California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Those are your words, not mine. I have complete empathy for Rex. I find him to be a creative and considerate individual. Why would you bring this up? It's not relevant to the post you replied to.
Obviously you don't actually read my posts. I have made few assertions. Sorry if you can't remember. I remember your zingers fairly well.

Didn't say that. The Ethical Culture movement, should you care to investigate, is comfortable with theism. Its focus is on ethics. I marvel at your use of the word 'silly'.

I can see this to be true but why do you claim it to be non theism? not that I disagree with you.

I believe that is part of their statement.

If that is their statement then I would have to agree with them on that statement only because I see a difference between theism, atheism and ethics.

Ethics is altogether different than any subject but I do think that other subjects can help our understanding of morality.

Did you actually take the time to consider the link I shared with you or did you dismiss it all together?

I'm going to address RedRexs' ridiculous response to my question from earlier.

You claim the benefits of marriage are to help raise children. This is patently absurd. If what you're saying is true, we would provide every relationship (regardless of marriage) with those benefits as long as they were raising a child. But we don't do we? That's because the benefits that are derived from marriage are provided for the express purpose of CREATING a child.

For instance, let's look at the benefit of providing SS or disability to a spouse if the other spouse is receiving it and dies. We do so because if a couple is deciding whether or not to have a child or two children or a third child, they may say, what happens if you get disabled and then pass away? The couple can say, that's okay because we will still receive that disability for the other spouse. The same is true for essentially every single benefit that's provided for marriage. They're provided to promote the behavior of child creation.

You stated gays contribute to society as much as straights... that's simply false. You've never met two gay people that have produced a child by themselves... ever. So your assertion that they contribute as much to society as straight people is simply false.

How about you try your "reasoning" again.

You asked why civili unions are not acceptable. They are not acceptable because they are being provided benefits for nothing. Why do we provide benefits? Do we just give married couples money because we like to give away our money? Of course not, the reason a society gives a subsidy is because they are attempting to promote a behavior that is more valuable to society than the money society is paying out to promote the behavior. There is only ONE behavior that provides enough of a benefit to make up for what couples take out in marriage benefits.

I pointed this out earlier... Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Homosexuals simply do not qualify to receive those benefits because they do not provide the behavior that we're paying for.

I also pointed out that by making them civil unoins, you provide them with the right to adopt children.... and I've alrady pointed out the grossly disturbing statistics of pedophilia in the homosexual community.

Rexred you've ran from this question during this entire thread...

Do you TRULY believe in equality for all like you are claiming? If you claim that you do, then what is your opinion on adult, consentual incestuous couples that want to get married?

Clearly you must think they deserve this equality ideal you're expressing right?

I mean you can keep running away from the questino, but I'm going to keep asking it... becausel ike most homosexuals attempting to make this argument... you're being dishonest.

Red... you also made the argument that homosexuality occurs in nature... so it must be okay...

That's so incredibly absurd I can't believe anyone would make that argument.

There is incest in nature, pedophilia in nature... there is gang rape and genocide in nature.... That does NOT make those behaviors acceptable in any way shape or form.

For the record... we do not have a gender pay gap. In fact when you correct for the fact that women only work on average 45 hours a week whereas males work on average nearly 60 hours a week. Most women are getting paid MORE than their male counterparts.

You asked how a behavior cannot be harmful to an individual directly... it's really quite simple... homosexual marriage may not cause their neighbor to be hurt physically or directly by their actions... however what they can do is drain the system by taking more out of the system in marriage benefits than they put into the system in taxes. That causes the rest of society, their neighbor included, to have to pay MORE into the system because the homosexuals are paying less. Thereby the homosexuals indirectly harmed their neighbor.

Those are leaders of the homosexual rights movement... yeah... we need to accept what those immoral, degenerate retards are saying in regards to morality and equality.

Accepting homosexuality is the step before accepting pedophilia. Historically this has been true in nearly every culture that began accepting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle... soon afterwards they began accepting pedophilia as just another alternative lifestyle. This is not a coincidence... homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand (no pun intended) and that has been true for thousands of years.

History is simply repeating itself. And like all of those other societies... we will either recognize the lechery of homosexual behavior or we will be destroyed.

That seems a bit silly.

You seem to be stereotyping people based on the absurd statements of so called leaders.

How would you like people to stereotype your group of people based on what Todd Akin said?

What the first speaker said very well may be true. He was talking about sex not rape.

in case you haven't been paying attention people in this very thread have been doing exactly that...including yourself. You simply use churches and church leaders in the place of homosexual advocates and their leaders.

And if the homosexual community didn't agree with what these people said...why aren't they completely disavowed and ostracized? Because many in the homosexual community completely agree with them.

"What the first speaker said very well may be true. He was talking about sex not rape."

I can not believe you just said that.

You see folks... here is a PERFECT example of what I've been saying. Homosexuals and their advocates will use the acceptance of homosexuality to attempt to justify, rationalize and validate having sex with children. Once you accept homosexuality... they will then start to argue that children who want to have sex with adults aren't actually being raped, they're choosing to have sex with them. And if they're choosing to have sex with those adults then it's perfectly acceptable. They'll start to argue for a lowering of the age of consent until eventually they remove it all together. They'll then be free to rape children at will. It's actually already started. They've already begun advocating for it.

This is the type of immoral, debase ideologies that you encounter when you start to accept homosexuality.

You make me sick.

You think that is bad after reading what Allen Ginsberg said I can interpret it to mean many things.

(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."

Considering it occurs in nature it is absurd to say it is unnatural...

And how many idiot bisexuals and straights think the same way?