anti gay marriage ad

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65332 wrote:

I'm not opposing gay marriage or tax benefits or claiming that tax benefits are the reason ppl get married. And the way G-man negatively stereotypes gays to make them into a caricature makes it clear that he's a homophobe. All i'm saying is that if one opposes tax benefits in general, I still think it's ok to take them.

Sorry, I was just putting realistic words to the actual definition of homosexuality. It is an "activity" indulged in by choice. It's not like being black or Indian or Mexican or Irish or any group ever discriminated against based on the color of skin or belief system. It is based solely on a choice of activity. Not deserving of consideration of benefits provided by others. It would seem that it is it's own benefit and that should be sufficient.
But, not to seen as squirming away from your accusation. I am homophobic based on my opinion that homosexuality has nothing positive to offer society.
Other than gratification for it's participants.
If the acts of homosexuals are worthy of benefits, then perhaps the acts of people indulging in heterosexual acts should be considered for benefits at the expense of others simply because they indulge in the act.

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

"Sorry, I was just putting realistic words to the actual definition of homosexuality. It is an "activity" indulged in by choice."

No. "Homosexuality" is the quality or state of being homosexual, just like "geniality" is the quality or state of being genial. It's not an act. And no; people don't choose their sexual preference. They can choose whether to act on it of course. But how many ppl would want to go thru life dating/ marrying the gender they aren't attracted to? Not most.

"I am homophobic based on my opinion that homosexuality has nothing positive to offer society."

It's not about society. People don't get into relationships because they're trying to offer something positive to society. People get into relationships because they think they'll be happier in the relationship than if they were not in the relationship. Duh.

"If the acts of homosexuals are worthy of benefits, then perhaps the acts of people indulging in heterosexual acts should be considered for benefits at the expense of others simply because they indulge in the act."

No, because no one gets benefits for having sex. They get benefits for being married (a legal contract between two ppl who are in a relationship). Duh.

If you weren't a homophobe, you wouldn't be making such dumb, warped arguments.

1 Reply

@NotHereForLong,

"Who cares that creeps who can't figure out how their parts work or that round doesn't work in square.... They add nothing to the gene pool nor society except for pornographic marches and a few diseases.... Let the nasties disease themselves into existence."

Homophobia. End of story.

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65343 wrote:

If someone thinks something is morally wrong, then they're a hypocrite if they do it. But that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about disagreeing with policy. If your own personal actions aren't going to change the policy or the results of the policy, then they're somewhat irrelevant. That's just how i see it... probably because i'm a pessimistic cynic.

Its not disagreeing with policy. Everyone disagrees with "policy" in one form or fashion. This is about disagreeing with policy for those that are different from you. This is about denying somebody something you enjoy because you disagree with them, not the policy.

There is a difference.

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65359 wrote:

No, because no one gets benefits for having sex. They get benefits for being married (a legal contract between two ppl who are in a relationship). Duh.

If you weren't a homophobe, you wouldn't be making such dumb, warped arguments.

You're saying that homos have sanctity for the act of marriage because of the moral value of it? Or the legal value?
Having children together, procreating is obviously not a consideration. So, what is the motivation if not financial lechery? Admirable, heh?
BTW, I could give a poop less if you consider me homophobic. They are safe if they maintain a distance from me.

2 Replies

@g-man,

g-man;65449 wrote:

You're saying that homos have sanctity for the act of marriage because of the moral value of it? Or the legal value?
Having children together, procreating is obviously not a consideration. So, what is the motivation if not financial lechery? Admirable, heh?
BTW, I could give a poop less if you consider me homophobic. They are safe if they maintain a distance from me.

So you would inflict harm upon a person because they have a different sexual preference to you and they came with in a certain radius of yourself?

Yup that's rational,

Methinks ye doth protest too much Wink

0 Replies

@g-man,

g-man;65449 wrote:

You're saying that homos have sanctity for the act of marriage because of the moral value of it? Or the legal value?
Having children together, procreating is obviously not a consideration. So, what is the motivation if not financial lechery? Admirable, heh?
BTW, I could give a poop less if you consider me homophobic. They are safe if they maintain a distance from me.

So all opposite-sex marriages are only in it for the kids, right?

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

[SIZE="5"]GAY WHITE POWER[/SIZE] :headbang:

[SIZE="3"]Would you all agree that the POWER of White Supremacy leaves Black homosexuals wallowing in copulatory faeces and content, if not proud, to be called "sh1tface" by their White Superiors while these hostage Black homosexuals continue to work consciously or unconsciously to promote and defend White Supremacy?

Think carefully. :scratchchin:

Answer intelligently. :bangin:

What sayest thou? (What say you?)

What say ye? (What say you all?)[/SIZE]

0 Replies

anti gay marriage ad

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know