are we really that naive?

If I'm a bigot, that would make you a bigot on steroids Frank.
I'm not upset, just surprised you're old enough, got your gray hair, and still confused, and unable to distinguish truth from fiction. Perhaps those that you criticize and hate so much hold the answer for you. But with your nose on CNN and MSNBC you will always remain underinformed.

Well, no wonder the country is going to a hell in a hand basket with so many of you uninformed morans roaming around. I would not be surprised at all if Hilary would winn.
Certainly you would celebrate, wouldn't you Frank? And I am positive she will not hesitate to finish "the job".

Would that make you smile Frank if 1st and 2nd amendment will be taken away? Ooh I'm sure you would vote for devil if he just make people like me quiet.

Now go and smoke some weed and make yourself feel happy.

How's the trolling going today?

And that's exactly what's wrong with you progressives Argome. Is almost as if you have A.D.D! You are extremely selective in respect to what you want to "absorb" from what you reading. You have some kind of blockade in your brain for anything that does not lineup with your little utopian ideology.
Ok, pay attention: I did NOT start any arguments here with anyone, nor I
look for one. I post some strong statements against you guys attacking me.
That's NOT trolling. If you try to put me down in search for argument you will find one.

To the contrary, in your OP, you accused any one who would oppose your rant of being stupid. Not a good way to start. Then, you poisoned your argument with one of the most outstanding displays of perverted grammar we have seen of late. It was as if you were deliberately trying to sabotage your point.

Were you?

That would be a shame because I have been all along standing for the adoption of no - questions - asked civil unions and reserving the designation of 'marriage' as a non legal term. So, you've trashed my argument as well.

Bravo!

That's definitely how a true troll would respond.

You honestly do not have a clue, do you?

Read your opening remarks, Andy.

I understand it is too much to hope that you will ever see how phony you are being with those of us responding to you...but is it too much to hope that you can open your mind enough to see how phony your are being with yourself?

In my OP the word "stupid" was referring to a reason and again to idea, never to a person or group of people. In contrary I was personally called stupid and every other name under the Sun. Please read it again and more carefully this time. That would avoid spinning and twisting around everything I say.
Is it my "perverted grammar", or reather my ideas that made you so upset?

Trashing your argument...??? How could I trash something I've never heard before?

I would like to hear some reaction to your argument from gay activists. Last time I heard they demanding legal marriage rights with all benefits. They allready call themselves "married". I'm not quite understanding where you going with this "...reserving designation of 'marriage' as a non legal term". I'm not bashing you for anything, just trying to have a civil discussion.

You just redefined the word "troll" all by yourself!

Stupid, naive, and golable, (whatever that means), are all applied either directly or by extension.

I personally am not offended by your grammar; but I consider it a sign that you care little about your audience.

I see the erosion of the definition of marriage as a possible end to the controversy. The term has already been hijacked. Arguing over it is fruitless.

Rehearsing your troll role I see.

I red my OP Frank. I'm very passionate about my believes. That's all. Yes, few typos and some grammar errors. I have criticized some ideas and tendencies. Is that make me phony?

I'll try not to be sarcastic here. Please be honest with yourself Frank, and tell me if in your opinion all the strong criticyzm, and vicious personal attacks on me (let's not kid ourselves), are as a result of a very sensitive nature of the subject, and my opposite view on this from the current trends?

I would appreciate this time your truthful opinion, instead of sarcastic remarks.

Point well taken. Although naming one's action as stupid hardly describe that person as being stupid, not directly, indirectly nor by extension. At least that's my believe and I didn't purposely try to insult anyone.

Thank you for your opinion. I'm taking seriously all the remarks.

My truthful opinion, Andy, is that you were trying to be as rude and antagonistic as possible in your OP...and you should have expected a strong, negative reaction to it.

You either are naive (the subject of your thread) or not especially bright if you expected anything less.

You have to decide which.

But I will point out that A2K is a rather warm kitchen...and if the temperature does not suit you, you will not make it any cooler if you play the "you are picking on me" game.

Let's see what you are made of.

Thank you Frank.

I did expected that my OP might touch some sensitive nerves. But my goal here is to present my point of view, engage in discussion, exchange ideas, and see what kind of people the site is made of. I see a staggering number of liberal and extreme liberal views here. Very few conservatives. Nothing wrong with that. We are free society.

Frank, the only negative part of my experience here is that no one seems to be able, or willing to concentrate on the topic. Bashing me for being foreigner, for not speaking English well, for being rude, antagonistic, and calling me "troll" (thanks Argome). Ok, I got it. Now, what about the subject?

I do have now more respect for you, Frank, for willing to reason with me. We disagree on few things, but I don't want you to take anything personal.

I'm glad you brought up this warm kitchen here, because to me it looks more like... a slow cooking pot. And I'm just saying: it is getting hot! But no one can feel it...
You get it?

You're welcome

Thank you back, Andy.

I still think you were asking for a strong response...and you are getting it from all quarters.

Anyway, earlier you mentioned that being gay was not what nature intended.

I asked, “


I don’t remember getting an answer. I am straight...and I personally find no appeal in same sex intimacy. But for the life of me I cannot understand where you get the notion that "being gay was not what nature intended" when it seems to be something that is just fine with nature.

Discuss that with me. I am willing to do it with respect and reason.

Ok, I am very happy you are giving me chance to support my believes.
First of all, I respect you for that, and apologize if I previously address you in a derogatory manner.

The answer to your question rests in the very purpose of the existence that nature gave to male and female: to support the species.
There is a vast collection of genetic mistakes. Some are innocent, perhaps gays are the example. Others are... well, yes, punishable: pedophilia. And of course there are people being born with two penises, or with vagina and penis. There is another group of people with difficulties to decide who they want to be, a male or female.

My point here is, how can we possibly just extract one group from the rest, and pretend they are within the brackets of normacy?

Naming gays as "normal" is subjective. It would hold the truth only if we treat the concept of the nature with the marine of error. Than and only than, that error would be consider being normal. But we would have to include all the groups in the normacy bracelets. In this case I would have to agree with you Frank.

However, my opinion is, we are doing this for political reasons, and only for gays, because there is lots of them.

One can only wonder, if tomorrow another big group resurfaces, attracted to incest, are we also going to call them "normal" and give them right to get married?

Sorry Frank, this is a bit long, but I could not fit all in just one sentence.

Not looking for you to be brief, Andy...so the length of your posts is no problem.

The content is where I have my disagreement.

Let me take just one bit...which seems particularly important to your argument. You wrote:



I am going to respectfully suggest that this may be more a rationalization than a reason for what I still consider a piece of bigotry

We can agree that the "plumbing" certainly seems to indicate that "nature" has a function for sex that involves the perpetuation (and perhaps change) of the species...and the use of two sexes to accomplish this part. But you are UNNECESSARILY supposing that because this purpose exists...it must be the SOLE purpose.

It MAY NOT BE the sole purpose.

The purpose of eating obviously is to continue the body's existence...but that does not mean that is its sole purpose. There may be (I'd bet there is) an enjoyment factor to eating that transcends its function of providing means of continuing the body. In fact, hunger (and the pleasure of some eating) may be a necessary function to stimulate eating. Without hunger...and the pleasure of eating...the necessary function of eating to keep the organism alive may not work. All things might die of "starvation" except that hunger and thirst exist. And I am sure you have no problem understanding that the "enjoyment" factor of hunger is satisfied by some people using liver...some cabbage...some sweets...some fish...and some fettuccine Alfredo with spring peas and sauteed mushrooms like I enjoyed last night.

Sexual stimulation, in all its various forms, may be as important to the overall function of sex as appetite and huger is to eating.

But some people like sexual stimulation different from the stimulation of others.

I cannot even even force myself to be sexually aroused by same sex partner. It just doesn't work for me. But for some people it simply is the only thing that works. And while the same sex aspect may not seem to aid the job of getting reproduction done...IT MAY BE A KEY AND NECESSARY component of getting the job done. It may be to the reproduction function what appetite is to the "feeding the body" function.

Get over your problem with it, Andy. If you absolutely must involve rationalizations in this area of consideration...aim them toward rationalizing a person's right to enjoy tofu and kidney pie and same gender sex...rather than using the rationalizations to condemn.

You will be a better person for it.

(If the need for rationalizations in either direction involves a god rather than what you claim to be the "purposes of nature"...the conversation has a different direction to take. Lemme know if that is the problem.)

If you use the phrase "nature intended", you imply intelligence.
Are you suggesting nature is a god?

There are those who assert that the God who created us did so intending our sexual equipment to be used only in monogamous heterosexual actiivity. If that is your assertion, say so. For, if our sexuality developed as a concommitant evolutionary event, the direction of its use would be irrelevant.

Before I respond, I will emfisize that no God or religion has a roll in my argument. I'm driven by concerns about this nations sanity, heritage, and our future with unintended consequences, generated by our actions, dictated by our passion, reather than common sense.

I suppose if you look at the wider spectrum of the world we live in, trough "analogue view" (more fluid, random, not in order), than every occurrence, accident, event, no matter how rare, would seem normal. However, if we, I call it, "digitize" our view on it (square it up, put in order, organize, give it a name and a logic) - we can say: ooh, that's not normal - very rare, defies the logic.
Therefore, let's work on your example of eating. Im going to put all the pieces of the puzzle (elements you brought up) on a worktable, and try to organize to some shape... from the beginning... As we evolved, we developed sense of smell, taste, hunger etc. (for those, who believe only in creation, let say God give it to us). These are our eating stimulants. The purpose of these stimulants is for us to consume food, to eat. But, the purpose of eating, is ONLY our own survival, continuation. And that's exactly where we disagree.

It is important here to mention, that science already distinguished higher and lower purpose of eating and having sex, where the higher purpose is the existence, and lower purpose (do not mistaken with THE purpose!), is to satisfy our hunger, pleasure of eating, sex drive, etc.

One can argue that if asking average person why he eats or why he has sex, the answer will not be "to support mine, and human existence", but reather: "because I'm hungry and because I'm horny". You will always receive the answer of lower purpose and not "the" purpose.
In some African countries it's a custom for a grotesque, horible woman scaring (sorry I can't describe it). They consider that as very normal, and if you argue with them, they would think you are from a different planet. Do we want to be like them? Majority is not always right.

I think what we are doing, is greasing squicky wheel. And what I'm afraid is, that's setting a bad precedent. "Givem, givem, cuz there's lots of them and they won't vote for us!" is NOT the impulse we should act on. Sorry.

So what I'm saying is, let's don't let any group of people that just coming out of closet to manipulate the system to their advantage. Let's keep our sanity in check, please! Let's be equally balanced nation. Let's not swey from one extreme to another; first racism against blacks, now reverse racism, blacks on whites; first picking on gays, now gays discriminating about rest of us, demanding special privileges... How about no racism, no discrimination, no prefered treatment, no affirmative action or any of this silliness.

Yet, I'm very VERY greatfull for our discussion Frank. My apology for possible grammar errors. My wife (American) is not here to correct it. She is in Honk Kong.
You really made me hungry talking about all this delicious food you ate.