Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Next push. Shadow's state constitution is declared unconstitutional, much like Loving v. Virginia declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. You're living in a fool's paradise, Shadow.

1 Reply

@engineer,

The difference is that by allowing homosexual marriage you have essentially created two different types of marriages. And you might not agree that those are two separate marriages however the supporter of that polygamist relationship will argue that they are two different types. Not only that but since you have changed the definition of marriage why can't the polygamist couple come in and argue that you should simply change it again to fit them inside as well?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

There are a lot of fights and a lot more people who are going to challenge this last decision by tweeking their laws before you get to that fight buddy

0 Replies

Ah slippery slope . . . one of my favorite witless arguments . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Are you insane? Do you think that challenge is not coming?

1 Reply

Got your toboggan handy, Shadow? You're gonna need it for that slope. And just like Loving, do that one case right and you wipe out ALL the other unconstitutional laws on the subject in the other states. Just because you live in one of those troglodyte states, don't think the country is on your side, buddy.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It's not a slippery slope it is called setting a precedent. You have set the precedent that it is acceptable to change the definition of marriage to fit what you think is acceptable. Now explain to me what defense you were going to use when someone else comes up and says why don't you change the definition of marriage to fit what I want to do?

And the country is on my side in vast amounts. 31 out of 34 times that the country has had the opportunity to vote on the subject they have voted down homosexual marriage. The opinion of five people does not change the opinion of the country.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

It's really hilarious to see you ask someone else if they are insane.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Feel free to answer the question that I just posted him. What argument are you going to use when someone says they want you to change the definition of marriage to fit them? You have already set the precedent that it is okay.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Quote:

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.

Over the years I have known several closeted gay people that publicly claim they are not homosexual. Under your definition they are gay. Under the 95% figure you use they are heterosexual. That is why your numbers are apples and oranges.

Quote:

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.

Which studies? Why did you use the 95% figure if your studies show it is less than that?

By the way, an argument that grabbing a "codsack" makes one homosexual is as idiotic as claiming patting someone's ass makes one homosexual. What about when a woman kisses another woman. Does that mean they are gay?

Let's look at a scenario. Say you drop a $20 bill and a 6 year old picks it up and puts it in his pocket. You ask for it back and he refuses. You then reach into his pocket to take it back. His mother sees you doing that and calls the police saying you molested her son. Does that make you a homosexual? It would certainly count as a molestation under the study you want to use since it was reported to the police.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Quote:

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.

Now you are mixing apples and oranges again. Molestation numbers have nothing to do with people that attempt to get sexually stimulated by another male. Most of the molestations of children were fondling of the child which is not an attempt to have sex and is not getting sexually stimulated by the child.

Quote:

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.

Clearly I am not the one manipulating meaning and definition. You are.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Man I feel horrible for that cute you gets adopted by those two members of NAMBLA that get married to each other. But hey they get their marriage benefits that we all pay for so I guess that's cool right.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

No i haven't. At no time have i suggested that plural marriages be approved.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

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

Ok. Let's accept you at face value here and look at other studies.
This is Alfred Kinsey's research:

Quote:

He also reported that 37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male after adolescence and 13% of women had achieved orgasm through contact with another woman.[7]

Wouldn't that large sample size mean that 37% of males are homosexual if we really on your definition of what is a homosexual?

Quote:

In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) concluded that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by the perceived bias, finding that 36.4% of men had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, as opposed to Kinsey's 37%.

Still close to 37%.

So, if we accept that only homosexual men have homosexual experiences then we have to accept that 37% of men are homosexuals.

Of course that leaves us with a rather interesting conundrum in that it means men can have heterosexual experience and not be heterosexual. Shouldn't the same standard apply for heterosexuality that you apply to homosexuality?

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

That was supposed to say child not cute. Stupid siri

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Every individual is a potential revenue stream when looked at from an economic point of view. That is the point of providing benefits.

No, that's not the point. If it were, then you'd have no problem providing benefits to gay couples, since they are individual "revenue streams" too. You made it very clear, however, that the reason benefits shouldn't be extended to gay couples is because they can't produce baby "revenue streams."

Shadow X wrote:

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before you stop repeating the same lie over and over again.

I'm not accustomed to holding a conversation with someone who constantly accuses me of lying. Do it again and you'll find the ensuing conversation decidedly one-sided.

Shadow X wrote:

Maybe putting it in capital letters will help.

No, putting it in capital letters doesn't help, nor does repeating it. As long as you can't recognize your own hypocrisy in opposing all benefits while, at the same time, supporting those benefits that exclude gays, I don't think even italics will help.

Shadow X wrote:

And EVERY homosexual supporter will eventually devolve into that position of calling someone else a bigot

That may be because most of those arguments are with bigots.

Shadow X wrote:

then you start calling the other person a closet homosexual.

Show me where I did that.

Shadow X wrote:

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

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.

Any group of people can be considered a "class," incest devotees not excluded. It's not that they're not a class, it's just that I'm not prejudiced against them. For instance, I have not accused all of them, as a class, of living a "deviant lifestyle."

Shadow X wrote:

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).

LOL indeed.

Shadow X wrote:

A couple of things, first of all, why don't you provide evidence for your claims against incestuous marriage.

Because this isn't a thread about incestuous marriages, and, as I have already explained, I don't intend to turn it into one just to divert attention away from your pathetically weak arguments against gay marriage. If you want to defend incestuous marriages, start a new thread.

Shadow X wrote:

Second, EVERY argument that you made against incestuous marriage can be made against homosexual marriage... every single one.

I have no doubt. They wouldn't be good arguments, to be sure, but that hasn't stopped you yet.

Shadow X wrote:

Third, IF your assertions work, they ONLY work if we're talking about an incestuous couple who has a child.

Nope. I never said anything about children.

Shadow X wrote:

Not to mention your only claims against incestuous couples involve children.

Nope.

Shadow X wrote:

We do not allow homosexuals to marriage.

What do you mean "we?"

1 Reply

Leaving aside, of course, that marriage is not a verb.

0 Replies

Shadow, the percentage of gay people throughout the world (cross-culturally) indicates it is a natural phenomenon. As such, your rejection of it as "natural" ndicates that your orientation is the perversion here.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

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

This was never in doubt and wasn't subject to this SCOTUS any....

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Quote:

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?

That's not the point. The point is that homosexuals should not be treated as 2nd class citizens.

One does not have to avail themselves of what is a dumb institution.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know