Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We certainly aren't passing laws to deny them marriage, nor passing laws to make it even illegal. It already is "legitimized".

And we're not passing a law to ban homosexual behavior as far as I am aware. Nor are we prohibiting gay people from having a wedding ceremony on a hillside in Alabama, because I attended such an event in 1986, and no one was arrested or charged for it.

The same reason we don't alter the definition of traditional marriage to accommodate swingers (or any other sexually deviant behavior) is the same reason we shouldn't do so for homosexuals. My problem is NOT with gay people being gay, or having homosexual relations, it's with the government endorsing homosexuality through marriage, a traditionally religious institution.

 

[Damocles]

And we're not passing a law to ban homosexual behavior as far as I am aware. Nor are we prohibiting gay people from having a wedding ceremony on a hillside in Alabama, because I attended such an event in 1986, and no one was arrested or charged for it.

The same reason we don't alter the definition of traditional marriage to accommodate swingers (or any other sexually deviant behavior) is the same reason we shouldn't do so for homosexuals. My problem is NOT with gay people being gay, or having homosexual relations, it's with the government endorsing homosexuality through marriage, a traditionally religious institution.

You are attempting to pass laws in an attempt to "deligitimize" based on your religious dogma.

You've been entirely disingenuous and obtuse throughout this conversation. It's beyond the pale that you would find yourself, in an attempt to legitimize your argument, arguing on behalf of NAMBLA. Look at yourself, man.

Keep government out of religion, and keep religion out of government. That way we'll not run into this stupidity to begin with. And, ironically, had we followed the rules set down by the founders and kept stupid religious dogma from being established into law, homosexuals would already be "married" because churches already perform those ceremonies. IMO, those people are as married as you were, before you went and divorced (let no man tear asunder...)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's nonsense. There is nothing about homosexual sex that is unique to homosexuals. Especially, if you are talking about lesbians. Most heteros practice oral. Anal is practiced by many heterosexuals. Neither are all that dangerous.

There are a number of diseases associated with homosexual behavior, and a number of physical disorders attributable to homosexual activity. Doesn't matter if you think it's "all that dangerous" or not, it's a health risk. This is not to argue that "health risk" is a reason for or against anything, but you asked what was the harm, and I told you.

Can you demonstrate where the court has found such absurd arguments compelling? Listen, dumbfuck, our laws are based around the idea that the individual is capable of making their own choices. However, we realize that some are not. We don't just assume someone is not for whatever trivial reason some inbred retard can pull out of his ass, though.

Well, but okay... dumbfuck... If we make laws based around the idea that the individual is capable of making their own choices, why couldn't we make those same laws legitimizing pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and such? Seems to me the same exact argument, just from a different perspective. You don't approve of child sex, doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion or wants to make your same choice, does it? Who are you to tell a guy he can't marry his dead girlfriend? She consented before she died! Why is her death all of a sudden a reason for you to prohibit him from his perverted pleasure?

There are quite legitimate reasons to assume that a child may not have the capacity to contract. It's not just some fanciful idea to justify discrimination. It's clear purpose is protection of the child.

Again, you are making a moral choice for others. There are some people who disagree with you, and would argue that in some cases, it may actually be beneficial to a child to gain the experiences of a much older adult... (I don't believe this USF, I am just saying...) The point here is, you have made a moral determination that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that is fine, but you don't have the right to force that belief on me anymore than someone else has the right to force their belief that having sex with children is okay on you. In other words, you have established some moral parameters, and have made a moral judgment, and you aren't allowing the individual to choose in some cases, where you think you have a moral justification. The same is true with gay marriage, some people disagree with you that it doesn't harm anyone. We have differing moral standards, and our society determines what is and isn't acceptable in that regard, it is almost NEVER left up to an individual to determine those standards on their own... if it were, there would be all kinds of crazy perverted shit going on!

No fucking court is ever going to buy your strawman, that the laws are just discriminating against children, no matter what we do on homosexual marriage. There is absolutely no connection between the two.

And like I said, I can imagine there was a time in history where people would have thought it absolutely ABSURD that anyone would ever suggest same sex marriage! I'm sure they thought the same thing... that no court would EVER uphold such an outrageous idea! But look at where we are!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are attempting to pass laws in an attempt to "deligitimize" based on your religious dogma.

I'm not attempting to pass ANY law, Dumo!

You've been entirely disingenuous and obtuse throughout this conversation. It's beyond the pale that you would find yourself, in an attempt to legitimize your argument, arguing on behalf of NAMBLA. Look at yourself, man.

Not arguing on behalf of NAMBLA, just pointing out how you are legitimizing their argument. The Constitution is very clear about "equal protection" and you can bet your pansy ass, when Gay Marriage is allowed, the NAMBLA folks will be lined up around the SCOTUS to demand their equal protections!

Keep government out of religion, and keep religion out of government. That way we'll not run into this stupidity to begin with. And, ironically, had we followed the rules set down by the founders and kept stupid religious dogma from being established into law, homosexuals would already be "married" because churches already perform those ceremonies. IMO, those people are as married as you were, before you went and divorced (let no man tear asunder...)

Well I agree about the separation of church and state, but the founders never intended for religious beliefs to not play a role in our government. You are a stupid nitwit to believe that, because virtually ALL our laws and standards are established on SOME religious faith basis.

The only churches I know of who perform Gay Marriages are the Unitarians. The Episcopalians accept homosexuality, but I am not sure if they perform same-sex marriages. Rastafarian's are cool with it, but they are cool with anything, and all of these religious groups represent about 2% of the religious folk in America, the other 98% are opposed to Gay Marriage, and fairly well opposed to homosexuality. But of course, since you are a godless wonder, you know more than I do about religious beliefs in America, right?

 

[Southern Woman]

Can queers produce offspring?

Then what would an abomination like queer 'marriage' accomplish?

 

[Timshel]

There are a number of diseases associated with homosexual behavior, and a number of physical disorders attributable to homosexual activity. Doesn't matter if you think it's "all that dangerous" or not, it's a health risk. This is not to argue that "health risk" is a reason for or against anything, but you asked what was the harm, and I told you.

What homosexual behavior? There is no such thing btw, but what do you believe are the diseases or disorders attributable to "homosexual activity."

Well, but okay... dumbfuck... If we make laws based around the idea that the individual is capable of making their own choices, why couldn't we make those same laws legitimizing pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and such? Seems to me the same exact argument, just from a different perspective. You don't approve of child sex, doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion or wants to make your same choice, does it? Who are you to tell a guy he can't marry his dead girlfriend? She consented before she died! Why is her death all of a sudden a reason for you to prohibit him from his perverted pleasure?

It is the same argument and we have an answer on it in regards to children. They are not fully capable of making their own choices and so the state and their parents have some control over them. That's just not true with homosexuals no matter how much you pretend that by simply claiming it is true you make it just as true as it is in regards to children.

You are full of shit and your purpose is not to protect homosexuals. Nobody is stupid enough to buy that.

Again, you are making a moral choice for others. There are some people who disagree with you, and would argue that in some cases, it may actually be beneficial to a child to gain the experiences of a much older adult... (I don't believe this USF, I am just saying...) The point here is, you have made a moral determination that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that is fine, but you don't have the right to force that belief on me anymore than someone else has the right to force their belief that having sex with children is okay on you. In other words, you have established some moral parameters, and have made a moral judgment, and you aren't allowing the individual to choose in some cases, where you think you have a moral justification. The same is true with gay marriage, some people disagree with you that it doesn't harm anyone. We have differing moral standards, and our society determines what is and isn't acceptable in that regard, it is almost NEVER left up to an individual to determine those standards on their own... if it were, there would be all kinds of crazy perverted shit going on!

AGAIN, you pretend that this nonsense will be compelling in a court of law, that the judges must bend to your illogic. They would laugh you out of court.

The protections for children are not about trying to force anyone's will on to them. The court has never viewed them in such a way and have allowed them as necessary to the state's interest in protecting the child.

You don't have one bit of proof that homosexuals are any less capable of understanding the consequences of marriage than heterosexuals are. There is overwhelming proof that children, on average, do not possess the same capacity as adults.

And like I said, I can imagine there was a time in history where people would have thought it absolutely ABSURD that anyone would ever suggest same sex marriage! I'm sure they thought the same thing... that no court would EVER uphold such an outrageous idea! But look at where we are!

Legal precedent and history would not have supported the idea that it was unthinkable. IMO, it should have been quite predictable. That's not true with your idiotic non sequitur.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What homosexual behavior? There is no such thing btw, but what do you believe are the diseases or disorders attributable to "homosexual activity."

Several studies have reported an increased risk of acquiring a communicable disease from homosexual sex than with heterosexual sex. However, all sexual transmitted diseases effecting homosexuals also effect heterosexuals.

AIDS -- As of 1998, 54% of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men and the Center for Disease Control stated that nearly 90 percent of these men (48% of new cases) acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.[18] In Western nations, HIV is overrepresented in homosexuals, however worldwide, the vast majority of HIV cases are among heterosexuals. [19]

Intestinal Parasites --An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated the following in its abstract: "In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only 16% of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa." [20] If left untreated, these parasites can cause an increased occurrences of stomach flu or liver problems.

Syphilis --According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
"While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999....Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the United States,” said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s HIV, STD and TB prevention programs."[21]

Gonorrhea --The CDC had the following to report concerning gonorrhea:
"CDC conducted sentinel surveillance in 28 cities and found the proportion of cases resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics (a first-line treatment for gonorrhea) increased from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 6.8 percent in 2004. Resistance is especially worrisome in men who have sex with men, where it was eight times higher than among heterosexuals (23.8 percent vs. 2.9 percent). In April 2004, CDC recommended that fluoroquinolones no longer be used as treatment for gonorrhea among men who have sex with men. These antibiotics were also not recommended to treat the disease in anyone in California or Hawaii, where resistance has been widespread for years. Outside of these states, the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance among heterosexuals remains low at 1.3 percent." [22]

Mental Health --Recent studies indicate that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse). However, research has only proven correllation, not causation. Many studies caution that social stigma may be to blame for such psychiatric problems. [23]

Also, a national survey of lesbians was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. [24]

It is the same argument and we have an answer on it in regards to children. They are not fully capable of making their own choices and so the state and their parents have some control over them. That's just not true with homosexuals no matter how much you pretend that by simply claiming it is true you make it just as true as it is in regards to children.

What in the hell gives YOU the goddamn right to determine this????????

You keep saying... Children aren't capable of this and that... but that is a moral constraint YOU established! Did you ask the children? How the fuck do YOU know they aren't just as fucking capable of making sound and rational decisions and choices as YOU or any Homosexual are? That is YOUR established criteria based on YOUR moral judgment and IMPOSED on others!!! Hypocrite!

You are full of shit and your purpose is not to protect homosexuals. Nobody is stupid enough to buy that.

LMAO... I didn't say I was trying to protect homos! WTF? Where do you people get this stupid shit?

AGAIN, you pretend that this nonsense will be compelling in a court of law, that the judges must bend to your illogic. They would laugh you out of court.

Circa 75 years ago: A conversation about the possibility that one day, men will seek to marry other men! "You pretend that this nonsense will be compelling in a court of law, that the judges must bend to your illogic. They would laugh you out of court!"

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well I could give you one where interracial marriages were not considered normal until the law was changed. http://http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap07.html


QUOTE: For example, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 made it "unlawful for any white person in this state to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian." In writing the statute, one of the challenges that the Virginia racists faced was their own proud history. According to a publication from the Registrar of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, the law had to take account of "the desire of all to recognize as an integral and honored part of the white race the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas." Because of the Pocahontas loophole, you could have a little Indian blood (one great-great-grandparent) and still be counted as white. But "every person in whom there is ascertainable any negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person."

The law automatically voided all marriages between whites and blacks. The law prohibited leaving the state to get married and then returning, and specified that the "fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage." The penalty was stiff: "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Virginia judges continued to defend anti-miscegenation laws for decades. In 1955, the State Supreme Court of Appeals decided that the laws served legitimate purposes, including: "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride."

feel free to raise this issue the next time someone asks you if you choose to be black...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No one is requiring you to treat it as normal. You can still expect that most people are heterosexual. I do.

YOU KEEP CHANGING CONTEXT. What you really mean is you think you are required to consider it moral. You are not. For the 100th time, nobody gives a shit what you think. Do people come to your house and ask you to bless their marriages or something?

Now please tell me how you are damaged by this supposed command to consider it moral? Are you required to consider other marriages that you deem immoral to be moral? How does that affect you and why doesn't the law protect you?

I did not give any such examples. My examples of abnormal were left handed and red headed. I pointed out many pages back that interracial marraige is abnormal. In what state are you allowed to deny those abnormal people the right to marry? Are you required to consider redheads normal by allowing them to marry?

The arguments of the homophobes are good for laughs and nothing more.

I will give you guys credit....this time a thread made it to 50 pages before someone was stupid enough to try to discredit me as a homophobe....

 

[Timshel]

I will return on your studies.

What in the hell gives YOU the goddamn right to determine this????????

You keep saying... Children aren't capable of this and that... but that is a moral constraint YOU established! Did you ask the children? How the fuck do YOU know they aren't just as fucking capable of making sound and rational decisions and choices as YOU or any Homosexual are? That is YOUR established criteria based on YOUR moral judgment and IMPOSED on others!!! Hypocrite!

It is not a moral constraint that I established. It has been establsihed in common law and devloped over centuries.

LMAO... I didn't say I was trying to protect homos! WTF? Where do you people get this stupid shit?

You pretend that your consern is that homosexuals are getting into something that they are not capable of understanding. This is the reason for contraints on children and it is permitted because the state has an interest in protecting children. For your argument to fly you would have to argue that the state had a legitimate interests in protecting homosexuals.

See, this is what I am talking about. You have no clue about what the court accepts as reasonable argument. In your mind they just make up whatever crazy shit they want and go with it. But if you would bother to look into it you would see they base it on a much more stable foundation than that.

Circa 75 years ago: A conversation about the possibility that one day, men will seek to marry other men! "You pretend that this nonsense will be compelling in a court of law, that the judges must bend to your illogic. They would laugh you out of court!"

And I don't know if I would say 75 years ago. But after Loving, it should have been predictable. They would have still likely found some way to prevent it, but they would not have had any precednt to back them up.

 

[Timshel]

I will return on your studies.

Well, can't do that since you did not provide a source.

 

[Timshel]

feel free to raise this issue the next time someone asks you if you choose to be black...

What does that have to do with it? They chose to be abnomal and marry someone outside their race.

 

[apple0154]

/shrugs....do what you want, just don't pass laws that require me to pay attention to you....once you do, the "normal/abnormal" argument makes sense....I see it as a direct parallel to abortion.....we have two generations of people now who have grown up thinking it is normal to kill your unborn children....why should we have two generations grow up thinking "marriage" between two men is normal?.....simply because some oddballs on the left want us to?.....

It was normal to kill or abandon to the elements defective and unwanted children. Furthermore, restriction on abortion was and is not normal.

Following is a partial time line. Educate yourself.

2600 BC –First recorded recipe for an abortion producing drug.
1850 BC –Egyptians record recipe for contraceptive pessaries, one made from crocodile dung.
4th Century AD –St.Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.
13th Century AD -St.Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual intercourse only for procreation.
1564 AD -Italian anatomist, Fallopius, discoverer of Fallopian tubes, publicizes condoms as anti-venereal disease devices.
1588 – Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions.
1591 – Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus’ edict against abortion.
1803 – Great Britain makes abortion a misdemeanor.
1821 – Connecticut outlaws abortion after quickening, early abortions are legal.
1860’s – All states pass comprehensive, criminal abortion laws. Most remain until 1973.
1869 – Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. France’s population experienced a sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.

From the 4th Century until 1869 even the Catholic Church had no problem with early abortion except when, in 1588, Pope Sixtus forbade all abortions which Pope Gregory XIV quickly rescinded in 1591. Three years out of 1400 years. What's your definition of "normal"? And the only reason abortion was outlawed in 1869 was because the Emperor of France made a deal with the Pope because France was worried the falling population would result in a lack of young men which to send to the slaughter of war. How noble and moral.

Now you've been shown what is/was normal, PmP. There is no excuse to continue with your bogus normal/not normal argument.

 

[apple0154]

A child should not have to face the death penalty because you think their life may be too hard.

No child is facing the death penalty. There has been no birth, thus no child.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not attempting to pass ANY law, Dumo!



Not arguing on behalf of NAMBLA, just pointing out how you are legitimizing their argument. The Constitution is very clear about "equal protection" and you can bet your pansy ass, when Gay Marriage is allowed, the NAMBLA folks will be lined up around the SCOTUS to demand their equal protections!



Well I agree about the separation of church and state, but the founders never intended for religious beliefs to not play a role in our government. You are a stupid nitwit to believe that, because virtually ALL our laws and standards are established on SOME religious faith basis.

The only churches I know of who perform Gay Marriages are the Unitarians. The Episcopalians accept homosexuality, but I am not sure if they perform same-sex marriages. Rastafarian's are cool with it, but they are cool with anything, and all of these religious groups represent about 2% of the religious folk in America, the other 98% are opposed to Gay Marriage, and fairly well opposed to homosexuality. But of course, since you are a godless wonder, you know more than I do about religious beliefs in America, right?

Remember about two months ago, when Dixie was trying to convince people he was "Atheistic"? It doesn't matter the number of churches, they are as married as you were.

 

[Damocles]

No child is facing the death penalty. There has been no birth, thus no child.

False premise based on a radical and extreme view. Thankfully we are far more reasonable in our laws which allow us to make, at the very least, later term abortions illegal.

Nothing should die just because you think a life might be harder than you judge it should be. That's a ridiculous assessment based in elitism and denies the worth of those who you deem to be in conditions that "may be hard"...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Probably because homosexuality is detrimental to health. The human body is not designed to have homosexual relations, all kinds of disease and health problems can occur. Can you demonstrate where ALL homosexuals are fully aware of the consequences of their actions? If not, we must protect them from becoming victims, just as we protect children. We certainly shouldn't condone and endorse the behavior by legitimizing it through traditional marriage. If anything, we should be discouraging such behavior and speaking out against the health risks.

So now we have to "protect them" from themselves!!

Dixie if anyone on here has shown that they need to be protected from themselves, it's you.
You are delusional and appear to be bordering on psychotic.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Swinging is also detrimental to health, it even spreads the same diseases...

You'd figure people who thought this way would want those people to settle down to one partner so the disease would not continue to spread...

Shoot, it's even okay to marry strangers on TV... and according to PMP, it's all good, no matter how odd it gets so long as "this" abnormality is excluded.

Can't sodomy between hetrosexual couples also spread those same diseases??

Is Dixie suggesting that we now need to "protect" hetrosexual couples from themselves, also??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yep... and we aren't passing laws to legitimize swinging, are we???

How many States have laws making swinging illegal??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are attempting to pass laws in an attempt to "deligitimize" based on your religious dogma.

You've been entirely disingenuous and obtuse throughout this conversation. It's beyond the pale that you would find yourself, in an attempt to legitimize your argument, arguing on behalf of NAMBLA. Look at yourself, man.

Keep government out of religion, and keep religion out of government. That way we'll not run into this stupidity to begin with. And, ironically, had we followed the rules set down by the founders and kept stupid religious dogma from being established into law, homosexuals would already be "married" because churches already perform those ceremonies. IMO, those people are as married as you were, before you went and divorced (let no man tear asunder...)

He's only made sense, about 1/3 of the time.