Who doesn't back gay marriage?

I doubt there will ever be a time without "rampant heterosexuality", Spendius. And I dare say that thinking ladies only have hope without heterosexuality is disregarding the wisdom of Gloria Steinem:

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. "

He totally misses JLNobody's point:





Ergo, Shadow X is gay, at least still in the closet...... But, I ignore it. Besides being a bigot and a racist, he is also a sexist.

And besides, Frank,

No you're not. In fact you're using a logical fallacy. You're creating a strawman (a weak one at that). You're trying to state that I'm arguing we should provide incentives for people to have children. That's not the point. The point is that we are providing people with benefits to produce a situation in which it makes it more likely that they will produce multiple revenue streams that are beneficial to society. We are not taking money from one portion of the population and giving it to another one because people like getting benefits. That's incredibly absurd.



Again that's not the point. Let me see if I can explain it to you another way. I don't believe anyone should receive welfare because I'm a pure capitalist. However, I DO understand the argument that some people may have for receiving welfare (they're handicapped or were victims of a natural disaster outside of their control that left them destitute and situations like that). I can understand why it may be necessary to provide them with welfare, even though I may not agree with it. However, if a group of lazy people just didn't want to work and came in crying about equality and equal rights and that they should be able to receive those same welfare benefits that those people who actually need them received... I'm going to have a problem with that. I'm certainly not going to allow a group that has absolutely no justification WHATSOEVER to receive those benefits by kicking their feet, screaming about equality and trying to STEAL money out of my pocket.



And please explain to me why my disagreement with homosexual marriage makes me a close-minded bigot but your disagreement with incestuous marriage doesn't make you one?

I got the point. However, I thought it was redundant to ask... again, the same basic question I asked all of you that you simply conveniently ignore.

If thinking that homosexuality is "icky" means you're a closet homosexual, then does thinking child rape is "icky" mean you're a closet child rapist?

And if not, why?

If you don't want welfare for people who won't work you either find everybody a job or sweep people up from the gutter and increase punishments for theft.

Ergo-- a centrally planned economy.

What does a man need a man like?

I think Gloria means a woman such as herself. An ex-bunny girl no less.

What does Nancy say?

Well, if you call children "multiple revenue streams," I suppose I'm not surprised you're not married. The mystery is how you could have convinced some woman to help you create your own revenue stream.

In any event, that's not what you said before:


If "revenue streams" aren't children, then what exactly is it that homosexuals can't produce?


No you're not. You defend government handouts to married couples. If you were a "pure capitalist," you wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage that you didn't have with all marriage. The fact that you differentiate between the two merely highlights your hypocrisy.


Your opposition to gay marriage doesn't make you a close-minded bigot. Your bigotry makes you a close-minded bigot.


Because I'm not prejudiced against a class of people.

I really don't have a problem with marriages beyond two degrees of relationship. Marriages (or sexual relationships) within that limit, however, are far too frequently the result of dysfunctional family dynamics, manipulation, and lack of consent. The state can step in and create a rule that prohibits all such relationships when that rule, on the whole, produces more benefit than detriment for society.

But please, if you want to argue that incestuous unions are OK with you because they can produce bouncing baby "revenue streams," I encourage you to do so.

The 95% figure is supported by US Census numbers where 5% self identify as homosexual. (apples)
Your argument is everyone that commits a male on male sexual act even if it's only inappropriate touching is homosexual. (oranges)
You then attempt to use your definition to reach a conclusion about the first definition which is bananas on your part.

Only if you mix your definitions of homosexual and heterosexual, child and adult and reach faulty conclusions

Like Beau Brummell...she says (asks, actually), "Who's your fat friend?"

You haven't established that at all. You have made up numbers based on your own definitions and fudging of facts.

Children molesting other children aren't established as homosexuals since they would not self identify under the 5% figure which comes from US Census. 40% of the molestations of children are by other juveniles according to the report you want to use. Clearly a large percentage of molestations are not done by the 5% of homosexuals you claim in your 16-40% number.


Children only make up 24% of the population but make up 40% of child molestations. Children make up a larger percentage of molesters than their population in general. What does that say about your argument? Does that mean children shouldn't be around other children?

Maybe you didn't read the original post. Every individual is a potential revenue stream when looked at from an economic point of view. That is the point of providing benefits. As I pointed out before, the creation of a child, or a revenue stream, can provide trillions of dollars and sustain society for thousands of years (theoretically) over time. THAT is the benefit we're paying for. THAT is the beneift homosexuals are incapable of providing in and of themselves without the benefit of the heterosexual relationship (at least on some level).



Uhh that is exactly what I said before... what are you talking about? How are those two ideas contradictory? Are you even reading what I'm typing?



Children ARE revenue streams... that's the point. Again... what are you talking about?



I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before you stop repeating the same lie over and over again. Maybe putting it in capital letters will help.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MARRIAGE SUBSIDIES FOR ANYONE. NEITHER HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL. HOWEVER I UNDERSTAND THAT I LIVE IN A SOCIETY THAT IS NOT PURELY CAPITALIST AND THERE ARE SOME PROGRAMS WHICH SOCIETY WANTS TO INSTITUTE WHICH ARE BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY. ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS BEING MARRIAGE BENEFITS. WHILE I CAN ACCEPT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE BENEFITS (the benefit of child creation), THERE IS NO SUCH JUSTIFICATION FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO RECEIVE THOSE BENEFITS, AS SUCH THEY HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO THEM.

Hopefully you can understand it that time and stop repeating the same BS lie over and over again attempting to discredit an argument that I'm not making.



That doesn't even make any sense... actually it does, you're just flailing now because you're getting your butt kicked in an argument about homosexuality. And EVERY homosexual supporter will eventually devolve into that position of calling someone else a bigot, because you cannot successfully defend your position. You're a perfect example. You start out attempting to justify your position. You then recognize that you don't have the numbers, the statistics or the reasoning to justify your position on homosexual marriage. So you either do one of two things. You attempt to manipulate the conversation and create red herrings and lie about what the opposition is claiming or (the less intelligent ones like Setanta and JTT) go straight into name calling and asserting that the other individual is a bigot because they don't agree with their position (even though they're just as "bigoted" towards other groups of people they don't agree with like you and incestuous marriages) and then you start calling the other person a closet homosexual.

Your argument is pathetic and your position is unsustainable... and you know it... that's why you're starting the "bigot" name calling because you cannot defend your position.



Please explain to me why homosexuals are a "class of people" and those who are attracted to family members are not? Because you don't consider them one? Well guess what, I and the majority of americans don't consider homosexuals to be any more of a "class of people" than you consider incestuous couples.



LoL Look at the hypocrisy. Marriages within that limit are too frequently the result of dysfunctional family dynamics (the same is true for homosexual marriage), manipulation (the same is true for homosexual marriage) and lack of consent (again, the same is true for homosexual marriage who may have access to a child).

A couple of things, first of all, why don't you provide evidence for your claims against incestuous marriage. I've provided multiple studies, government studies and a plethora of statistics to support my position after you and the rest of these homosexual advocates cried about I had nothing to support my claim. So please, by all means, provide your evidence and statistics that incestuous marriages result in dysfunctional family dynamics, manipulation and lack of consent. I'd LOVE to see the justification for your bigotry.

Second, EVERY argument that you made against incestuous marriage can be made against homosexual marriage... every single one. Now, you may not AGREE with those arguments in regards to homosexual marriage, but guess what, the supporter of an incestuous marriage is going to disagree with your assertions of how incestuous relationships and marriage work. So now explain to me why we should care when YOU disagree with our assertions of homosexual marriage when you don't give a care when the incestuous couple disagrees with your assertions of incestuous relationships?

Third, IF your assertions work, they ONLY work if we're talking about an incestuous couple who has a child. What about two brothers who want to get married and receive benefits? What about a long lost brother and sister who want to get married and receive benefits? What about an infertile couple, say a 20 year old son and a 60 year old mother want to get married and receive benefits?

Not to mention your only claims against incestuous couples involve children. By denying those incestuous couples marriage rights, you're not denying them children. As you so eloquently pointed out before, you don't have to be married to have children. So they can produce children whether you allow them marriage or not. (Just like the homosexuals argue) the only thing you're denying them by not allowing them to have benefits is equal protection under the law and equality and civil rights. They can still have children, they just can't receive disability if their partner dies... they can't get healthcare benefits for their partner... They simply want equality and civil rights Joe. It's sad to me that you promote such "bigotry" against that class of people.



No see, I'm not the one sitting here crying about equality and civil rights. As a society, we have an interest in denying certain behaviors, or more specifically, not supporting them. Society does not pay money and they do not support people to marry 8 year old children. We do not allow people to marry dogs or their couch. We do not allow homosexuals to marriage. We do not support people when marrying their family. Society does not support those things because they are detrimental to society as a whole or at the very least provide no justifiable benefit.

It's absolutely hilarious that you don't see how what you're doing in regards to incestuous marriage is the exact same thing I'm doing with homosexual marriage, except now we're talking about something you disagree with. Hysterically funny.

Anyway, I think we should deny incestuous unions and homosexual ones. I believe we have the right and responsibility to do so. At least I don't put forth this image of righteous equality when advocating for my beliefs and then turn around and deny that same equality because now *I* disagree with what they're doing.

In the immortal words of Jesus Christ. "Hypocrites, you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside, you are full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness."

SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SORRY, SHADOW, YOU'RE NOW JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF DETRITUS ON THE DUST HEAP OF HISTORY

No, they're not apples and oranges. A heterosexual does not inappropriately grab another guys codsack. If they're grabbing another guys codsack, they're not heterosexual.

Even as is pointed out in the SEVERAL studies I provided even WITH the inclusion of those who don't self-identify as homosexual but engage in homosexual behavior STILL only includes ~7% of the population.

I'm sorry you don't like that.

No see you only claim they're faulty conclusions because you don't like what they say. A male who attempts to have sex with another male or get sexually stimulated by another male AT ANY AGE... is engaging in homosexual behavior. Period. You don't like what the numbers say if that is true. So rather than accept the truth, you attempt to manipulate the meaning and definitions of words so that you can justify why a male that wants to have sex with a young male is not a homosexual so it can help your numbers.

Personally, I don't care how you want to manipulate it, you're never going to convince any rational, sane person without an agenda, that a male who wants to have sex with another male is not engaging in homosexual behavior.

How the hell do you know how they would identify? That's the point of using statistics genius.

The point is, when those children grow up, ~5% of them are going to selfidentify as homosexuals. That's WHY we use statistics and why statistics in large enough sample sizes are justifiable for relatively long periods of time without having to be adjusted. Hence why we use census data for TEN YEARS to justify literally thousands of arguments in congress every year.



No it says that gay children, or children who engage in homosexual behavior should not be around other children... the same with their homosexual adult counterparts.

And? That doesn't change the constitution in my state. Because my state doesn't recognize that they're married in the first place. There's actually a provision in our state constitution expressing that fact.

And regardless, it certainly doesn't mean that people are going to simply stop fighting against it lol

I got a question for you Jack and all the homosexual supporters.

Let's say we have a bisexual woman who has both a male and a female partner and she wants to marry both. Should she be allowed to or are you going to force her to choose between one or the other?

How is this different in any way than a hetrosexual woman who has two male partners and wants to marry both? Of course she has to choose. Polygamy is not gay marriage. Two different topics.