im not interested or something to resolve it peacefully you think its your right to just beat them to make you feel like a big man and prove your manliness? Thats not ok in any way shape or form.


so instead of them just walking up to me and asking if i was gay and waiting for a response before they started to flirt is any different then me punching them? this is a rotational argument..there will never be a right answer because anything you say i can just insert my views into your views and its the same exact way of thought...just different side of the fence..and before you get your panties in a bunch the fence comment wasnt racist towards mexicans

theonedru
08-09-2012, 12:20 AM
so instead of them just walking up to me and asking if i was gay and waiting for a response before they started to flirt is any different then me punching them? this is a rotational argument..there will never be a right answer because anything you say i can just insert my views into your views and its the same exact way of thought...just different side of the fence..and before you get your panties in a bunch the fence comment wasnt racist towards mexicans

And now you try and justify your use of violence like that, and incite I wear womens underwear ( in a thread like this of all things, very inappropriate) wow dude that's just wow, that wow just wow... Congratulations I am actually speechless at the utter horribleness of it all.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 12:38 AM
Gay dudes never hit on me. It's a bit of an ego punch.

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 12:43 AM
Gay dudes never hit on me. It's a bit of an ego punch.
Haha....actually, A lot of gay dudes are considered good looking by girls, I wonder if it would be a compliment to be hit on by a gay man?

LOL, I might be over-thinking this....

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 01:26 AM
Haha....actually, A lot of gay dudes are considered good looking by girls, I wonder if it would be a compliment to be hit on by a gay man?

LOL, I might be over-thinking this....

I'm not looking for anything, but it's nice to be appreciated, you know.

jdawg
08-09-2012, 01:31 AM
And now you try and justify your use of violence like that, and incite I wear womens underwear ( in a thread like this of all things, very inappropriate) wow dude that's just wow, that wow just wow... Congratulations I am actually speechless at the utter horribleness of it all.

jdawg your right would of been quicker to type...just saying

boba
08-09-2012, 02:02 AM
Haha....actually, A lot of gay dudes are considered good looking by girls, I wonder if it would be a compliment to be hit on by a gay man?

LOL, I might be over-thinking this....


Dude,quit being a pinusstrobussexual

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 02:25 AM
This thread just got hot!

MadMan1978
08-09-2012, 07:23 AM
First and for most- Yinz know I am against Marriage period! just hasnt agreed with me.

and I actually could care less if anyone marries. and who cares if someone comes on to you ? really? take the COMPLIMENT and move on laugh or something. If anyone has to resort to any violence means they might not be mature enough to even be married in my opinion.

andrewhoya
08-09-2012, 07:52 AM
160 posts and not one good reason. Great thread, Alex.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 08:05 AM
It's funny that one can justify beating the crap out of a gay man for making an unwanted advance, but they wouldn't dream of doing the same if an ugly woman hit on them. I wonder where under the law it allows for someone to use violence to combat being offended?

andrewhoya
08-09-2012, 08:14 AM
A good/crazy lawyer could make a case for verbal abuse.
It's funny that one can justify beating the crap out of a gay man for making an unwanted advance, but they wouldn't dream of doing the same if an ugly woman hit on them. I wonder where under the law it allows for someone to use violence to combat being offended?

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 08:41 AM
Very simply put, all through the animal kingdom, sexual contact/relations are used for procreation. There has NEVER been a case of homosexual relations resulting in offspring. I understand that there are hermaphrodidic animals that have both organs but strictly homosexual relations do not produce offspring.

who said the point of a marriage is to produce offspring? straight people who are married have the choice to not have children.

Also, sexual contact has many more benefits/uses than just procreation.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 08:52 AM
I personally am against gay marriage, but if my son came to me someday and said "dad i'm gay and i want to marry my boyfriend" i would support his decision 100% whether i agreed with it or not. who am i to judge who others find love and compassion for and from. as long as a gay man doesnt flirt with me then who the heck am i to tell him whats right or wrong..if he does flirt with me he probably catch an arse whopping, but as long as im left alone and they are happy its all good. should they get benefits for raising a child..sure if they are raising an adopted child why not..i know if i had to choose between a gay couple and a state sanctioned boarding place..id take the gay couple every time lol

really? that's what you are worried about? if a gay man would flirt with you? I doubt you will have an issue with that. The gay people I know typically have zero interest in straight men and can usually tell or at least have an idea who would be open to flirtations or not. The statement that you would beat up a gay man who flirted with you is absurd and quite sad from my perspective. Myself I would take it as a compliment.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 08:55 AM
nothing to do with gay bashing at all...its my right to be able to walk into the world and not be made uncomfortable by others who are making sexual advances on me..and if they make me uncomfortable i dont care what their orientation is i have the right to put myself back into my comfort zone

so you think that if you are ever in an uncomfortable situation you have the right to fight the person? Doesn't make sense to me. I get being upset if the guy is pushy or drunk or something. That would be the same if a pushy or drunk girl was advancing on your who you weren't interested in. I still fail to see where that would ever really cause you to have to fight a person. Like I said before, I doubt you will ever be in that situation so worry not.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 11:32 AM
Again no reason against gay marriage but I have had gay guys try to push up on me and it wasn't a fun experience. One time I was walking down the street in SE DC ironically coming from a strip club watching ladies strip and some gay guy drove buy and said something to me that I can't repeat on here. I promptly cursed him out and challenged him to get out of his car so I can kick his behind. Not a surprise he drove off. Another time at a job some gay guy made it be know that he was checking me out. He didn't touch or say anything to me but it got to the point where I had to tell him off too. I was in my 20s during both incidents so I don't know if it was a matter of maturity or not but I can tell you that I do not enjoy being sexually approached by men. Again gay men have the right to be with whoever will take them but leave people alone who are not interested in you.

jdawg
08-09-2012, 12:01 PM
It's funny that one can justify beating the crap out of a gay man for making an unwanted advance, but they wouldn't dream of doing the same if an ugly woman hit on them. I wonder where under the law it allows for someone to use violence to combat being offended?

same place under the law it allows people to make sexual advances towards you...2 wrongs dont make a right..im aware of that..but its my right to feel protected and defend myself...if i was on the street and you just shrugged into me on accident and i smacked your lips off your face..its your fault because by the law you assaulted me..so i had the right to defend myself...

jdawg
08-09-2012, 12:04 PM
so you think that if you are ever in an uncomfortable situation you have the right to fight the person? Doesn't make sense to me. I get being upset if the guy is pushy or drunk or something. That would be the same if a pushy or drunk girl was advancing on your who you weren't interested in. I still fail to see where that would ever really cause you to have to fight a person. Like I said before, I doubt you will ever be in that situation so worry not.

if they touch me..i dont want to be touched by anyone...let alone a gay man making an advance on me..read what i said..i said i dont agree with it...and i dont judge them..but if im flirted with/touched its gonna get ugly..if a gay said dude your cute..id say gtfo..if they touched me id punch them..like i would any male gay or straight who touched me with intentions of being sexual

jdawg
08-09-2012, 12:06 PM
mr veggie man feels the exact same way i do...he getting lynched right beside me lmfao..

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 12:08 PM
same place under the law it allows people to make sexual advances towards you...2 wrongs dont make a right..im aware of that..but its my right to feel protected and defend myself...if i was on the street and you just shrugged into me on accident and i smacked your lips off your face..its your fault because by the law you assaulted me..so i had the right to defend myself...

I'm not sure what "shrugged into" means but since you added "on accident" to it. I have to assume there is no intent. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you think it is okay to assault someone who happens to bump into you. Why am I not surprised.

jdawg
08-09-2012, 12:17 PM
I'm not sure what "shrugged into" means but since you added "on accident" to it. I have to assume there is no intent. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you think it is okay to assault someone who happens to bump into you. Why am I not surprised.

i didnt write the laws...take your concerns to congress buddy..if a guy spits in your face its assault..if a guy calls you a name out of your own its verbal assault..for tossing the laws around you sure dont know much about them

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 12:23 PM
Some (not all) of these gay guys can be real aggressive. They can come up to you and say all types of foul and disrespectful things that cannot be repeated on here. Now I am not advocating violence against anyone who is simply minding their business but some people go around like the need to have some sense knocked into them. It's no difference from some guy who has too much to drink at a bar and goes up to a women he does not know, comes off the mouth wrong and she slaps the taste out of his mouth.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 12:51 PM
i didnt write the laws...take your concerns to congress buddy..if a guy spits in your face its assault..if a guy calls you a name out of your own its verbal assault..for tossing the laws around you sure dont know much about them

First, I am not your "buddy" bud. Second, of course spitting in someone's face is an assault. When did I say that it wasn't? Verbal assault is a stretch at best, and I KNOW if you physically assault someone after being called a name, YOU will be the one in trouble. Regardless, what does any of that have to do with the scenario you described to me first and I responded to? You cannot assault someone for accidentily bumping into you. If you think you can you are sadly mistaken.

Quick, someone issue him a gun so he can walk around town packing. Isn't that a comforting thought.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 12:54 PM
i didnt write the laws...take your concerns to congress buddy..if a guy spits in your face its assault..if a guy calls you a name out of your own its verbal assault..for tossing the laws around you sure dont know much about them

So if someone accidentally bumps into you, you hit them? I suppose that is the most educated response...


Also, he's Canadian, so I don't think he's going to your congress anytime soon.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 12:55 PM
this scenario is completely ridiculous. if a guy or girl flirts with you you have zero right to put your hands on them in a violent manner. flirting and touching is completely different. However, I'd...

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 01:00 PM
Some (not all) of these gay guys can be real aggressive. They can come up to you and say all types of foul and disrespectful things that cannot be repeated on here. Now I am not advocating violence against anyone who is simply minding their business but some people go around like the need to have some sense knocked into them. It's no difference from some guy who has too much to drink at a bar and goes up to a women he does not know, comes off the mouth wrong and she slaps the taste out of his mouth.

this really has nothing to do with a person's sexuality at all. It's has to do with them being a jerk or not. I'm not sure why this is even being brought up. I've been to gay bars and have never had an issue nor have a witnessed any issues. It's a small sample, I now, but it's hardly like there are all of these gay men out there trying to sexually assault or molest straight guys. The entire discussion is quite laughable to me. It's sad that people would turn to violence simply from another person flirting with them or telling them that they are sexually attractive.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 01:01 PM
i didnt write the laws...take your concerns to congress buddy..if a guy spits in your face its assault..if a guy calls you a name out of your own its verbal assault..for tossing the laws around you sure dont know much about them

how exactly did spitting in someone's face get brought up? How is that anything like flirting? it's apples and oranges.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 01:02 PM
how exactly did spitting in someone's face get brought up? How is that anything like flirting? it's apples and oranges.

Spitting in her face isn't flirting? That explains a lot...

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 01:08 PM
how exactly did spitting in someone's face get brought up? How is that anything like flirting? it's apples and oranges.

I think he is trying to show us that he doesn't have a problem with gays, his real problem is he reacts to ALL uncomfortable situations with violence. Sad part of that is, he thinks it's legal to react violently.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 01:35 PM
Hey guys how about this. What the tables were turned? Let's say a guy is working out at the gym. Say he sees a girl who is getting her workout on and she has a better body than any female in there and is in better shape than most of the men in there. Let's say a guy goes up to her and starts flirting. Let's say this female is a lesbian she takes the flirting the wrong way and punches the guy in the face. What would ya'll say about that. Now I'm not going to reverse the situation and say what if a straight girl comes on to a gay guy and he punches her because if any of us would see that happen the gay guy would end up in ICU.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 01:40 PM
Regardless of the gender or the sexual orientation of the individuals, the person that physically assaults someone is guilty of assault. Whether or not the victim files charges would probably depend...

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:02 PM
Spitting in her face isn't flirting? That explains a lot...

lol.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:04 PM
I think he is trying to show us that he doesn't have a problem with gays, his real problem is he reacts to ALL uncomfortable situations with violence. Sad part of that is, he thinks it's legal to react violently.

I can see that, but the two are completely different things. One is violent and the other is a show of affection. I wonder how he'd react if a women who wasn't attractive to him flirted with him. I guess the real issue is what one's definition of flirting is. It seems like his is way more sexual than mine. That's the only way I can comprehend why he'd jump to violence all because of some unwanted flirting.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:07 PM
Hey guys how about this. What the tables were turned? Let's say a guy is working out at the gym. Say he sees a girl who is getting her workout on and she has a better body than any female in there and is in better shape than most of the men in there. Let's say a guy goes up to her and starts flirting. Let's say this female is a lesbian she takes the flirting the wrong way and punches the guy in the face. What would ya'll say about that. Now I'm not going to reverse the situation and say what if a straight girl comes on to a gay guy and he punches her because if any of us would see that happen the gay guy would end up in ICU.

to me it doesn't matter the sex or orientation of the person flirting or being flirted with. If it's innocent flirting and not crossing the line into harassment the person being flirted with would have no right to physically harm the flirter. If your not interested you say so with words, not fists.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 02:12 PM
to me it doesn't matter the sex or orientation of the person flirting or being flirted with. If it's innocent flirting and not crossing the line into harassment the person being flirted with would have no right to physically harm the flirter. If your not interested you say so with words, not fists.

I gotta write this down. I'm learning a lot today. How I ever got my wife to marry me I'll never know. I thought all my moves were gold!

duwal
08-09-2012, 02:26 PM
to me it doesn't matter the sex or orientation of the person flirting or being flirted with. If it's innocent flirting and not crossing the line into harassment the person being flirted with would have no right to physically harm the flirter. If your not interested you say so with words, not fists.


the only ones that use their fists are insecure with their masculinity or in fear of what others might think if they were approached by a gay man

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 02:30 PM
the only ones that use their fists are insecure with their masculinity or in fear of what others might think if they were approached by a gay man

You could say that but it is still an insult. That's just like if you were out with your wife/gf/mother/daughter/sister/etc and someone called her a fat pig. Even though they didn't touch her you would be upset and ready to use your hands. Not saying that is right but that is where human emotion takes over.

duwal
08-09-2012, 02:32 PM
You could say that but it is still an insult. That's just like if you were out with your wife/gf/mother/daughter/sister/etc and someone called her a fat pig. Even though they didn't touch her you would be upset and ready to use your hands. Not saying that is right but that is where human emotion takes over.

but there is a much bigger different between someone insulting one of your family members and someone of the same sex paying you a compliment or showing interest in you

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 02:38 PM
but there is a much bigger different between someone insulting one of your family members and someone of the same sex paying you a compliment or showing interest in you


Im sorry but I can't take what that guy in back in dc said to me as a compliment.

Rockman
08-09-2012, 02:42 PM
Im sorry but I can't take what that guy in back in dc said to me as a compliment.

Let it go, I'm sure the guy has moved on and is now harassing someone else.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 02:49 PM
Let it go, I'm sure the guy has moved on and is now harassing someone else.

Or better yet he came out the mouth to the right one who beat the breaks off him.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:50 PM
the only ones that use their fists are insecure with their masculinity or in fear of what others might think if they were approached by a gay man

and like I said before... most gay men know if another man is gay or would be tempted with his advances. I'm sure there are some that like to try to hook up with straight men, but I'd assume most steer clear of hitting on straight guys.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:55 PM
You could say that but it is still an insult. That's just like if you were out with your wife/gf/mother/daughter/sister/etc and someone called her a fat pig. Even though they didn't touch her you would be upset and ready to use your hands. Not saying that is right but that is where human emotion takes over.

you are still talking about negative stuff here. flirting is typically positive and unharmful even if the person being flirted with isn't receptive. If they are simply not receptive the flirty stops. If it doesn't then that's a completely different scenario that wasn't discussed in the original post that brought up using violence against a gay flirtatious man towards a straight man.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 02:55 PM
Im sorry but I can't take what that guy in back in dc said to me as a compliment.

I missed this. what was said to you by a man in DC?

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 03:01 PM
and like I said before... most gay men know if another man is gay or would be tempted with his advances. I'm sure there are some that like to try to hook up with straight men, but I'd assume most steer clear of hitting on straight guys.

I have heard that but from what I've seen a lot of the gay guys and even some gay girls are real bold and do not care. If they find someone attractive regardless of if they think they are gay or not they will try them. It's sad because it makes it harder on the gay people who go about their business.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 03:02 PM
I missed this. what was said to you by a man in DC?

Use your imagination. It's not suitable for posting on SCF.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:05 PM
I have heard that but from what I've seen a lot of the gay guys and even some gay girls are real bold and do not care. If they find someone attractive regardless of if they think they are gay or not they will try them. It's sad because it makes it harder on the gay people who go about their business.

I personally don't care what sex a person is or their orientation. If they think I'm attractive it's nice to know.
I was in a lot of gay bars over the weekend in New Orleans and if a gay guy hit on me or bought me a drink or something I would have bragged about it. Sadly no one approached me.

Even if they are bold and don't care what harm is flirting?

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:06 PM
Use your imagination. It's not suitable for posting on SCF.

well then I can't really weigh in on my opinion about it without details. Not sure why you'd bring it up if you can give us a clean representation of what was said or done.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 03:12 PM
well then I can't really weigh in on my opinion about it without details. Not sure why you'd bring it up if you can give us a clean representation of what was said or done.


I will try to go explain without offending anyone. I was walking down the street in SE DC late at night (not a smart thing to do) coming from the strip club feeling real good. All of a sudden this guy starts to roll up on me. I thought that he was looking for trouble. He then offers to perform a lewd act. Again Im not going to say what it is but most of us are over 21 and can use our imaginations. I said some things back to him and challenged him to a fistfight. He then speed off.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 03:13 PM
I personally don't care what sex a person is or their orientation. If they think I'm attractive it's nice to know.
I was in a lot of gay bars over the weekend in New Orleans and if a gay guy hit on me or bought me a drink or something I would have bragged about it. Sadly no one approached me.

Even if they are bold and don't care what harm is flirting?

It's a kick in the junk, right?

*censored*
08-09-2012, 03:25 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/404142_519155091435269_390706744_n.jpg

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:36 PM
I will try to go explain without offending anyone. I was walking down the street in SE DC late at night (not a smart thing to do) coming from the strip club feeling real good. All of a sudden this guy starts to roll up on me. I thought that he was looking for trouble. He then offers to perform a lewd act. Again Im not going to say what it is but most of us are over 21 and can use our imaginations. I said some things back to him and challenged him to a fistfight. He then speed off.

well that's a bit forward and wouldn't call that flirting, exactly. I'm not aware of his delivery, but I don't think I'd be offended by the offer. I'd probably find it pretty funny unless he was aggressively coming at me or something.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:37 PM
I will try to go explain without offending anyone. I was walking down the street in SE DC late at night (not a smart thing to do) coming from the strip club feeling real good. All of a sudden this guy starts to roll up on me. I thought that he was looking for trouble. He then offers to perform a lewd act. Again Im not going to say what it is but most of us are over 21 and can use our imaginations. I said some things back to him and challenged him to a fistfight. He then speed off.

well that's a bit forward and wouldn't call that flirting, exactly. I'm not aware of his delivery, but I don't think I'd be offended by the offer. I'd probably find it pretty funny unless he was aggressively coming at me or something.

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:37 PM
It's a kick in the junk, right?

Tell me about it.

duwal
08-09-2012, 03:49 PM
well that's a bit forward and wouldn't call that flirting, exactly. I'm not aware of his delivery, but I don't think I'd be offended by the offer. I'd probably find it pretty funny unless he was aggressively coming at me or something.


sounds like he's just assuming because of the comment that the guy was homosexual too. No reason it couldn't have been a straight man who was either drunk or trying to get the response you have given which is anger and holding a grudge to that comment

Star_Cards
08-09-2012, 03:50 PM
sounds like he's just assuming because of the comment that the guy was homosexual too. No reason it couldn't have been a straight man who was either drunk or trying to get the response you have given which is anger and holding a grudge to that comment

that is quite possible.

mrveggieman
08-09-2012, 03:56 PM
sounds like he's just assuming because of the comment that the guy was homosexual too. No reason it couldn't have been a straight man who was either drunk or trying to get the response you have given which is anger and holding a grudge to that comment


I have never heard of a straight man making such of a comment to another man. I'm not really angry about it anymore it was just an interesting story. I have grew up in dc as well as living in atlanta for several years and even though atlanta is nickednamed gaylanta they don't have a thing on dc when talking about how bold the gays are up there. Again people should do whatever turns them on but make sure that the people you want to get with roll that way.

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 05:36 PM
160 posts and not one good reason. Great thread, Alex.
Definitely, this is by far my best thread.

It's logically sound, very reasonable and best of all no one can dispute the facts behind it.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 06:27 PM
Definitely, this is by far my best thread.

It's logically sound, very reasonable and best of all no one can dispute the facts behind it.

Don't throw your shoulder out...

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 06:33 PM
Don't throw your shoulder out...
Bwahahaha....awesome comment!

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 06:55 PM
Definitely, this is by far my best thread.

It's logically sound, very reasonable and best of all no one can dispute the facts behind it.

You will prevail every time when you refuse to accept facts and dwell on the anomolies rather than the majority.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism,dwelling on my statements being invalid based solely on the fact that the liberals say they are right and everyone else is wrong, wheher based on fact or not.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 07:05 PM
Why don't you stop bracing for the onslaught of criticism that's sure to come and FACE the criticism already sent your way. Right now. Explain why an infertile couple can marry and a gay couple can not. Give it a try instead of running away and hiding.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 07:11 PM
You will prevail every time when you refuse to accept facts and dwell on the anomolies rather than the majority.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism,dwelling on my statements being invalid based solely on the fact that the liberals say they are right and everyone else is wrong, wheher based on fact or not.
No critcism just wish you had a point.

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 07:22 PM
Why don't you stop bracing for the onslaught of criticism that's sure to come and FACE the criticism already sent your way. Right now. Explain why an infertile couple can marry and a gay couple can not. Give it a try instead of running away and hiding.

I have explained it numerous tiimes and get the same response from liberals, your opinon is invalid. But they refuse to give valid reasons why.

To answer your question, it iis in the initent, design anad purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring. The goal in nature, however it got here, is to procreate. If homosexual sex was the norm then it would produce offspring. I know there are animals in the wild that are homosexual but again, if they were the norm, the species would beocme extinct in a generation. To use your own argument against you, and I know you hate it, scientists claim there are mutant markers which cause homosexuality. Therefore no procreation and mutant markers makes for an extict species if all practiced hommosexuality. 99% of the annimal and plant world perform sex by instinct to procreate.

Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 07:27 PM
I have explained it numerous tiimes and get the same response from liberals, your opinon is invalid. But they refuse to give valid reasons why.

To answer your question, it iis in the initent, design anad purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring. The goal in nature, however it got here, is to procreate. If homosexual sex was the norm then it would produce offspring. I know there are animals in the wild that are homosexual but again, if they were the norm, the species would beocme extinct in a generation. To use your own argument against you, and I know you hate it, scientists claim there are mutant markers which cause homosexuality. Therefore no procreation and mutant markers makes for an extict species if all practiced hommosexuality. 99% of the annimal and plant world perform sex by instinct to procreate.

Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them.

What does any of what you said have to do with the "act of getting married"? We are not talking about the act of intercourse.

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 07:33 PM
What does any of what you said have to do with the "act of getting married"? We are not talking about the act of intercourse.


Sex is aprt of mariage and the prime reason for marriage, procreation. Just as monnogomus animals in nature.


Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 07:38 PM
Sex is aprt of mariage and the prime reason for marriage, procreation. Just as monnogomus animals in nature.


Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

Okay, even if that is true. Why do you think infertile people should be allowed to marry? You just said, marriage is mainly for procreating. They can't. So by your own logic, they too should not be able to marry.

How can you not understand what you yourself is saying?

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 07:41 PM
Okay, even if that is true. Why do you think infertile people should be allowed to marry? You just said, marriage is mainly for procreating. They can't. So by your own logic, they too should not be able to marry.

How can you not understand what you yourself is saying?


Please learn to read

To answer your question, it is in the intent, design anad purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 07:51 PM
Sex is aprt of mariage and the prime reason for marriage, procreation. Just as monnogomus animals in nature.
NO IT IS NOT!!!!

Have you ever seen an elderly couple get married??

I HAVE!

Do you think they're getting married to have sex or procreate?

NO, they most likely Can't have sex and they sure as hell can't procreate either!

So why should they be allowed to get married and not gays???


You keep using this terrible reasoning which is majorly flawed, and you have no support for it......no liberal or conservative will support you because you are wrong, seriously, don't you think by now with the amount of conservatives on this board someone would've said "Yeah, this guy has a point".....but no one has said that.

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 07:53 PM
Furthuremore, I already mentioned this, but I'll do it again:

The main point of getting married is to form a UNION between people who LOVE each other.

Having sex or procreation is NOT necessary, it's just something that happens.


Unmarried couples can have sex and procreate all they want, marriage is NOT required, and thus marriage is not the reasoning behind it!

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 07:54 PM
Please learn to read

To answer your question, it is in the intent, design anad purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

I know how to read. Perhaps you should type in a clearer fashion. You have just repeated the same garbage. Are you telling me that infertile couple's intent is to procreate? Are you telling me an elderly couple in their 80's have the intent to not only procreate, but even have sex? What EXACTLY are you saying?

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 07:56 PM
Furthuremore, I already mentioned this, but I'll do it again:

The main point of getting married is to form a UNION between people who LOVE each other.

Having sex or procreation is NOT necessary, it's just something that happens.


Unmarried couples can have sex and procreate all they want, marriage is NOT required, and thus marriage is not the reasoning behind it!

Oh darn it Alex!! You are going to scare him away again.

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 08:16 PM
Furthuremore, I already mentioned this, but I'll do it again:

The main point of getting married is to form a UNION between people who LOVE each other.

Having sex or procreation is NOT necessary, it's just something that happens.


Unmarried couples can have sex and procreate all they want, marriage is NOT required, and thus marriage is not the reasoning behind it!


DING DING DING DING

We have a winner wiinner chicken dinner!!!

Alex proves it, he provides the reason for marriage without any science or any kind of documentation. We are to accept, without question, just because he is Alex and a liberal. Alex please provide proof that yours is the sole reason for marriage. My point has both logic and science but we are to go with Alex just because he says it.
Throughout history marriage has been at least a social insutitution, and we will not mention a religious institution, designed for the joinnig of a couple capable of procreation and the making/raisiing of a family.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 08:23 PM
Okay, even if that is true. Why do you think infertile people should be allowed to marry? You just said, marriage is mainly for procreating. They can't. So by your own logic, they too should not be able to marry.

How can you not understand what you yourself is saying?


I can't say it any more simply.

To answer your question, it is in the intent, design and purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring.

There are anomolies and exceptions to many things. I before E except after C. Would you argue that believe shou be spelled beleive?

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

shrewsbury
08-09-2012, 08:55 PM
Furthuremore, I already mentioned this, but I'll do it again:

The main point of getting married is to form a UNION between people who LOVE each other.

Having sex or procreation is NOT necessary, it's just something that happens.


Unmarried couples can have sex and procreate all they want, marriage is NOT required, and thus marriage is not the reasoning behind it!

alex, it would be just as easy to say a couple can love each other without being married, so it goes both ways. with this logic there is no need for marriage at all.

at this point I think aladog has shown our species needs to reproduce to survive, and in his opinion marriage has always been a union of male and female who, if all is well, have the ability to have offspring. whether they do or not is another thing.
though what marriage exactly is, is up for debate, his opinion is not wrong, just different than yours.

and you have not provided any proof his opinion is wrong in anyway, except you think this means he is anti gay. and how many times have we been through the old you must be anti gay if you are not for gay marriage, which is just not even close to being correct.

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 09:03 PM
I can't say it any more simply.

To answer your question, it is in the intent, design and purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform the act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring.

There are anomolies and exceptions to many things. I before E except after C. Would you argue that believe shou be spelled beleive?

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

Thanks for repeating the same garbage, only larger. You do realize that the words you keep repeating are not a full coherent thought. You start with "it" and end with "offspring" there is no start or conclusion to the statement. You know why there isn't? There isn't because you do not want to be accountable for what you write.

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 09:12 PM
alex, it would be just as easy to say a couple can love each other without being married, so it goes both ways. with this logic there is no need for marriage at all.

No, I clearly said it's to form a UNION of people who love each other, in other words, they have a vested interest to be recognized as a union, it's more than just love.

at this point I think aladog has shown our species needs to reproduce to survive, and in his opinion marriage has always been a union of male and female who, if all is well, have the ability to have offspring. whether they do or not is another thing.

Yes, but he can't see the MAJOR FLAW in his logic.....and that is that we allow various of hetero couples who CAN'T reproduce (even if they wanted to) to get married. Think about it, why would we allow elderly couple who can't reproduce or sterile men and women who also can't reproduce, but we can't allow gays?

Furthermore, Lesbians can be artificially inseminated so they CAN reproduce in these modern times!

though what marriage exactly is, is up for debate, his opinion is not wrong, just different than yours.

and you have not provided any proof his opinion is wrong in anyway, except you think this means he is anti gay. and how many times have we been through the old you must be anti gay if you are not for gay marriage, which is just not even close to being correct.

Along with Wickabee, Veggie, Habs, and myself we have all shown through logic and reasoning that his opinion is FLAWED, are you willing to stand by his comment?

If so, please give your reason why.


Responses in bold.

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 09:27 PM
Responses in bold.


Glad to see the I am right and you are wrong because I say so mantra is not dead. You have not supported your opinion with anything but I am right and you are wrong. Typical liberal. Oh yeah you did not even try to rebut my post becasue you have nothing other than bulling tatics.
Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

habsheaven
08-09-2012, 10:02 PM
Glad to see the I am right and you are wrong because I say so mantra is not dead. You have not supported your opinion with anything but I am right and you are wrong. Typical liberal. Oh yeah you did not even try to rebut my post becasue you have nothing other than bulling tatics.
Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

You really should put that last line in your signature. Then you wouldn't have to copy and paste it every time you post.

To recap (as per your logic):

two 90 year olds CAN marry
two sterile people CAN marry
two fertile people with no intention to have children CAN marry
two same-sex people CANNOT marry

Your justification for this is: Marriage's main reason is to procreate and the two individuals getting married have the right parts to procreate.

You ignore the FACT that these couples WILL NOT procreate, as they are YOUR exceptions to the rule. You ignore the reality that many people procreate without marriage, and many people marry without procreating. Yet you feel justified in preventing gays from marrying.

Question: Who made you the boss? Try answering with something more than "i'm right and you liberals are wrong".

AUTaxMan
08-09-2012, 10:17 PM
You really should put that last line in your signature. Then you wouldn't have to copy and paste it every time you post.

To recap (as per your logic):

two 90 year olds CAN marry
two sterile people CAN marry
two fertile people with no intention to have children CAN marry
two same-sex people CANNOT marry

Your justification for this is: Marriage's main reason is to procreate and the two individuals getting married have the right parts to procreate.

You ignore the FACT that these couples WILL NOT procreate, as they are YOUR exceptions to the rule. You ignore the reality that many people procreate without marriage, and many people marry without procreating. Yet you feel justified in preventing gays from marrying.

Question: Who made you the boss? Try answering with something more than "i'm right and you liberals are wrong".

You're missing the biggest point of all on this issue:

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

shrewsbury
08-09-2012, 10:23 PM
alex, I would not say I agree with them, but I see where he is coming from. To say it is flawed is no different than saying homosexuality is flawed, they both go against certain peoples ideas.

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 10:26 PM
You're missing the biggest point of all on this issue:

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
You're making a joke, right...hopefully?

The whole point of the thread is to NOT use religion....

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 10:31 PM
alex, I would not say I agree with them, but I see where he is coming from. To say it is flawed is no different than saying homosexuality is flawed, they both go against certain peoples ideas.
Ok....but our topic is not whether or not you like homosexuality.

The topic is whether or not there are valid SECULAR reasons why they should not.

We are now on Page 24 and we don't have a single good reason.

What does that tell you?

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 10:34 PM
And again....to re-reiterate, the reason I brought this topic is because one day the SCOTUS will decide on this topic as well.

They will come to the INEVITABLE conclusion that gays should in fact be allowed to marry.


If anyone....anyone at all can bring up just ONE good reason I and many others wouldn't think that gay marriage is a good thing.

Wickabee
08-09-2012, 10:42 PM
DING DING DING DING

We have a winner wiinner chicken dinner!!!

Alex proves it, he provides the reason for marriage without any science or any kind of documentation. We are to accept, without question, just because he is Alex and a liberal. Alex please provide proof that yours is the sole reason for marriage. My point has both logic and science but we are to go with Alex just because he says it.
Throughout history marriage has been at least a social insutitution, and we will not mention a religious institution, designed for the joinnig of a couple capable of procreation and the making/raisiing of a family.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

His point is your ideas about marriage are flawed.

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 10:59 PM
His point is your ideas about marriage are flawed.

Well then my point is that every thing he has said is flawed. That is just as valid as him saying my logic is flawed.
He produces zero nothing nada to support his statement.
Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

ALADOG
08-09-2012, 11:02 PM
Ok....but our topic is not whether or not you like homosexuality.

The topic is whether or not there are valid SECULAR reasons why they should not.

We are now on Page 24 and we don't have a single good reason.

What does that tell you?

As I stated several hours ago, as long as oyu refuse to accept facts, you will always claim victory. As usual, liberals are extremely closed minded and not open to viewsi other than their own.



Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

JustAlex
08-09-2012, 11:20 PM
As I stated several hours ago, as long as oyu refuse to accept facts, you will always claim victory. As usual, liberals are extremely closed minded and not open to viewsi other than their own.



Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

*SIGH*

Let me explain what you've been doing since PAGE 1 of this thread:

http://www.propagandacritic.com/images/logic.jpg

Your logic is FLAWED!




BTW, want to know what will happen when Gays marry in the U.S?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LJt0ssc0Pps/SSSozmjymKI/AAAAAAAABl4/_vsuJb2wHkw/s400/gaymarriage.gif

^How do I know this?

Because the graph is indicative for the ELEVEN countries in the world that currently allow gay marriage.

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 12:23 AM
Well then my point is that every thing he has said is flawed. That is just as valid as him saying my logic is flawed.
He produces zero nothing nada to support his statement.
Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them
All three of us have argued that what's fair for one is fair for all. If procreation is your reasoning than every couple who can't or won't shouldn't be able to marry. The only difference is sexuality. Sex isn't necessary to marriage and vice versa. You can't have it both ways. Basically your argument wouldn't fly in court despite your right to your opinion. There's nothing invalid about your opinion itself, but it just doesn't fly in the real world. Sorry.

duwal
08-10-2012, 02:23 AM
As I stated several hours ago, as long as oyu refuse to accept facts, you will always claim victory. As usual, liberals are extremely closed minded and not open to viewsi other than their own.



I apologize to the liberals on the board, aladog is embarrassing to read to some of us conservatives here as well sometimes

MadMan1978
08-10-2012, 07:25 AM
As I stated several hours ago, as long as oyu refuse to accept facts, you will always claim victory. As usual, liberals are extremely closed minded and not open to viewsi other than their own.

Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

And you should expect them all you have certainly deserve it!
When your ready to leave the 50's and join the 21st century please join us.

habsheaven
08-10-2012, 07:50 AM
There's hope for ALADOG afterall! He actually took my advice and put his little diatribe in his signature. lol


Edit: Oops, nevermind. He just separated it from his regular rants.

MadMan1978
08-10-2012, 08:11 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/402053_10150996272686275_1986555959_n.jpg

shrewsbury
08-10-2012, 08:39 AM
We are now on Page 24 and we don't have a single good reason.

What does that tell you?

it tells me you are firm in your beliefs and will not be swayed, which is a good thing.

but following the logic that sex and reproduction is not the real idea behind marriage, I am afraid this opens up marriage for beastiality and being able to marry a plant or even a rock.

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 08:49 AM
it tells me you are firm in your beliefs and will not be swayed, which is a good thing.

but following the logic that sex and reproduction is not the real idea behind marriage, I am afraid this opens up marriage for beastiality and being able to marry a plant or even a rock.


I brought this up a couple of days ago and it was also summarily dismisied by the great omnipitant one.
You left out poligamy.


Bracing for the unfounded dismissal of my statement by liberals as invalid based on nothing but theiir say so.

mrveggieman
08-10-2012, 08:53 AM
it tells me you are firm in your beliefs and will not be swayed, which is a good thing.

but following the logic that sex and reproduction is not the real idea behind marriage, I am afraid this opens up marriage for beastiality and being able to marry a plant or even a rock.

Neither a plant,rock, dog, cat, a box of 2012 topps football cards,etc are able to consent to a marriage. A man/woman of sound mind is able to consent to marrying a man or woman of their chosing.

mrveggieman
08-10-2012, 08:54 AM
I apologize to the liberals on the board, aladog is embarrassing to read to some of us conservatives here as well sometimes

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

TPotts
08-10-2012, 09:05 AM
First off, I never post in these, but I always do read.

I came across this title, and well it made me really think. To me, it's completely unfair to even have this conversation about gay marriage without the religion aspect. To me thats like saying, let's talk Heat basketball but you can't mention Lebron James... Maybe it's just me.

*censored*
08-10-2012, 09:28 AM
First off, I never post in these, but I always do read.

I came across this title, and well it made me really think. To me, it's completely unfair to even have this conversation about gay marriage without the religion aspect. To me thats like saying, let's talk Heat basketball but you can't mention Lebron James... Maybe it's just me.

How so?

TPotts
08-10-2012, 09:33 AM
How can you have a good discussion about a subject like this without being able to use if not the biggest argument on the topic? Not saying if I support it or not, just playing devils advocate.

*censored*
08-10-2012, 09:34 AM
Mostly because religion should not be used to determine our laws.

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:35 AM
I have explained it numerous tiimes and get the same response from liberals, your opinon is invalid. But they refuse to give valid reasons why.

To answer your question, it iis in the initent, design anad purpose of the act, not in the fact that someone has an infirmity and is unable to perform theh act with results or that some choose to perform the act and do so in a manner that does not produce offspring. The goal in nature, however it got here, is to procreate. If homosexual sex was the norm then it would produce offspring. I know there are animals in the wild that are homosexual but again, if they were the norm, the species would beocme extinct in a generation. To use your own argument against you, and I know you hate it, scientists claim there are mutant markers which cause homosexuality. Therefore no procreation and mutant markers makes for an extict species if all practiced hommosexuality. 99% of the annimal and plant world perform sex by instinct to procreate.

Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them.

there are conservatives who think gay's should be able to marry. Please stop saying "liberals" are the only ones. It really has nothing to do with political affiliation and more about rights for humans. The fact that you think only things that are the majority should be allowed is sad. Just because it's atypical doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. That argument just doesn't have any legs.

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:39 AM
Sex is aprt of mariage and the prime reason for marriage, procreation. Just as monnogomus animals in nature.


Braacing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

are you joking? sex is a part of marriage, but procreation is not the basis for every married couple. I know plenty of people who are married and will never have kids and I also know people who have kids and will never marry. to link the two together to say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry just doesn't cut it.

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:47 AM
Well then my point is that every thing he has said is flawed. That is just as valid as him saying my logic is flawed.
He produces zero nothing nada to support his statement.
Bracing for the onslaught of unfounded criticism, stating my point is invalid, from liberals based solely on the fact that they are liberal and always right, even if facts are against them

I like how you are calling out the "liberals" for bullying when you kind of bullying yourself. Most posts of your's that I have read on these last few pages always has some sort of "liberal" blast and stereotyping them as not having any factual basis to their arguments. I find it rather sad that you just can't argue your side and have to resort to trying to demean someone based on what you think their political affiliation is. Things really aren't as black and white with conservative and liberal as you seem to think. I tend to be more liberal myself, but have a lot of conservative views. Basically I just wanted to post that I find it ironic that you keep posting these comments about being some sort of victim being bullied by us liberals who think two men or two women should be allowed to marry when in fact you are getting plenty of bully comments in yourself. I find it very hypocritical.


to add.... I also find it rather amusing that someone who said they would beat up anyone guy that flirted with them is complaining about being bullied. If beating up a man who might find you attractive and flirts with you isn't a bully I have no clue what is.

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:51 AM
it tells me you are firm in your beliefs and will not be swayed, which is a good thing.

but following the logic that sex and reproduction is not the real idea behind marriage, I am afraid this opens up marriage for beastiality and being able to marry a plant or even a rock.

it certainly does not. we are still talking about legal, off age, consenting human beings.

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:57 AM
First off, I never post in these, but I always do read.

I came across this title, and well it made me really think. To me, it's completely unfair to even have this conversation about gay marriage without the religion aspect. To me thats like saying, let's talk Heat basketball but you can't mention Lebron James... Maybe it's just me.

Welcome TPotts.

I really don't see why you feel marriage can't be discussed outside of religion. It obviously has a place outside of religion as marriage has non religious benefits given by the state. There are also many non religious people who are married. People like to hold onto that religious definition of marriage or what marriage personally means to them. The fact is, marriage, outside of the legal meaning, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and it shouldn't be forced into one specific box. Some people have a very spiritual marriage that involves their god, but some don't. Everyone has a different way of looking at their marriage and that doesn't always involve a God.

mrveggieman
08-10-2012, 09:58 AM
Mostly because religion should not be used to determine our laws.

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Star_Cards
08-10-2012, 09:58 AM
Mostly because religion should not be used to determine our laws.

bingo!

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 10:53 AM
First off, I never post in these, but I always do read.

I came across this title, and well it made me really think. To me, it's completely unfair to even have this conversation about gay marriage without the religion aspect. To me thats like saying, let's talk Heat basketball but you can't mention Lebron James... Maybe it's just me.

The thing is you can't base laws on religion. With that in mind it's more like saying let's talk hockey without mentioning Sidney Crosby.

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 11:27 AM
I like how you are calling out the "liberals" for bullying when you kind of bullying yourself. Most posts of your's that I have read on these last few pages always has some sort of "liberal" blast and stereotyping them as not having any factual basis to their arguments. I find it rather sad that you just can't argue your side and have to resort to trying to demean someone based on what you think their political affiliation is. Things really aren't as black and white with conservative and liberal as you seem to think. I tend to be more liberal myself, but have a lot of conservative views. Basically I just wanted to post that I find it ironic that you keep posting these comments about being some sort of victim being bullied by us liberals who think two men or two women should be allowed to marry when in fact you are getting plenty of bully comments in yourself. I find it very hypocritical.


to add.... I also find it rather amusing that someone who said they would beat up anyone guy that flirted with them is complaining about being bullied. If beating up a man who might find you attractive and flirts with you isn't a bully I have no clue what is.

You should probaly read a little closer. I was not a part of the beat up someone discussion.

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 11:31 AM
You should probaly read a little closer. I was not a part of the beat up someone discussion.

You should take a look in another thread before you start talking about "what you didn't say"...

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 11:32 AM
You should take a look in another thread before you start talking about "what you didn't say"...


Please enlighten me

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 11:35 AM
Please enlighten me

http://www.sportscardforum.com/threads/1725390-Republicans-If-the-quot-Mainstream-Media-quot-is-really-in-the-tank-for-Democrats-then-why/page6

posts 51 and 53...

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 11:39 AM
http://www.sportscardforum.com/threads/1725390-Republicans-If-the-quot-Mainstream-Media-quot-is-really-in-the-tank-for-Democrats-then-why/page6

posts 51 and 53...

Please point out the part where I said I would beat up spomebody!!!

As is your typical fashion, you do not read and answer with irrelevant information.

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 11:42 AM
Please point out the part where I said I would beat up spomebody!!!

As is your typical fashion, you do not read and answer with irrelevant information.

As usual you miss the point entirely. Before you go around screaming about what you didn't say, maybe make sure you haven't done the EXACT same thing to someone else in the last, say, 24 hours.

And I'm not even entirly certain that paragraph/sentence was directed at, or about, you. But hey, now you're going to turn around and tell me I somehow said your religion is invalid again because YOU don't care about who said what.
(bracing for nonsensical, unrelated diatribe with some hate filled crap about liberals)

habsheaven
08-10-2012, 11:48 AM
I think the confusion can be linked to the fact it was "jdawg" posting in the flirting conversation. No doubt though, ALADOG would probably agree with him wholeheartedly.

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 11:53 AM
I think the confusion can be linked to the fact it was "jdawg" posting in the flirting conversation. No doubt though, ALADOG would probably agree with him wholeheartedly.

From what I see, ALADOG wouldn't need to even be hit on, just told that the guy was gay (whether he was or not).

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 11:55 AM
I think the confusion can be linked to the fact it was "jdawg" posting in the flirting conversation. No doubt though, ALADOG would probably agree with him wholeheartedly.

Thank you for at least looking and reading habsheaven. I know oyu side with wickabee, but I grow weary of his lack of reading comprehension and/or just refusal to read.

andrewhoya
08-10-2012, 11:57 AM
CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:


bingo!
Can't think of another good word to express approval.... So great post censored!

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 11:58 AM
Thank you for at least looking and reading habsheaven. I know oyu side with wickabee, but I grow weary of his lack of reading comprehension and/or just refusal to read.

Dude, go look at the link and read. The look at the rest of that thread. Then tell me where I said your religion is invalid. You won't be able to because I didn't. But no, it's only wrong when someone else does that to YOU, right? When you do it to others it's perfectly fine, encouraged even. But yes, I am the one who refuses to read, even though you are the one who hasn't read a darn thing.

You're such a hypocrite.

mrveggieman
08-10-2012, 12:06 PM
Aladog, jessejordan, gorrilawaits....could this be the same user using different aliases? :suspicious:

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 12:07 PM
[QUOTE=mrveggieman;11940261]Aladog, jessejordan, gorrilawaits[quote]

Name three hypocrites who don't or can't read.

HEY-YO

andrewhoya
08-10-2012, 12:11 PM
Aladog, jessejordan, gorrilawaits....could this be the same user using different aliases? :suspicious:
Dont forget redsoxx2011 or whatever his username was. Remember him?

duwal
08-10-2012, 12:20 PM
How can you have a good discussion about a subject like this without being able to use if not the biggest argument on the topic? Not saying if I support it or not, just playing devils advocate.


but its a reason where people are saying they're not thinking or deciding for themselves merely going by what has been told to them by a book.

ensbergcollector
08-10-2012, 12:45 PM
but its a reason where people are saying they're not thinking or deciding for themselves merely going by what has been told to them by a book.

just because someone follows the bible doesn't mean they aren't thinking or deciding for themselves

mrveggieman
08-10-2012, 01:14 PM
just because someone follows the bible doesn't mean they aren't thinking or deciding for themselves

I go by some of the things in the bible but I also am smart enough to know that not everyone does. Rules like no stealing, murder, rape ect are rules that we should all follow becaue they hurt others against their will. If someone wants to be gay, worship idols, gamble with their own money, work on the sabbath day, etc those may be sins in God's eyes but they are not affecting anyone against their will besides the person doining it. Republicans/conservatives often complain about big gov't telling them what to do but then turn around and want the gov't to dictate who should and should not get married.

shrewsbury
08-10-2012, 02:06 PM
who the heck is jaydawg?

JustAlex
08-10-2012, 04:02 PM
Mostly because religion should not be used to determine our laws.
I'm thrilled that some people do in fact understand the point of this thread.


I go by some of the things in the bible but I also am smart enough to know that not everyone does. Rules like no stealing, murder, rape ect are rules that we should all follow becaue they hurt others against their will. If someone wants to be gay, worship idols, gamble with their own money, work on the sabbath day, etc those may be sins in God's eyes but they are not affecting anyone against their will besides the person doining it. Republicans/conservatives often complain about big gov't telling them what to do but then turn around and want the gov't to dictate who should and should not get married.

Excellent post and I think that's what SOME christians forget.

What you believe is fine, but others believe differently and you can't change or dictate that!

And that's exactly what we're doing to gays.....we tell them (as a nation) that you can't get married because MY beliefs says that what you're doing is wrong.

How ridiculous is that???

Imagine my religion says that men are not allowed to wear underwear, now imagine if I tell others that they should also not wear underwear because MY beliefs says so.


Whether you like that example or not....that's what we're doing to Gays in the 21st century in "Supposedly" the most civilized country in the world.

There are ZERO, NADA, NOTHING, ZILCH, ZIP reasons why gays should not marry in a secular society like ours.

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 04:42 PM
I'm thrilled that some people do in fact understand the point of this thread.



Excellent post and I think that's what SOME christians forget.


What you believe is fine, but others believe differently and you can't change or dictate that!

And that's exactly what we're doing to gays.....we tell them (as a nation) that you can't get married because MY beliefs says that what you're doing is wrong.

How ridiculous is that???

Imagine my religion says that men are not allowed to wear underwear, now imagine if I tell others that they should also not wear underwear because MY beliefs says so.


Whether you like that example or not....that's what we're doing to Gays in the 21st century in "Supposedly" the most civilized country in the world.

There are ZERO, NADA, NOTHING, ZILCH, ZIP reasons why gays should not marry in a secular society like ours.

Ahhh the distortions of our society we undergo in the name of enlightenment.


Bracing for the wrath of the liberals, unfounded.

ALADOG
08-10-2012, 05:03 PM
John Adams


"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts

"The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians."

1788, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"


Ben Franklin

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
July 28, 1787, Address at the Constitutional Convention

Alexander Hamilton

"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."



Apr. 16-21, 1802, Letter to James Bayard



George Washigton


"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Man and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...
Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?"
Sep. 19, 1796, "Farewell Address," Philadelphia's American Daily Advisor
"[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."
Oct. 1789, Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America


Thomas Paine

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above."

1776, Common Sense





John Jay 1st Supreme Court Justice

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."



Feb. 28, 1797, Letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse





Patrick Henry

"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."



Jan. 8, 1799, Letter to Archibald Blair

shrewsbury
08-10-2012, 05:22 PM
ok guys, no name calling nor attacks, and yes saying someone cannot read is not cool.

you seem to be so blinded by equal rights that you fail to see that all should have equal rights. I know an evangelical or hard Bible Christian can be hard to deal with, but they have rights as well.

to say someone is wrong is one thing, but to think your are more intelligent because others allow religion to influence them, takes your arguments down a notch, and most of you guys can debate well and are way above this junk.

prove them wrong with your intelligence not by bashing. You folks are way to smart to have to go that route.

now back on track of the thread.

so if we knock religion out, and we say the idea of reproduction is not valid, nor does anyone have to be married to love someone, what are we really left with?

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 09:45 PM
ok guys, no name calling nor attacks, and yes saying someone cannot read is not cool.


What about saying someone refuses to read, because I think that's the actual issue. Pretty sure everyone here can read, but I can think of a few who just won't.

Wickabee
08-10-2012, 09:47 PM
Ahhh the distortions of our society we undergo in the name of enlightenment.
The only thing distorted is your view. Like when you told me I said your religion is invalid even though I didn't.

Distorted.



Bracing for the wrath of the liberals, unfounded.

Enough with the wounded bear act. No one is listening to it because there's been no wrath, just a lot of logical, thought out responses that you refuse to acknowledge exist.

shrewsbury
08-10-2012, 10:57 PM
wickabee, you know what is right and wrong. You contribute a lot around here and most of it I enjoy. I am just trying to get things back to a better tone.

Wickabee
08-11-2012, 12:10 AM
Interesting

pspstatus
08-11-2012, 01:10 AM
John Adams


"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts

"The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians."

1788, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"


Ben Franklin

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
July 28, 1787, Address at the Constitutional Convention

Alexander Hamilton

"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."



Apr. 16-21, 1802, Letter to James Bayard



George Washigton


"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Man and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...
Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?"
Sep. 19, 1796, "Farewell Address," Philadelphia's American Daily Advisor
"[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."
Oct. 1789, Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America


Thomas Paine

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above."

1776, Common Sense





John Jay 1st Supreme Court Justice

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."



Feb. 28, 1797, Letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse





Patrick Henry

"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."



Jan. 8, 1799, Letter to Archibald Blair

All of those men were great in many ways but they weren't perfect. Many of them and other founding fathers were slave owners. Many of them also came to the realization later in their lives that slavery was wrong. The point is that they weren't right about everything and there is proof that their outlooks changed as the times changed. Just because that they believed in religion doesn't mean that this country should be a theocracy. If that's what they had meant then they would have made it that way.