Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

That's a steaming pile of bull$hit
If marriage were about procreation, people above a certain age wouldn't be allowed to marry. We'd require fertility tests as part of application for a marriage license. Procreation would be mentioned in the atypical generic wedding ceremony, if not in the vows.

The reality is that bigots used to say marriage could only happen between two people of the same race. That changed, so today's bigots have a slightly different tune in order to ensure another minority is limited in ways they are not.

 

Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. Or like you cant resist the allure of every strawman you can think of. I said marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is all and exclusively about procreation. Not marriage itself. Just like marriages exclusion of closely related couples is all about the potential of procreation and potential genetic defects.

 

Really? I didn't realize that the whole issue was "long settled"...
My confusion may stem from the fact that there are a lot of morons like this getting exposure and being heralded as "community leaders": http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Inhx8tlmapo
Or maybe my confusion stems from the fact that gay people still have a harder time getting married in most of the country than straight people do.

I'm sure you'd love the issue to die down and go away. The only time that's likely to happen is when it's no longer an issue.

 

Well good, except for old people or infertile people. But we do have improvement in science to help infertile people and old people (if they want) so "procreation" is available for all marriages including same-sex marriages.

 

Any two people can procreate using science and the purchase of semen and eggs, or rental of a uterus. Sooo why "gay marriage" as opposed to marriage for any two consenting adults?

 

Oh my, what a good answer! I didn't see this before. Thanks, Unifier.
I wonder if you ever got an elucidating answer to your question. I have no doubt that you didn't. Though I imagine a few tried.

 

Do you have a document that you just copy and paste your responses from? You've said the exact same thing a couple of thousand times near as I can tell.

 

“No, after years of debating the issue and Homos saying they were born that way, I strongly suspect there is a genetic component, and there is an opposite to what you said, ‘You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.’” (me)

“You want to delay it because you are against gay marriages.” (bomac)

“I support LGBT marriage.” (me)

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uch-big-issue-many-you-70.html#post1062683419

At some point regardless of the consequences someone just has to say, you are a troll.

 

I think you should change your username to Logician 0, and here's why:

The wrong thing about no marriage between races is that racism is wrong.
The wrong thing about homosexual marriage is that homosexuality is wrong.

Homosexuality is like littering or refusing to recycle. If only a small percentage of humans take part in those things, no big deal in a realistic way.
But if EVERYONE took part, the world would be in a bigger mess than it ever has been.

Liberals can understand why recycling, and why avoiding littering start with the individual, and even though one person recycling means very little by itself, it is a start, and it must be done by all to clean up the planet.

They SHOULD be able to understand that avoiding homosexuality starts with the individual too.

 

But once again, you are incredibly inconsistent because not every couple who gets married even has the potential for procreation. No consideration for sterile couples. No consideration for elderly couples. No consideration for adoption. According to you, a couple must procreate in order for their marriage to be valid. No consideration for artificial insemination. All of these loose ends just get ignored as you cling to your fake justification for discriminatory laws. Gosh, it's almost admirable how you cling to this. You are persistent, I will give you that.

But that's okay, inconsistencies and prejudices like this will eventually be corrected, as all errors are.

I really just have to laugh at how utterly pathetic this line of reasoning is. I've heard five year olds make better and more consistent cases for why they should be allowed to have a cookie.

According to you, if either her or the man she remarries are unable to have children, they should not be allowed to be married at all.

 

And probably as far as you can tell, you yourself have FAILED a couple of thousand times to be able to give a reason that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior. Evolution certainly seemed to create the male and female bodies to accompany male/female sex rather than male/male or female/female. So maybe you can try again to explain how homosexuality is "natural"?

And I'm glad that I don't have to stick my thing-a-ma-jig in my wife's bu*thole in order to get her pregnant every time. Thank you, evolution.

I don't think Evolution even provided for a lubricant in the anal cavity, in order to facilitate ease of entry for another man. Maybe evolution didn't intend homosexuality. Hm.

 

Duh. Gay marriage IS two consenting adults. Finally you agree with us.

 

It's not ALL about procreation. Men and women have different qualities. And children should be raised by both these sets of qualities. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for this. Marriage between two men would not be. If every marriage won't produce children, that does NOT mean that men and women w/o kids shouldn't get married too, but the fact still stands that a precedent for man/man marriage should NOT be set, because the man/man team is missing the important female qualities, whether they adopt kids or not. Someday down the road, a man/man marriage MAY have kids and they would be unable to give the female qualities.

And is it better to have two loving males raising a kid instead of an uncaring orphanage? Well, IF the orphanage is uncaring and the two males caring, yes, maybe. Though the way that some/most of us see it, you're putting the kid into close contact with two men who have severe psychological issues in at least one area of human life, and that's never a GOOD thing, is it?

It's true, if you feel that homosexuality is perfectly normal and can be accomplished without having to have an emotional screw loose, then it's no wonder you think gay marriage is ok. And it WOULD be, if homosexual was normal.

Of course, if it's normal and natural, why haven't you at least TRIED it? You'll try a new vegetable, video game or chick to sleep with, before you are actually SURE what it's like, won't you?

You might find homosexual sex SOOO satisfyingly naughty......
You never know. And if it's "natural"......hey, go for it!

 

God, you changed it again. Original post: there is an opposite to what you said[/b], "You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.”

See, the devious subtle changes. Do you alway debate this way? That is pitiful.

At some point regardless of the consequences someone just has to say, you are a troll

You can insult me all you want but your techniques show what you are
.

 

The irony is that many of the Catholic priests are gay. Who else would chose a lifestyle where you couldn't get married or have children?

It's the perfect cover for closeted gay men.

 

So you're saying that only gays have anal sex? LOL

- - - Updated - - -

If you believe that then you should outlaw heterosexual premarital sex and divorce since there are millions of children who are being raised by single parents in this country.

 

Actually you are wrong. One is about race and the other is about gender. Both are protected by our Constitution. You want to discriminate based on gender instead of race. If a gender picks the other gender, you are okay with it. But, if a gender picks the same gender, you want to discriminate.

They SHOULD be able to understand that avoiding homosexuality starts with the individual too

How do you avoid gay people? Or do you have the neanderthal view that individuals choose what gender that they are attracted to?

 

Soooooo why "gay marriage" instead of marriage for any two consenting adults?

 

Actually that might not be true. I know some devout gay Catholics who avoided the priesthood because they couldn't reconcile their Church beliefs with their own sexuality.

 

The limitation to heterosexual couples was because not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and right up until Lawrence v. Texas a crime. Death is still the penalty in both the Old Testament and the Koran.

Marriage is about family, the first unit of civilization, and can be about not sharing body fluids for a plague, about a mate having a basic human right to drive a stake through the unsuspecting sleeping heart of a vampire usurer that enters the home on the invite of one to create a Visa national treasure sweepstakes blood bank in the attic to suck the One Flesh, about two lungs, kidneys, or hearts are better than one, to have a helper in sickness and in health, and passing on to the chosen or offspring the estate or lifetime of achievement for the betterment of mankind instead of it being auctioned off.

If the legislatures handle the matter most objections dealing with children can be dealt with far easier than the blanket ruling of a tyranny of nine appointed for life Platonic philosopher kings ruling by edict, that two men are equal to a man and woman, with regard to optimal child rearing.

 

The issue is marriage. The adjective is an easier way to discuss that aspect instead of saying "marriage where the two people have the same gender".

 

Once again, you cannot create exclusionary laws for "what if" scenarios. You say that children cannot be raised in same-sex two parent households, but honestly, how do you know? The research surely does not agree with you. It may offend your sensibilities because it's a relatively new family dynamic(because it simply wasn't possible out in the open in the past), and because you find homosexuals to be subjectively offensive to you, but these things are not evidence of anything except that you don't like gay people. That's fine, it's your right, and nobody should be expected to like anybody.

I also see that you have glossed over the part where people not planning on or not able to have children are still perfectly able to get married....as long as they are opposite sex, because opposite sex people make the best parents even when they have no children.

So let me ask you this. Imagine same-sex marriage is legalized across the country, and the process of adoption for same-sex couples functions exactly the same as it does for an opposite sex couple(no additional requirements, no extra long wait times(more than an opposite sex couple would wait anyway), and no local or state laws that prohibit it). What is your prediction on what would happen in five years time, in ten years time? And, are you able to back up this prediction with evidence?

Remember, finding something offensive, especially something that you are not in any way forced or even coerced to experience, is not a justification for an exclusionary law. It's why those laws always get struck down eventually.

Severe psychological issues only according to you, because that's how you have decided you want to refer to someone's innate sexuality. The only people buying that line of poop are the people who already dislike homosexuals and are looking for something they consider to be objective to justify their dislike. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.

Normal is not an objective term, and it's a word that means different things to different people. This again, is simply your attempt to portray your dislike of gay people as something that's "out of your hands" so to speak. Like the poop you wrote above, the only people believing this are the people who already dislike gay people.

Who's to say I have not had a sexual experience with a man? However, having a sexual experience with a person of the same sex does not make that person gay. Being gay is much deeper than that, and much more encompassing than just sexual pleasure, unless you're equating ALL love to nothing but sex. Is all love no deeper than sexual pleasure? Is that what you're saying?

But for me, my emotional and physical attractions are with women. Had I been born gay, it would be with men. I had no choice in the matter. I most certainly did not pick heterosexuality.

Actually, I don't get the slightest bit of pleasure from two men kissing or having sex. I'd actually prefer not to see it. Two women, well, I AM a straight man afterall. But see, just because I don't enjoy gay sex, does not mean I want to discriminate against gay people. Why would it? If I don't like gay sex....I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT OR WATCH IT! Neither myself nor anyone else has the right to never have to deal with something they don't like. I find it arrogant and extremely petty that some think they are so important that other people should be denied by the law the same rights as they enjoy simply because they find gay sex yucky.

You know something? The only people who like discriminatory laws, are the ones who want them enacted against other people. I have a feeling that if you were in some sort of minority being unfairly discriminated against by an arrogant petty majority just because of how you were born, you'd be singing a different tune, yes sir you would. Consider yourself lucky I suppose that you're on the discriminatory side, but the problem with allowing the law to be used in that manner is that there is absolutely no guarantee that in the future, it won't be used the same way against you.

 

No, after years of debating the issue and Homos saying they were born that way, I strongly suspect there is a genetic component, and there is an opposite to what you said, “You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.”

I just copy and pasted that directly from the first source at post #694:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uch-big-issue-many-you-70.html#post1062683419

The only change was to bold the part that proves you are a troll. Go back and reread it.

 

Do you hate your marriage that much?

than the blanket ruling of a tyranny of nine appointed for life Platonic philosopher kings ruling by edict that two men are equal to a man and woman with regard to optimal child rearing

Did you object to the Citizen United ruling? And I do not believe that the SCOTUS will be ruling on "optimal child rearing". They will be ruling on whether DOMA or Prop 8 are unconstitutional based on gender protection and on whether the plaintiffs have legal standing.

 

Your inability to read is your problem.