[face]

my sister is gay so i know about this issue a little. i just read about gay sheep. eight percent of sheep are gay http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...582336,00.html
scientists are cutting open their brains and they have different brains than the straight ones.

nature is complicated, most ants are sterile, there are just a few fertile ones that make all the baby drone/worker ants, and these worker ants just work and die.

if you think people are equal than you have to give gays some sort of way to get the same tax deductions as a married couple i would think. you could even just call it a tax partnership or something. just my two cents. if you don't think people are equal than i guess you wouldn't have to give them tax breaks. but if they work the same jobs they seem equal to me.

[Seaweed]

my sister is gay so i know about this issue a little. i just read about gay sheep. eight percent of sheep are gay http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...582336,00.html
scientists are cutting open their brains and they have different brains than the straight ones.

nature is complicated, most ants are sterile, there are just a few fertile ones that make all the baby drone/worker ants, and these worker ants just work and die.

if you think people are equal than you have to give gays some sort of way to get the same tax deductions as a married couple i would think. you could even just call it a tax partnership or something. just my two cents. if you don't think people are equal than i guess you wouldn't have to give them tax breaks. but if they work the same jobs they seem equal to me.

Humans are not animals. Just because animals do strange things, that doesn't make it normal for humans to behave similarly. Some animals eat their mate after sex, have sex with young, rape, eat their young when they are threatened, and injure their mates. Are these behaviors justified with humans? We know that animals are driven by instinct and do not have reason or free-will like we do as humans. For example, a Monkey cannot write a book like Shakespeare or explain gravity. A dog cannot say "I love you and will give my life for you." On the other hand, humans do have free will. As a result, we choose the greater good, or objective truth when we encounter challenges and popular culture. Unlike animals, we humans are not slaves to our passions. Just because something can or cannot be seen, does not take away from the objective fact of its harm to society. Also, many animals eat their offspring. I am waiting for cannibalism-rights groups to argue that since cannibalism occurs in species, it is natural, and the right of cannibals should be protected.

[SportsInteLect]

Damn you are one sick pathetic f uck seaweed.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
~ Founding father, Thomas Paine

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
~ The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797

Gays aren't threatening to a child's development, but you sure as hell are. Not only are you a threat to children, but you and people like you, are responsible for passing on the stupidity to others and making others stupid in a continuous cycle.

In all that disgusting bullshit i just read through, all i read were excuses from a sick f uck prejudiced bigoted supremacist mind.

[Seaweed]

Damn you are one sick pathetic f uck seaweed.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
~ Founding father, Thomas Paine

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
~ The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797

Gays aren't threatening to a child's development, but you sure as hell are. Not only are you a threat to children, but you and people like you, are responsible for passing on the stupidity to others and making others stupid in a continuous cycle.

In all that disgusting bullshit i just read through, all i read were excuses from a sick f uck prejudiced bigoted supremacist mind.

It's funny how SSM supporters are the ones complaining about being discriminated against, being forced to comply, and labelled in society, yet they do the exact same thing they accuse non-SSM supporters of doing, and are not even open to a rationale and intellectual debate. They know it's a self-destructive, they know it's a disorder, and they know it's wrong but they will always resort to uneducated name calling "sick f uck prejudiced bigoted bla bla". Sportsintellect, go read a book and reflect on what you brought in this thread-nothing constructive.

[SportsInteLect]

It's funny how SSM supporters are the ones complaining about being discriminated against, being forced to comply, and labelled in society, yet they do the exact same thing they accuse non-SSM supporters of doing, and are not even open to a rationale and intellectual debate. They know it's a self-destructive, they know it's a disorder, and they know it's wrong but they will always resort to uneducated name calling "sick f uck prejudiced bigoted bla bla". Sportsintellect, go read a book and reflect on what you brought in this thread-nothing constructive.

Its impossible to debate rationale and have an intellectual debate with someone who is not capable of being rational and is the exact opposite of intellectual.

People like you think in boxes. HA, you think i have a disorder, cuz i stand up for other monkeys, who want to have the same rights as others. I know its wrong to be racist, prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist. Either, you don't know, its wrong to think that way, or you think its OK, to think that way, in certain circumstances, in which you were indoctrinated to believe in by other pseudo intellectuals.

You say you want to protect children, but want to teach them to be prejudiced bigoted and supremacist. It all sounds like Theo-fascist bullshit, spoon fed to the masses by deranged, psychotic, megalomaniac Theo-fascists.

What you're doing is sending people the idea that its OK to be prejudiced bigoted and supremacist and teaching them that's its fine to raise children with that thought process. You talk "destruction of society" when people like you are responsible for it.

When prejudiced bigoted and supremacist views are labeled as acceptable in certain situations. That sends a message to children that's its OK to be disgusting. All you have to do is replace the word "gay" with the word "black" against every disgusting excuse for your deranged stance against gay marriage to know its wrong.

People are born gay. I knew both my cousins were gay since they were 8 years old. One is a guy and the other a girl. Both raised in a bullshit church going republican household and after 15 years are finally excepted by the family. I got to see them this Easter and had a cool time with them.

People like you have forced two of my cousins to live in fear and taught others to treat them as if they are not equal, so i wish nothing but the worst in life in your direction and I'm sick of it. They are good peoples.

Your mentality is a threat to the safety and progress of society and people like you must be stopped and put in their place.

Its a mental disorder that is in control of your sick and twisted mind and the sad thing is, you are proud of it and know you have a mental disorder, but you look for excuses for your deep seeded prejudiced bigoted supremacist views with a bunch of pseudo intellectual babble.

I'm not trying to be constructive, I'm exposing you for the pseudo intellectual prejudiced bigoted supremacist f uck that you are.

[KingJD31]

Sorry to hear your cousins are gay, must suck

Its impossible to debate rationale and have an intellectual debate with someone who is not capable of being rational and is the exact opposite of intellectual.

People like you think in boxes. HA, you think i have a disorder, cuz i stand up for other monkeys, who want to have the same rights as others. I know its wrong to be racist, prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist. Either, you don't know, its wrong to think that way, or you think its OK, to think that way, in certain circumstances, in which you were indoctrinated to believe in by other pseudo intellectuals.

You say you want to protect children, but want to teach them to be prejudiced bigoted and supremacist. It all sounds like Theo-fascist bullshit, spoon fed to the masses by deranged, psychotic, megalomaniac Theo-fascists.

What you're doing is sending people the idea that its OK to be prejudiced bigoted and supremacist and teaching them that's its fine to raise children with that thought process. You talk "destruction of society" when people like you are responsible for it.

When prejudiced bigoted and supremacist views are labeled as acceptable in certain situations. That sends a message to children that's its OK to be disgusting. All you have to do is replace the word "gay" with the word "black" against every disgusting excuse for your deranged stance against gay marriage to know its wrong.

People are born gay. I knew both my cousins were gay since they were 8 years old. One is a guy and the other a girl. Both raised in a bullshit church going republican household and after 15 years are finally excepted by the family. I got to see them this Easter and had a cool time with them.

People like you have forced two of my cousins to live in fear and taught others to treat them as if they are not equal, so i wish nothing but the worst in life in your direction and I'm sick of it. They are good peoples.

Your mentality is a threat to the safety and progress of society and people like you must be stopped and put in their place.

Its a mental disorder that is in control of your sick and twisted mind and the sad thing is, you are proud of it and know you have a mental disorder, but you look for excuses for your deep seeded prejudiced bigoted supremacist views with a bunch of pseudo intellectual babble.

I'm not trying to be constructive, I'm exposing you for the pseudo intellectual prejudiced bigoted supremacist f uck that you are.

[Kermit]

My personal assistant is Gay.

[SportsInteLect]

Sorry to hear your cousins are gay, must suck

Actually, it doesn't suck at all, cuz it doesn't bother me at all.

Ive known them, since i was a kid and when i see them, i still see the same kids that i grew up running around grandmas houses with.

One is a bad ass US soldier who served 2 tours in iraq and afghanistan and the other should be playing in the wnba right now.

They are both cool and good family peoples. They want the same things every stoopid monkey on this spinning rock floating in infinity wants out of life.

[Seaweed]

SportsIntellect has difficulty in reading comprehension. He likes to fill in blanks that aren't there and switch words around. He is extremely misinformed on what this is all about. I can see that he has run into some bad people in his life who accused homosexuals of being bad people, or that it's OK to be mean to them. He is under the impression that those opposed to SSM are "homophobic" "bigoted" etc. Although there are people who are opposed to SSM and attack gays, i do not support the actions of these people. These people do no represent my views on this subject and I'm sorry that you have come to labell all those opposed to SSM as what you described above. That is simply not the case. Before I continue, i need to clarify something for him. I do not hate gays. Gays are to be treated like everybody else in society with respect and love. It is wrong to hate gays and it is wrong to accuse them of their disorder. To align this issue to racism makes n sense at all. I am strongly opposed to any form of racism. It is simply wrong because your race is not a disorder. You do not choose what race you are, but you do choose to pursue your homosexuality. Science has 0 proof that homosexuality is inherent, and even if it comes to discover it, it would still not rationalize marriage. People switch from being gay to becoming hetero, I've seen people with couples who have turned to homosexuality. It's quite obvious from a secular view that homosexuality is unnatural, self destructive, harmful to the family unit and society, and not procreative. Any objective observation of homosexuality would know this. This is why it is contrary to the meaning of marriage. I am not against homosexual couples. I am not against homosexual couples living together. BUT it cannot be the sacredness of what marriage is and the purpose it serves. When you change the meaning of marriage, you pose a great risk at what lies ahead. Marriage is something that needs to be valued and preserved, not changed after thousands of years because of single digit percentage of the population who's aim digs deeper that "equal rights", it is the desire to drive out religion all together in society. Homosexuals already have the ability for civil marriage and so this is not about them wanting to be married. This is liberal progressive agenda aimed at destroying religion, the family unit, and the stability of society that has been with us since time.

I am yet to receive a definition from those SSM supporters to come up with a definition of what marriage is. Define it legally before i even begin to go on further.

[TheCentaur]

I know its wrong to be racist, prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist. Either, you don't know, its wrong to think that way, or you think its OK, to think that way, in certain circumstances, in which you were indoctrinated to believe in by other pseudo intellectuals.

How do you explain people who were not racist, prejudiced, bigoted, or supremacist until they spent some time outside of their white suburbs and in "diverse" environments? I assure you there are many. Were they good, moral people living in ignorance who became evil when they had more information?

[The iron sheik]

I do not agree with you. This is a big deal whether you like it or not. Religious freedom and same sex marriage cannot co-exist. Why should we care? Because it will gradually lead to the destruction of society. When marriage is devalued, more people will no longer marry. They will live together, they will have a variety of sexual liaisons, but they don't marry. And as a result, societal stability suffers.

Marriage is very devalued as it is, what you're saying sounds utterly religidiculous with the divorce rate, open marriages, and cheating going on. Interesting how people like you revert to sanctity of sex and sanctity of marriage when it's convenient. Plenty of "straight" marriages that are based solely on financial issues or convenience issues, plenty of marriages that do not pursue a nuclear family lifestyle, nothing wrong with those though?

Also, religious freedom? Are you serious? It'd be pretty easy to make an argument where gambling in general, is not really doing the lord's work (and lets not kid ourselves, that's the god meant with religious freedom in these arguments). Probably has a lot to do with coveting and greed, in the minds of many.Perhaps you should stop betting, you really wouldn't want to offend someone's "religious freedom"

I should also point out that the arguments made for same sex marriage could also be applied to pedophile marriage. I'm not necessarily saying I equate the two, but i can see where an organization like NAMBLA might like "equal rights" just like kraken claims gay couples are seeking. They would argue that their own sexual orientation is just as inborn as homosexuality, and that they ought to have the right to express it and to marry their lovers. Therefore, children who are older than the age of reason should not be denied the right to choose to marry an older adult, and that the state should not have the right to interfere. Why can't they have the same rights to marry? Do you see what happens when you change the definition? Yeah sure it seems outrageous but i COULD see NAMBLA making the same claim. When we take a look at the law, we see that it often discriminates for the greater good of society. Pensions discriminate against people under 65, but if you applied it to everyone you would devalue and undermine the point of it. There is always a tendency by those who support same sex marriage to look at critics who support the traditional meaning of marriage as backward, uneducated creatures whose mind has been worped by religion and attacked as homophobia. Psychologists agree that in general it is SO much better raising children with a mother and father.

Wow, that's a really longwinded way of saying "hey I know consent is consent and all that, but what if it really wasn't like that so I could further my argument. Here I am, equating two consenting adults and their will of having a binding agreement, with adults having sex with children that aren't legally even allowed to make such decisions, let alone have sex".
Why not go full retard and say something about marrying animals.

Take a look at the gay affirming societies like the Netherlands where they have had legal gay marriage for almost fifteen years. It is the most gay-affirming society in the world. Yet they have documented persistent extreme promiscuity in the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population (according to a 2003 article in the medical journal AIDS). The average length of steady partnerships was two years, and these had an avg. of 8 casual sex partners annually (those without a steady partner had an avg. of 22 casual sex partners annually).

You don't have to live that lifestyle if you don't want to. No one does.

Here are some facts:

“Archives of General Psychiatry - concluded that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were at a much higher risk for mental illness, specifically six times more likely to have suicide.”
*The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1992: half of the sexually-molested children were molested by homosexuals
* Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2001: 46% of male homosexuals and 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation in childhood
* Children of homosexual parents have a 50-fold increased risk of suffering incest from parent
*Homosexuals account for 150 boy victims per sex abuser compared to 19 female victims per heterosexual child abuser
*In the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 86% of offenders against malesdescribed themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
Also, like i said before, if we legalize homosexual "marriage" or civil unions, why can't we allow polygamy, or marriage within families. If love and commitment is the only qualifier? Or why can't two heterosexual men get "married" or gain a civil union for the legal rights (most of which can be obtained without marriage)?

You're really eager to equate homosexuality with pedophilia but it isn't really working out like that. Molesting boys doesn't make one a homosexual, it makes one a pedophile (and a criminal).

In schools, children will be indoctrinated about the correctness of homosexuality. There will be reading homosexual books to children about two gay princes who bone each other in their bedroom. This means it is all good and right. Option to opt out is not an option. Your kids will be exposed to it. This is not a private issue, it is a public issue with public implications for us. Same sex is legal, your kids are educated on it. Presenting that which is wrong to our kids in society. Schools job is to change the minds of children. They will send the message that “Its okay and you could be gay too”. If legal, you cant stop them from talking about it. It exposes children to homosexual material and undermines parental rights.

[The iron sheik]

Also, since people generally like to talk about mommies and daddies and how necessary they are and how it's the mold for all things, perhaps you people should read a book or two for a change. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it takes a man and a woman to procreate, the actual nuclear family lifestyle that is the norm today is NOT some non-changing entity of all times. It's a product from the middle of last century, and pretending it's some god given blueprint to a happy family is utter bull shït. Throughout most human history, males have not really been an essential part of child care or upbringing. If you wish to argue it's the norm these days and psychologist will agree with a nuclear family solution that's just fine.

[KingJD31]

So why do blacks in the ghetto who all grow up without a dad end up dead or jail by 20

Also, since people generally like to talk about mommies and daddies and how necessary they are and how it's the mold for all things, perhaps you people should read a book or two for a change. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it takes a man and a woman to procreate, the actual nuclear family lifestyle that is the norm today is NOT some non-changing entity of all times. It's a product from the middle of last century, and pretending it's some god given blueprint to a happy family is utter bull shït. Throughout most human history, males have not really been an essential part of child care or upbringing. If you wish to argue it's the norm these days and psychologist will agree with a nuclear family solution that's just fine.

[The iron sheik]

So why do blacks in the ghetto who all grow up without a dad end up dead or jail by 20

what does that have to do with anything? so why do whites who grow up without a dad end up somewhere else?

certainly there's plenty of evidence that in current structures, single parent households are more likely to fail in the context we are talking about. That's not the point, the point is that a bi-parent upbringing is by no means a historical norm. The point is that a nuclear family solution has been normative for under a 100 years, so arguing something traditional is moot. That's all.

[KingJD31]

No such thinh as whites growing up without a dad thats what seperates us

what does that have to do with anything? so why do whites who grow up without a dad end up somewhere else?

certainly there's plenty of evidence that in current structures, single parent households are more likely to fail in the context we are talking about. That's not the point, the point is that a bi-parent upbringing is by no means a historical norm. The point is that a nuclear family solution has been normative for under a 100 years, so arguing something traditional is moot. That's all.

[SportsInteLect]

SportsIntellect has difficulty in reading comprehension. He likes to fill in blanks that aren't there and switch words around. He is extremely misinformed on what this is all about. I can see that he has run into some bad people in his life who accused homosexuals of being bad people, or that it's OK to be mean to them. He is under the impression that those opposed to SSM are "homophobic" "bigoted" etc. Although there are people who are opposed to SSM and attack gays, i do not support the actions of these people. These people do no represent my views on this subject and I'm sorry that you have come to labell all those opposed to SSM as what you described above. That is simply not the case. Before I continue, i need to clarify something for him. I do not hate gays. Gays are to be treated like everybody else in society with respect and love. It is wrong to hate gays and it is wrong to accuse them of their disorder. To align this issue to racism makes n sense at all. I am strongly opposed to any form of racism. It is simply wrong because your race is not a disorder. You do not choose what race you are, but you do choose to pursue your homosexuality. Science has 0 proof that homosexuality is inherent, and even if it comes to discover it, it would still not rationalize marriage. People switch from being gay to becoming hetero, I've seen people with couples who have turned to homosexuality. It's quite obvious from a secular view that homosexuality is unnatural, self destructive, harmful to the family unit and society, and not procreative. Any objective observation of homosexuality would know this. This is why it is contrary to the meaning of marriage. I am not against homosexual couples. I am not against homosexual couples living together. BUT it cannot be the sacredness of what marriage is and the purpose it serves. When you change the meaning of marriage, you pose a great risk at what lies ahead. Marriage is something that needs to be valued and preserved, not changed after thousands of years because of single digit percentage of the population who's aim digs deeper that "equal rights", it is the desire to drive out religion all together in society. Homosexuals already have the ability for civil marriage and so this is not about them wanting to be married. This is liberal progressive agenda aimed at destroying religion, the family unit, and the stability of society that has been with us since time.

I am yet to receive a definition from those SSM supporters to come up with a definition of what marriage is. Define it legally before i even begin to go on further.

Liberal progressive agenda. LOL. I'm an old school republican libertarian. This country was founded on republican/libertarian principals and it was a libertarian who inspired the concept of the united states declaration of independence and the founding fathers all had libertarian anti-religious beliefs because it placed shackles on individualism and stopped the progress of humanity.

The united states was born with a declaration of independence that proclaimed, as a self-evident truth, that, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see it say, well not gay people though. People are misinformed and poorly educated. The republican party is the true party of freedom and progress for all.

Marriage is a commitment between two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. All that other bullshit attached to the definition is just that, bullshit. All that pleading ignorance bullshit doesn't work on me. You know damn well how you truly feel. All this talk about preserving marriage, family unit, stability of society is all bullshit. You know witches aren't real and the world isn't flat and pot doesn't make blacks and mexicans rape women. Bullshit scare tactic propaganda.

Government doesn't belong in the bedroom. The government should not regulate marriage at all. The government should not impose its "values" upon marriage but instead should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs. Denying rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. Marriage laws should treat every individual equally. Eliminate the government from marriage and this solves everything.

Changing the meaning of marriage will pose a great risk to what lies ahead? Really, like when white people said if you allow whites and blacks to marry it will harm and destroy society. Slavery predates written records and was a tradition that continued for thousands of years and people just like you fought to keep that tradition alive cuz they believed changing for a small percentage of the population was an idea to forcefully change society for the worst.

This debate isn't about marriage. Its about a religious homophobic agenda aimed at stopping the progress and evolution of equality in the human race. Its a battle between cultist bigots and people who think we are all monkeys born with certain instincts that been going on for years. If people want some cultist jim jones pedophile wearing a robe to say i pronounce you man and wife in front of people, i'm fine with it. Just take the government out of it and that eliminates the problem.

My two gay cousins where here at my house for easter. You must be terrified cuz both of them have KIDS! Oh the humanity. Their presence in my house didn't destroy the family unit. In fact it was the first time in 15 years we were all united together as a family and it was a special moment to experience. A little awkward but it just takes some getting used to.

I bet when a black man sat down next to a white man at the bar it was awkward for awhile and when whites saw blacks in public socializing with the rest of society it was an awkward experience for them back then. Now for most, its just an everyday thing and no biggie at all. If gay marriage and weed were legal. 20 years from now, no one would give a shit but a few nutjobs.

To compare cannibalism, bestiality, incest, or necrophilia to two consenting adults attracted to each other is insane and for a persons mind to equate the two is a sure sign of a mental disorder. You say you want gays to be treated like everybody else but believe they should not be allowed to marry like everybody else. If you are denying a person something that is not treating them equally dumb ass.

By saying that homosexuality isn't inherent, you believe a straight person can change their mind into becoming gay? F uck you're retarded.

No, what you see is a person confused and suppressing their sexual urges and pretending to be straight or you see a straight person pretending to be gay. Its an anomaly. The idea that people think you can fix gay people is some of the craziest bullshit ive ever heard. Its like a white supremacist christian cult group kidnapping me and taking me to their cult church/indoctrination compound. They sit me down and say "what gets you off?"

I say latina chicks, latina accents, brunette hair, fat nipples, milky titties, and tan lines. Those fuckers say "well that's wrong boy." By the end of your stay here, you're gonna like white chicks only, with Swedish accents, blonde hair, small nipples, fake hard titties, and no tan lines. I would say that shit is impossible cuz i was born this way. The chemicals and signals in my brain can't be changed to like something else. To actually think that people believe you can change peoples sexual instincts is insane.

[Seaweed]

Your responses are like a revolving door, no better yet, it's like you're looking at this issue through the wrong side of the binoculars so your whole image of marriage is distorted. You are part of a culture that does not value arguing as an avenue to discover the truth, instead, anything that disagrees with you (even with logical reasoning) is seen as a personal attack. Anything I have said, or will say, will just make you try to find something to counter it, even if it involves drawing on illegitimate comparisons or false labeling. People on your side of the argument are quick to toss around labels such as racist, bigot, and the such, even resorting to harassment and threats, whenever someone opposes your agendas.

Mothers and fathers compliment each other for raising children. Children require a mother and father. It is the child's natural right to have a mother and a father. Even where there are divorces, or when children are raised in single parent homes, the evidence clearly indicates the problems it creates for the children. The absence of one has proven to have devastating effect on children. Shouldn't a boy have a father to look up to? shouldn't a girl have a mother to look up to? Yes, there are heterosexual marriages with bad families, but this does not mean we should promote something that further encourages the destruction of the family unit. Divorce rates are double amongst homosexual couples than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples see their commitment as one between themselves, and not one that also involves the natural responsibility and commitment to their child. Not enough people are hearing the stories of the children being raised without a mother and a father. It is a serious story with consequences much more devastating than that of same-sex couples not being able to marry or adopt. You'll never hear this reported in the media. The media views the issue as the new "civil rights" movement like yourself, and nothing will be reported that may call homosexual marriage into question. Even the voices of children. The voices of children are always silenced by liberals, especially in abortion.

I only provided a glimpse of what occurs to these children, some background research with Social Science data will clarify it even more for you. You can see that throughout history, the human child has always been born to a mother and father. It is our natural design and the means by which human societies have grown and flourished throughout time. This is what you are seeking to change when you define marriage.

Even if you're not a theist (which I'm pretty sure you're not) you must admit that there is a design in nature. Things work a certain way with specific functions and purposes, things compliment each other in our world. This is the design given to a man and a woman to give order to the purpose of procreation. Whether you believe that design is by a creator or by natural selection, the evidence of design is clear. So we do not counter that design, or else it will lead to repercussions. Even if you are a Darwinian atheist believer in evolution and natural selection, then you would clearly see homosexuality as a threat to our species.

This is not about legal rights as they were given it in civil unions and rejected it. Their real motive is to get government to redefine religion and then pass laws establishing this state religion.The government can only offer legal contracts to what God has already defined. What SSM supporters want is a new set of moral and a new religion that don't come from God, but one created by man for the purpose of fulfilling their relativist view on what is right. All of which is a clear violation of your Constitution.SSM activists aren't happy with civil "marriage" because they want moral acceptance enforced by the government. What you fail to realize is the government does not define morals, religion, and pass new laws to create a new religion.

You claim marriage is a commitment between 2 people. Ha. If that's the case, then by your logic what legal rejection can you have of: not let pedophiles marry a 15,14 year old? How would that hurt you?Why not let polygamous people marry? How would that hurt you? why do we need only 2 people? Because that's how much it takes to compliment the sexual actions to procreate children and create a family. Why not let two cousins (or insert any perverse definition here) people marry? How would that hurt you? Your argument becomes any and all perversion must be allowed to be called a marriage as, after all, how would it hurt you? Marriage is about new human life. When a man and woman have sex they’re engaging in that sacred act that creates human life, even if none will be created in that particular act. It’s still sacred. All sexual activity must be ordered toward new human life. Just like infertile couples who sacrifice by not using artifical methods like vitro to force new life, homosexual people sacrifice by living chaste lives. All is for love and respect for new human life.When you get your sexuality in line with respect for human life, you get your soul in line with God, who is the Source of human life.

Bottom line: Natural Family = Foundation of Civilization, Weak family = Weak civilization

Marriage predates laws. Marriage licenses have only existed on any significant scale since the late 1920s. The government has no authority to change the definition of something that is not theirs to define in the first place. Ancient Greeks and even the Romans embraced homosexuality, but they never triedd to change the institution of marriage from being a union of one man and one woman to include same-sex unions because they knew how important and sacred marriage is for humanity.

If gay activists like you can try to change laws to meet their set of moral codes, then religions like Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Muslims etc can also work to create laws based upon the judeo-chritian values that make up western society.

The argument posed by the civil rights movement was not one of redefinition. It was about the equal application of existing definitions. In your example, no one at that counter was asking to be redefined as "white." They were fighting for the recognition of a natural truth, that all men are created equal, black, white, brown or beige. So that comparison is inaccurate. When we look at SSM, the movement attempt to redefine it asks to replace the truth with a lie, so that the government can impose a thin v

To the contrary, the movement to redefine marriage asks that we replace the truth of what marriage is with a lie, so that government can unilaterally impose a thin cover of social acceptance upon a lifestyle choice. SSM advocates are simply not the same caliber as the freedom riders of the 1950s and 1960. Their politics and activism are not in the same ballpark like you claim. In fact, It's not the same league. It's not even the same sport! Homosexuality is a mental disorder and homosexuals should be accepted and loved in society just like other people with mental disorders. When there are no limitations to equality, harm ensues. Morality is not relative There are rights and wrongs in society which is why we condemn such actions like rape, burning witches, child pornography, gay-bashing etc.

Liek i said earlier there is NO proof that homosexuality is innate and involuntary. In fact, there is MUCH proof that it isn't. Many homosexuals have abandoned their lifestyle and married the opposite sex, and even had and raised kids. So the evidence is that homosexuality is a choice, yet gay propagandists like yourself claim it not to be.

In the end, the homosexual movement to redefine marriage is an act of extreme separation of Church and State. It is a move to legitimize what was widely accepted as immoral by God's standards. It is the most insidious and dangerous threat to the common good today.

[Kermit]

So what is up with this little 6 year old peter puffer that wants to use the girl's room in school?

His mother and father support him wanting to be queer at only 6 years old.

[The iron sheik]

seaweed just can't help himself when it comes to babbling about pedophilia. It's really fascinating. I guess you could point out for the Nth time why it's really absurd to argue that people who aren't legally competent, aren't allowed to enter legal contracts. You keep driving in that excellent point slugger.

[SportsInteLect]

Your responses are like a revolving door, no better yet, it's like you're looking at this issue through the wrong side of the binoculars so your whole image of marriage is distorted. You are part of a culture that does not value arguing as an avenue to discover the truth, instead, anything that disagrees with you (even with logical reasoning) is seen as a personal attack. Anything I have said, or will say, will just make you try to find something to counter it, even if it involves drawing on illegitimate comparisons or false labeling. People on your side of the argument are quick to toss around labels such as racist, bigot, and the such, even resorting to harassment and threats, whenever someone opposes your agendas.

Mothers and fathers compliment each other for raising children. Children require a mother and father. It is the child's natural right to have a mother and a father. Even where there are divorces, or when children are raised in single parent homes, the evidence clearly indicates the problems it creates for the children. The absence of one has proven to have devastating effect on children. Shouldn't a boy have a father to look up to? shouldn't a girl have a mother to look up to? Yes, there are heterosexual marriages with bad families, but this does not mean we should promote something that further encourages the destruction of the family unit. Divorce rates are double amongst homosexual couples than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples see their commitment as one between themselves, and not one that also involves the natural responsibility and commitment to their child. Not enough people are hearing the stories of the children being raised without a mother and a father. It is a serious story with consequences much more devastating than that of same-sex couples not being able to marry or adopt. You'll never hear this reported in the media. The media views the issue as the new "civil rights" movement like yourself, and nothing will be reported that may call homosexual marriage into question. Even the voices of children. The voices of children are always silenced by liberals, especially in abortion.

I only provided a glimpse of what occurs to these children, some background research with Social Science data will clarify it even more for you. You can see that throughout history, the human child has always been born to a mother and father. It is our natural design and the means by which human societies have grown and flourished throughout time. This is what you are seeking to change when you define marriage.

Even if you're not a theist (which I'm pretty sure you're not) you must admit that there is a design in nature. Things work a certain way with specific functions and purposes, things compliment each other in our world. This is the design given to a man and a woman to give order to the purpose of procreation. Whether you believe that design is by a creator or by natural selection, the evidence of design is clear. So we do not counter that design, or else it will lead to repercussions. Even if you are a Darwinian atheist believer in evolution and natural selection, then you would clearly see homosexuality as a threat to our species.

This is not about legal rights as they were given it in civil unions and rejected it. Their real motive is to get government to redefine religion and then pass laws establishing this state religion.The government can only offer legal contracts to what God has already defined. What SSM supporters want is a new set of moral and a new religion that don't come from God, but one created by man for the purpose of fulfilling their relativist view on what is right. All of which is a clear violation of your Constitution.SSM activists aren't happy with civil "marriage" because they want moral acceptance enforced by the government. What you fail to realize is the government does not define morals, religion, and pass new laws to create a new religion.

You claim marriage is a commitment between 2 people. Ha. If that's the case, then by your logic what legal rejection can you have of: not let pedophiles marry a 15,14 year old? How would that hurt you?Why not let polygamous people marry? How would that hurt you? why do we need only 2 people? Because that's how much it takes to compliment the sexual actions to procreate children and create a family. Why not let two cousins (or insert any perverse definition here) people marry? How would that hurt you? Your argument becomes any and all perversion must be allowed to be called a marriage as, after all, how would it hurt you? Marriage is about new human life. When a man and woman have sex they’re engaging in that sacred act that creates human life, even if none will be created in that particular act. It’s still sacred. All sexual activity must be ordered toward new human life. Just like infertile couples who sacrifice by not using artifical methods like vitro to force new life, homosexual people sacrifice by living chaste lives. All is for love and respect for new human life.When you get your sexuality in line with respect for human life, you get your soul in line with God, who is the Source of human life.

Bottom line: Natural Family = Foundation of Civilization, Weak family = Weak civilization

Marriage predates laws. Marriage licenses have only existed on any significant scale since the late 1920s. The government has no authority to change the definition of something that is not theirs to define in the first place. Ancient Greeks and even the Romans embraced homosexuality, but they never triedd to change the institution of marriage from being a union of one man and one woman to include same-sex unions because they knew how important and sacred marriage is for humanity.

If gay activists like you can try to change laws to meet their set of moral codes, then religions like Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Muslims etc can also work to create laws based upon the judeo-chritian values that make up western society.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->The argument posed by the civil rights movement was not one of redefinition. It was about the equal application of existing definitions. In your example, no one at that counter was asking to be redefined as "white." They were fighting for the recognition of a natural truth, that all men are created equal, black, white, brown or beige. So that comparison is inaccurate. When we look at SSM, the movement attempt to redefine it asks to replace the truth with a lie, so that the government can impose a thin v

To the contrary, the movement to redefine marriage asks that we replace the truth of what marriage is with a lie, so that government can unilaterally impose a thin cover of social acceptance upon a lifestyle choice. SSM advocates are simply not the same caliber as the freedom riders of the 1950s and 1960. Their politics and activism are not in the same ballpark like you claim. In fact, It's not the same league. It's not even the same sport! Homosexuality is a mental disorder and homosexuals should be accepted and loved in society just like other people with mental disorders. When there are no limitations to equality, harm ensues. Morality is not relative There are rights and wrongs in society which is why we condemn such actions like rape, burning witches, child pornography, gay-bashing etc.<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Liek i said earlier there is NO proof that homosexuality is innate and involuntary. In fact, there is MUCH proof that it isn't. Many homosexuals have abandoned their lifestyle and married the opposite sex, and even had and raised kids. So the evidence is that homosexuality is a choice, yet gay propagandists like yourself claim it not to be.

In the end, the homosexual movement to redefine marriage is an act of extreme separation of Church and State. It is a move to legitimize what was widely accepted as immoral by God's standards. It is the most insidious and dangerous threat to the common good today.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;** </style> <![endif]-->



<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;** </style> <![endif]-->

My agenda is freedom, period. Your agenda is to force me and others to follow a set of standards created for cultists.

Wow... there is so much crazy to respond to that i don't even know where to start. You have a hard time grasping the words "all men are created equal" don't you. I'm labeled a liberal progressive for wanting to get religion out of my government. When the founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of my government to keep if from becoming a fascist theocracy but it became one any way. Pisses me the F'uck off. You have a hard time grasping that i'm an old school republican libertarian.

People think pot smokers don't have a right to smoke pot and that the government has a right to deny me that right. While alcohol is legal and i can drink freely. The government says you can be straight and get married drinking a beer but can't get married gay and smoking a joint. What a bunch of anti-american hypocrites. I guess that's why i'm so passionate about it. I understand how they feel in a way.

I never really knew, or thought i was, a "gay activist" until i started looking at it from their prospective. Gays get the same treatment as pot smokers. They tell me i'm going to hell. That i belong in prison. They want me dead and wish me harm. That i'm a threat to children and incapable of caring for children. That there's some thing wrong with me and need help. That i'm a horrible person. That my parents raised me wrong. They think they can change or fix me. They throw god in my face.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. I believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning, living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

We don't know what gods standards are cuz there is nothing ever written by "god" that exists. All there is, is stuff written by people. If you believe in "god", that means "god" created gay people, and in gods eyes they are his children and creations. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Just like there is no evidence that being straight is a choice. You monkeys claim to know the word of god and speak for god but have only seen things written by humans.

All religion was created by man and not "god", so you're speaking for "god" and "god" is not speaking for itself. So, what you're doing is using, what people said, "god said", and making your own set of codes and standards to fit your psychotic agenda. I don't want to create a new religion. I want to eliminate it from government. Just like it was intended from the start before it was hijacked by nutcases. Marriage is a commitment between "consenting adults" who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Speaking for "god" is a mental disorder and people who claim to speak for "god" is a mental disorder. And for people to use "god" to get what they want is a mental disorder. If "god" didn't want gays to exist, "god" would not have created them, and what you're doing is overruling what "god" intended. So, you're challenging "god" and gods work. By that logic, who are you to challenge "god"? You say that "god" has already defined?" Where is this evidence? What you mean is what some human defined.

The only way homosexuality as a threat to our species is if everyone that's newly born is male and if the female species goes extinct. Which is impossible. Imagine if i started saying, my invisible friend told me to do this, or do that. If i started telling people an invisible person told me to live a certain way and told me to force others to live a certain way. People would say i'm crazy right. That's how you and people like you sound.

I noticed you used the words "lifestyle choice." By that logic, you believe being straight is a lifestyle choice. You keep using gay people pretending to be straight and raising kids as an example. When all it is, is a gay person pretending to be straight. Just because a gay man has kids and has sex with a woman and marries a women doesn't mean his brain isn't gay. Respect for human life? How about you respect the rights of other humans.

Like i said, "When prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views are labeled as acceptable in certain situations. That sends a message to children that's its OK to be disgusting." That's exactly what you're advocating. I think you don't know the definitions of prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views. Look them up and read what you posted in this thread. If gay people get married, its not going to stop straight people from having kids and getting married. You act like being gay is contagious.

If the church wants to deny gays, fine, but the government should not regulate marriage at all. I don't care what people like you think is the way of "god" or what you think will happen to society. I care about freedom and equality. Denying rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. Look up the word discrimination, while your looking up prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist.

For a human to claim to speak on behalf of something that hasn't been proven to exist is psychotic. It amazes me how many people have some form of a fascist mental disorder. Christians and Muslims both have made this disorder popular. I call it psychotic-theo-fascism. People like this took my country and hijacked it and took a democracy that was founded on libertarian beliefs and turned it into a psychotic-theo-fascist policed state.

What people like you have is a "god" mental disorder. A dangerous form of psychosis that's a threat to all mankind.

This is America not China or Iran. I want to live in a Red, White, and Blue... Republican Libertarian United States of America not a Communist-Fascist-Theocracy, you sick F'uck!

[Fidel_CashFlow]

[Fidel_CashFlow]

sorry you all I been holding this gif in ever since the posts started to get real long... im amazed I went this long....


just wanted to try and bring a lil humor to what is lookin like a depressing thread

[pouyasophy]

White people need to get over the fact that some guys like dikk.

They also need to get over the fact that their women prefer guys of other races.

[Seaweed]

My agenda is freedom, period. Your agenda is to force me and others to follow a set of standards created for cultists.

Do you believe in freedom without limits? Are you free to drink anything you want? Yes. Are you free to drink alcohol and drive? No. Why? Because it inflicts harm on others and society. Unlimited freedom and choice do not exist in law. Life comes with sacrifices.

Wow... there is so much crazy to respond to that i don't even know where to start. You have a hard time grasping the words "all men are created equal" don't you. I'm labeled a liberal progressive for wanting to get religion out of my government. When the founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of my government to keep if from becoming a fascist theocracy but it became one any way. Pisses me the F'uck off. You have a hard time grasping that i'm an old school republican libertarian.

Religion existed before your founding fathers. Moral law is not created by the government. Your conscience can differentiate that certain acts are wrong. This is why we do not go around raping people, not only is rape wrong according to law, but we intrinsically know that there are limits to what we should be allowed to do with out bodies and that certain acts are wrong. This does not come from government, but we know this in our conscience. There are objective rights and wrongs according to nature. You can only push freedom so far before it harms society.

People think pot smokers don't have a right to smoke pot and that the government has a right to deny me that right. While alcohol is legal and i can drink freely. The government says you can be straight and get married drinking a beer but can't get married gay and smoking a joint. What a bunch of anti-american hypocrites. I guess that's why i'm so passionate about it. I understand how they feel in a way.

This is just a moronic comparison, and a very uneducated one i might add. One i won't even bother responding to.

I never really knew, or thought i was, a "gay activist" until i started looking at it from their prospective. Gays get the same treatment as pot smokers. They tell me i'm going to hell. That i belong in prison. They want me dead and wish me harm. That i'm a threat to children and incapable of caring for children. That there's some thing wrong with me and need help. That i'm a horrible person. That my parents raised me wrong. They think they can change or fix me. They throw god in my face.

I never said gay activists belong in prison. Gays are not horrible people, in fact there is nothing wrong with having gay friends. Gays deserve respect and love like everybody else but this does not mean we redefine marriage.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. I believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

I already disclaimed this absurd claim earlier. You are arguing in a circle. You can't redefine marriage without the government. If the government doesn't recognize your marriage legally, you can't receive any benefits. It can't be legal without the government. Even if the government recognizes SSM, it is NOT and will never be equal with the sacredness of marriage between one man and one woman. You can call it what you want, but it's simply not a marriage.

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning, living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

You talk about cooperating for the common good, but everything you are arguing for opposes the common good of society, new life, and civilization. You are promoting an act that encourages the destruction of moral values and civilization. How is that working for the common good? We must take responsibility for what we were born to do, the purpose of joining together and giving new life with the responsibility to care for that new life. Taking responsibility for the consequence of homosexual action means that it does not lead to procreation. So take that responsibility for your action and accept that consequence that you CANT have children, and therefore CANT be equal to heterosexual marriage and its purpose. Take responsibility for being born what you are and what your body is designed for. This is common sense.

We don't know what gods standards are cuz there is nothing ever written by "god" that exists. All there is, is stuff written by people. If you believe in "god", that means "god" created gay people, and in gods eyes they are his children and creations. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Just like there is no evidence that being straight is a choice. You monkeys claim to know the word of god and speak for god but have only seen things written by humans.

Even though I am religious, i always try to avoid bringing it into these topics (even though it is a big religious issue) because i know how people react to it (sadly). However, you are wrong. For example, you claim that i do not believe that gays are children of God. That is false. They are children of God and they deserve to be respected, loved, and we should not hate them. They are no different than me in that respect. When a baby is born missing a ligament, he is clearly not created equal to somebody with all their ligaments in that respect. But we are all equal in the sense that we are all created with an equal human nature that separates us from all species. This is what it means when all humans are created equal, A man is not created like a woman. Homosexuals, even if they claim to be born gay (which no evidence suggests as mentioned earlier), then it points again that it is just a disorder they have to accept and live with. They are not discriminated against. They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everybody else. They are fighting for something that isn't there. There are a lot of homosexuals that recognize their unatural desire, but they choose not to act on it because they know it is wrong, and also a sin. It's unnaturalness is recognized in the scientific proof in the harm it does to their bodies.

All religion was created by man and not "god", so you're speaking for "god" and "god" is not speaking for itself. So, what you're doing is using, what people said, "god said", and making your own set of codes and standards to fit your psychotic agenda. I don't want to create a new religion. I want to eliminate it from government. Just like it was intended from the start before it was hijacked by nutcases. Marriage is a commitment between "consenting adults" who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Another false claim. In the past man-made religion has failed. man-made religion has been man's search for God. It has been an attempt to create their own roads to God. When we look at Christianity (Catholicism in particular), it is not a man's search for God, but God's search for man. Jesus came down, died for our sins, was crucified, and rose from the dead. (even if you don't believe in this, it still does not make your original claim right), 2 billion Christians in the world today believe that Jesus is God, is part of the trinity, and is one of the 3 persons in God with the Father and Holy Spirit. So, again, Catholicism is based on the life of Jesus and his word that he is the Son of God, and whoever believeth on him shall never parish, but have everlasting life. It is not man's search for God, but God's search for man. Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross for us, in the same way, homosexuals carry a cross that they must sacrifice for humankind.

Speaking for "god" is a mental disorder and people who claim to speak for "god" is a mental disorder. And for people to use "god" to get what they want is a mental disorder. If "god" didn't want gays to exist, "god" would not have created them, and what you're doing is overruling what "god" intended. So, you're challenging "god" and gods work. By that logic, who are you to challenge "god"? You say that "god" has already defined?" Where is this evidence? What you mean is what some human defined.

The only way homosexuality as a threat to our species is if everyone that's newly born is male and if the female species goes extinct. Which is impossible. Imagine if i started saying, my invisible friend told me to do this, or do that. If i started telling people an invisible person told me to live a certain way and told me to force others to live a certain way. People would say i'm crazy right. That's how you and people like you sound.

I noticed you used the words "lifestyle choice." By that logic, you believe being straight is a lifestyle choice. You keep using gay people pretending to be straight and raising kids as an example. When all it is, is a gay person pretending to be straight. Just because a gay man has kids and has sex with a woman and marries a women doesn't mean his brain isn't gay. Respect for human life? How about you respect the rights of other humans.

Correct, I do beleive being straight is a lifestyle choice. Once again, it doesn't matter what demonic and sinful desires you have, you reject them for the greater good. The cases where gay's choose to restrict these desires and marry proves that they know this. I'm not saying they don't have a homosexual mind, they do and they can't change that. But it proves that it is possible to reject harmful desires, and live happy and fulfilling lives for the good of humanity.

Like i said, "When prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views are labeled as acceptable in certain situations. That sends a message to children that's its OK to be disgusting." That's exactly what you're advocating. I think you don't know the definitions of prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views. Look them up and read what you posted in this thread. If gay people get married, its not going to stop straight people from having kids and getting married. You act like being gay is contagious.

If the church wants to deny gays, fine, but the government should not regulate marriage at all. I don't care what people like you think is the way of "god" or what you think will happen to society. I care about freedom and equality. Denying rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. Look up the word discrimination, while your looking up prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist.

For a human to claim to speak on behalf of something that hasn't been proven to exist is psychotic. It amazes me how many people have some form of a fascist mental disorder. Christians and Muslims both have made this disorder popular. I call it psychotic-theo-fascism. People like this took my country and hijacked it and took a democracy that was founded on libertarian beliefs and turned it into a psychotic-theo-fascist policed state.

Can you prove God doesn't exist? No. In fact, if we were to prove God exists, it would just turn him into an object and make him unGod because he can be objectified. At best, you can claim to be an agnostic. God gave us free-will to do good and reject evil. God wants us to excersie that free will and do good and choose him. Religion is grounded on belief and faith. We keep pushing God out in society in all aspects, and then we say "hey, God show yourself to us and help me". Society is in a culture of death that is seeking to drive out the only stabilizing institution we have left. Being religious is not easy. We give up many sacrifices. That should tell you something about it. You don't have to be religious to oppose SSM but I hope you take time, reflect, and seek God's grace. I will pray for you this evening that I hope you try and find God in your life. The door is always open for you. God bless you.

What people like you have is a "god" mental disorder. A dangerous form of psychosis that's a threat to all mankind.

This is America not China or Iran. I want to live in a Red, White, and Blue... Republican Libertarian United States of America not a Communist-Fascist-Theocracy, you sick F'uck!

Never claimed that. Most Americans are religious, on your premise, most Americans are a threat to all mankind.


"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" -George Washington

My agenda is freedom, period. Your agenda is to force me and others to follow a set of standards created for cultists.

Do you believe in freedom without limits? Are you free to drink anything you want? Yes. Are you free to drink alcohol and drive? No. Why? Because it inflicts harm on others and society. Unlimited freedom and choice do not exist in law. Life comes with sacrifices.

Wow... there is so much crazy to respond to that i don't even know where to start. You have a hard time grasping the words "all men are created equal" don't you. I'm labeled a liberal progressive for wanting to get religion out of my government. When the founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of my government to keep if from becoming a fascist theocracy but it became one any way. Pisses me the F'uck off. You have a hard time grasping that i'm an old school republican libertarian.

Religion existed before your founding fathers. Moral law is not created by the government. Your conscience can differentiate that certain acts are wrong. This is why we do not go around raping people, not only is rape wrong according to law, but we intrinsically know that there are limits to what we should be allowed to do with our bodies and that certain acts are wrong. This does not come from government, but we know this in our conscience. There are objective rights and wrongs according to nature. You can only push freedom so far before it harms society.

People think pot smokers don't have a right to smoke pot and that the government has a right to deny me that right. While alcohol is legal and i can drink freely. The government says you can be straight and get married drinking a beer but can't get married gay and smoking a joint. What a bunch of anti-american hypocrites. I guess that's why i'm so passionate about it. I understand how they feel in a way.

This is just a moronic comparison, and a very uneducated one i might add. One i won't even bother responding to.

I never really knew, or thought i was, a "gay activist" until i started looking at it from their prospective. Gays get the same treatment as pot smokers. They tell me i'm going to hell. That i belong in prison. They want me dead and wish me harm. That i'm a threat to children and incapable of caring for children. That there's some thing wrong with me and need help. That i'm a horrible person. That my parents raised me wrong. They think they can change or fix me. They throw god in my face.

I never said gay activists belong in prison. Gays are not horrible people, in fact there is nothing wrong with having gay friends. Gays deserve respect and love like everybody else but this does not mean we redefine marriage.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. I believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

I already disclaimed this absurd claim earlier. You are arguing in a circle. You can't redefine marriage without the government. If the government doesn't recognize your marriage legally, you can't receive any benefits. It can't be legal without the government. Even if the government recognizes SSM, it is NOT and will never be equal with the sacredness of marriage between one man and one woman. You can call it what you want, but it's simply not a marriage.

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning, living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

You talk about cooperating for the common good, but everything you are arguing for opposes the common good of society, new life, and civilization. You are promoting an act that encourages the destruction of moral values and civilization. How is that working for the common good? We must take responsibility for what we were born to do, the purpose of joining together and giving new life with the responsibility to care for that new life. Taking responsibility for the consequence of homosexual action means that it does not lead to procreation. So take that responsibility for your action and accept that consequence that you CANT have children, and therefore CANT be equal to heterosexual marriage and its purpose. Take responsibility for being born what you are and what your body is designed for. This is common sense.

We don't know what gods standards are cuz there is nothing ever written by "god" that exists. All there is, is stuff written by people. If you believe in "god", that means "god" created gay people, and in gods eyes they are his children and creations. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Just like there is no evidence that being straight is a choice. You monkeys claim to know the word of god and speak for god but have only seen things written by humans.

Even though I am religious, i always try to avoid bringing it into these topics (even though it is a big religious issue) because i know how people react to it (sadly). However, you are wrong. For example, you claim that i do not believe that gays are children of God. That is false. They are children of God and they deserve to be respected, loved, and we should not hate them. They are no different than me in that respect. When a baby is born missing a ligament, he is clearly not created equal to somebody with all their ligaments in that respect. But we are all equal in the sense that we are all created with an equal human nature that separates us from all species. This is what it means when all humans are created equal, A man is not created like a woman. Homosexuals, even if they claim to be born gay (which no evidence suggests as mentioned earlier), then it points again that it is just a disorder they have to accept and live with. They are not discriminated against. They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everybody else. They are fighting for something that isn't there. There are a lot of homosexuals that recognize their unatural desire, but they choose not to act on it because they know it is wrong, and also a sin. It's unnaturalness is recognized in the scientific proof in the harm it does to their bodies.

All religion was created by man and not "god", so you're speaking for "god" and "god" is not speaking for itself. So, what you're doing is using, what people said, "god said", and making your own set of codes and standards to fit your psychotic agenda. I don't want to create a new religion. I want to eliminate it from government. Just like it was intended from the start before it was hijacked by nutcases. Marriage is a commitment between "consenting adults" who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Another false claim. In the past man-made religion has failed. man-made religion has been man's search for God. It has been an attempt to create their own roads to God. When we look at Christianity (Catholicism in particular), it is not a man's search for God, but God's search for man. Jesus came down, died for our sins, was crucified, and rose from the dead. (even if you don't believe in this, it still does not make your original claim right), 2 billion Christians in the world today believe that Jesus is God, is part of the trinity, and is one of the 3 persons in God with the Father and Holy Spirit. So, again, Catholicism is based on the life of Jesus and his word that he is the Son of God, and whoever believeth on him shall never parish, but have everlasting life. It is not man's search for God, but God's search for man. Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross for us, in the same way, homosexuals carry a cross that they must sacrifice for humankind.

Speaking for "god" is a mental disorder and people who claim to speak for "god" is a mental disorder. And for people to use "god" to get what they want is a mental disorder. If "god" didn't want gays to exist, "god" would not have created them, and what you're doing is overruling what "god" intended. So, you're challenging "god" and gods work. By that logic, who are you to challenge "god"? You say that "god" has already defined?" Where is this evidence? What you mean is what some human defined.

The only way homosexuality as a threat to our species is if everyone that's newly born is male and if the female species goes extinct. Which is impossible. Imagine if i started saying, my invisible friend told me to do this, or do that. If i started telling people an invisible person told me to live a certain way and told me to force others to live a certain way. People would say i'm crazy right. That's how you and people like you sound.

I noticed you used the words "lifestyle choice." By that logic, you believe being straight is a lifestyle choice. You keep using gay people pretending to be straight and raising kids as an example. When all it is, is a gay person pretending to be straight. Just because a gay man has kids and has sex with a woman and marries a women doesn't mean his brain isn't gay. Respect for human life? How about you respect the rights of other humans.

Correct, I do beleive being straight is a lifestyle choice. Once again, it doesn't matter what demonic and sinful desires you have, you reject them for the greater good. The cases where gay's choose to restrict these desires and marry proves that they know this. I'm not saying they don't have a homosexual mind, they do and they can't change that. But it proves that it is possible to reject harmful desires, and live happy and fulfilling lives for the good of humanity.

Like i said, "When prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views are labeled as acceptable in certain situations. That sends a message to children that's its OK to be disgusting." That's exactly what you're advocating. I think you don't know the definitions of prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist views. Look them up and read what you posted in this thread. If gay people get married, its not going to stop straight people from having kids and getting married. You act like being gay is contagious.

If the church wants to deny gays, fine, but the government should not regulate marriage at all. I don't care what people like you think is the way of "god" or what you think will happen to society. I care about freedom and equality. Denying rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. Look up the word discrimination, while your looking up prejudiced, bigoted, and supremacist.

For a human to claim to speak on behalf of something that hasn't been proven to exist is psychotic. It amazes me how many people have some form of a fascist mental disorder. Christians and Muslims both have made this disorder popular. I call it psychotic-theo-fascism. People like this took my country and hijacked it and took a democracy that was founded on libertarian beliefs and turned it into a psychotic-theo-fascist policed state.

Can you prove God doesn't exist? No. In fact, if we were to prove God exists, it would just turn him into an object and make him unGod because he can be objectified. At best, you can claim to be an agnostic. God gave us free-will to do good and reject evil. God wants us to excersie that free will and do good and choose him. Religion is grounded on belief and faith. We keep pushing God out in society in all aspects, and then we say "hey, God show yourself to us and help me". Society is in a culture of death that is seeking to drive out the only stabilizing institution we have left. Being religious is not easy. We give up many sacrifices. That should tell you something about it. You don't have to be religious to oppose SSM but I hope you take time, reflect, and seek God's grace. I will pray for you this evening that I hope you try and find God in your life. The door is always open for you. God bless you.

What people like you have is a "god" mental disorder. A dangerous form of psychosis that's a threat to all mankind.

This is America not China or Iran. I want to live in a Red, White, and Blue... Republican Libertarian United States of America not a Communist-Fascist-Theocracy, you sick F'uck!

Never claimed that. Most Americans are religious, on your premise, most Americans are a threat to all mankind.


"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" -George Washington

[Seaweed]

seaweed just can't help himself when it comes to babbling about pedophilia. It's really fascinating. I guess you could point out for the Nth time why it's really absurd to argue that people who aren't legally competent, aren't allowed to enter legal contracts. You keep driving in that excellent point slugger.

http://www.rethinksociety.com/govern...under-ca-bill/

[Fidel_CashFlow]

[Seaweed]

[Seaweed]

"I'm not Christian so this is not a biblical issue for me. its the knowledge of an inner moral compass. its un-natural and has nothing to do with skin color. its opposition as man falls from humanity and regresses from human to beast.There can be no logical basis for claiming a "right" to marriage. It's an absurd claim, easily defeated by logic and reason. In addition, such a "right" would require empowering government in a way that is unconstitutional and upside down to our founding philosophy of government." - Atheist

[Kermit]

If it was "God" that united a man and a woman, then it was also God that introduced incest to that man and that woman. If you're going to believe the stories, then you have to believe in them all.

[Seaweed]

If it was "God" that united a man and a woman, then it was also God that introduced incest to that man and that woman. If you're going to believe the stories, then you have to believe in them all.

I do. Incest was necessary in order for human civilization to flourish. Without it, we would not be talking right now. We're not here to question the decisions of God, because we do not judge him, he judges us.

Keep in mind there are 4 different types of interpretations of the bible in the Catholic Church, literal only being one of them. I'm not going to get into a debate on proving God's existence in this thread, that would just go back and forth forever. Let's stick to the topic.

[Seaweed]

Anyways, I'm done with this thread. I've said everything I needed to say with logical reasoning to prove that SSM is wrong. You don't have to agree with me, but I hope I've made some people re-think this issue who have viewed this thread. Either way, i enjoyed seeing your side of the issue. You verified a lot for me.

[SportsInteLect]

Seaweed...

What George Washington was saying is that people are crazy and need something to control them. At that time, it was, i guess, necessary to control the population at that point in time.

Back then, rape, torture, molestation, public execution, and murder were common and accepted. The government needed a way to control people. They created a fictional story to control the masses. It did was was necessary to stabilize society at that primitive time and is no longer needed.

I don't need the government or religion to tell me whats right or wrong. My conscience does that on its own.

Of course, you need laws but that's not what this topic is about. There should be laws on freedom of religion from reading this. The harm religion causes is the continued demise of all mankind.

Gay marriage should be legal and religion should be against the law. I look at the harm religion has done to society. Religion inflicts more harm on society than gays could possibly ever could or currently do.

You don't get it do you. Either the government recognizes same sex marriage or it doesn't recognize marriage at all for anyone. If the church wants to continue marriage, after the government doesn't, fine. The church can do whatever the hell they wish as long as the government is not involved. Religion and government cannot co-exist in a democracy.

If the government stays out of marriage there is no act to promote. That solves everything.

God's search for man? What the hell does that even mean? Humans, say Jesus is the son of god and there is no evidence that proves that Jesus is the son of god. What a bunch of crazy people on mushrooms said, proves nothing.

A human claimed to be the son of god and other humans believed it with no proof. I'm sorry, i don't take what a human being said, seriously. History says man lies all the time you know.

If Jesus was the son of god, then the magician Criss Angel is the son of god. If i was to go around saying Criss Angel is the son of god. People would say i'm nuts. Ive seen than man do some crazy shit.

Demonic is another word made up by humans. If i went around saying boogeyman desires. People would call me crazy.

Gay people pretending to be straight proves other humans influence on them. Its sad, but people easily force themselves into being something they are not, by making themselves feel guilty and ashamed, when they shouldn't be, cuz of what other people told them.

Religion is grounded on humans believing in what a human said, with no evidence and spreading psychosis. Religion stabilizes nothing. In fact, it causes division, psychosis, bigotry, racism, war, and death. Nothing has caused more harm to the world than religion and nothing ever will.

Ive done great without religion in my life. Its freed my mind and opened my eyes to reality.

Its sad that its the year 2013 and people like you are still stuck in a primitive state.

You use words like logical, reasoning, rationale, and intellectual.

When nothing you have said in this thread is based on logic, reasoning, rational, or intellect.

Your entire stance is based on fiction and psychosis.

[The iron sheik]

http://www.rethinksociety.com/govern...under-ca-bill/

well thank you for the irrelevant news item of the day, can't have enough of those

PS. Pedophilia, regardless of the stance of it being a sexual orientation or a mental illness or a perversion, isn't illegal. Thinking isn't illegal, the act of raping children is. Hope this helps.

[The iron sheik]

Also, here is something really entry-level for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[nosniboR11]

hmmmmm, crazy gays need to seriously ask god for forgiveness

Romans 1:28 thru 32

28 futhermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, inslont, arrogent and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil;they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless, 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve DEATH, they not only continue to do those very things but also approve of those who practice them.