Political Crossfire Forums

[Infinite911911]

ieatfood wrote:

i guess that leads to the unnatural consequence of living past 30 years old.

25 million may have died from age but how many have been saved by unnatural means of modern medicine?

Yeap, some unnatural behavior can be good for you, others may not...

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: anybody ever look up parthenogenesis? some species don't even have males in them.


What does that have to do with two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease?

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote:

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

That’s nice, but we're talking about Humans, in which case a male is needed to impregnate a Female so the spies can live on. Again tell me, what do two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease give to a society, or the Human race other then disease and death? Do Homosexual couples produce anything??? No, that means it's not ntural for them to have sex together.

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

That’s nice, but we're talking about Humans, in which case a male is needed to impregnate a Female so the spies can live on. Again tell me, what do two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease give to a society, or the Human race other then disease and death? Do Homosexual couples produce anything??? No, that means it's not ntural for them to have sex together.

I already addressed why its natural, by definition. Sorry if you can't handle a fact. And you are simply ignoring all my points so I will ignore your ignorant rant. You are ignoring the fact that not all homosexuals have anal sex, not only homosexuals have anal sex, that is not the definition of a homosexual, anyone can carry and pass STDs, etc etc. Ignoring the fact that homosexual activity is WELL documented in species other than just humans, making it NATURAL. and you still can't give an arguement to hate on lesbians.

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

That’s nice, but we're talking about Humans, in which case a male is needed to impregnate a Female so the spies can live on. Again tell me, what do two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease give to a society, or the Human race other then disease and death? Do Homosexual couples produce anything??? No, that means it's not ntural for them to have sex together.

I already addressed why its natural, by definition. Sorry if you can't handle a fact. And you are simply ignoring all my points so I will ignore your ignorant rant. You are ignoring the fact that not all homosexuals have anal sex, not only homosexuals have anal sex, that is not the definition of a homosexual, anyone can carry and pass STDs, etc etc. Ignoring the fact that homosexual activity is WELL documented in species other than just humans, making it NATURAL. and you still can't give an arguement to hate on lesbians.

Then is it Natural to have sex with a Dog?

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

"stupid and unnatural" nanny nanny poo poo

come on at least try to give a legitimate arguement, or do you really not care about looking foolish? what about the anal sex aspect? come on, address something for once instead of just repeating insults

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

That’s nice, but we're talking about Humans, in which case a male is needed to impregnate a Female so the spies can live on. Again tell me, what do two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease give to a society, or the Human race other then disease and death? Do Homosexual couples produce anything??? No, that means it's not ntural for them to have sex together.

I already addressed why its natural, by definition. Sorry if you can't handle a fact. And you are simply ignoring all my points so I will ignore your ignorant rant. You are ignoring the fact that not all homosexuals have anal sex, not only homosexuals have anal sex, that is not the definition of a homosexual, anyone can carry and pass STDs, etc etc. Ignoring the fact that homosexual activity is WELL documented in species other than just humans, making it NATURAL. and you still can't give an arguement to hate on lesbians.

Then is it Natural to have sex with a Dog?

If you are a dog. However, if something occurs in nature, ie a donkey and horse= mule, it is BY DEFINITION natural. don't know why you are even arguing this. seems you want to make "natural" whatever you want it to be

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

"stupid and unnatural" nanny nanny poo poo

come on at least try to give a legitimate arguement, or do you really not care about looking foolish? what about the anal sex aspect? come on, address something for once instead of just repeating insults

If lesbian sex was natural God would have givien the women a tool to pleasure the other instead of making they rely on fingers, fruits and dildos. Dude, just because someone can do something doesn't make it Natural. I can stick my penis in an electrical socket but that doesn't make it natural.

And I apologize if you see what I am writing as insults as that’s not what I'm trying to do. You and I have debated this more times then I can count and you know I can careless if your gay and would never hate you or make fun of you for it. But that still doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

"stupid and unnatural" nanny nanny poo poo

come on at least try to give a legitimate arguement, or do you really not care about looking foolish? what about the anal sex aspect? come on, address something for once instead of just repeating insults

If lesbian sex was natural God would have givien the women a tool to pleasure the other instead of making they rely on fingers, fruits and dildos. Dude, just because someone can do something doesn't make it Natural. I can stick my penis in an electrical socket but that doesn't make it natural.

And I apologize if you see what I am writing as insults as that’s not what I'm trying to do. You and I have debated this more times then I can count and you know I can careless if your gay and would never hate you or make fun of you for it. But that still doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

... which is pretty much baseless in logic.

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

"stupid and unnatural" nanny nanny poo poo

come on at least try to give a legitimate arguement, or do you really not care about looking foolish? what about the anal sex aspect? come on, address something for once instead of just repeating insults

If lesbian sex was natural God would have givien the women a tool to pleasure the other instead of making they rely on fingers, fruits and dildos. Dude, just because someone can do something doesn't make it Natural. I can stick my penis in an electrical socket but that doesn't make it natural.

And I apologize if you see what I am writing as insults as that’s not what I'm trying to do. You and I have debated this more times then I can count and you know I can careless if your gay and would never hate you or make fun of you for it. But that still doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

... which is pretty much baseless in logic.


Oh so now you had to start the insults, it's ok I won't lower myself to you're level, quite frankly I thought you were better then that, but I guess not.

See that's what's great about this country, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

[mport1]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: anybody ever look up parthenogenesis? some species don't even have males in them.


What does that have to do with two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease?

What about heterosexuals having "normal" sex and spreading aids, or heterosexuals having anal sex and spreading aids?

[mport1]

ieatfood wrote: Joad wrote: Quote: if marriage is a contract between two people, then the government certainly has a role in regulating contracts.

it's called contract law

the govt regulates contracts all the time--in fact, without government regulation, contracts would never function

There is nothing in contract law that forbids gay marriage. In fact, contract law is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. The government is infringing on their right to contract with whoever they choose.

but you don't have the right to contract with whomever you choose
the government forbids two willing parties from making legally binding contracts all the time

for example, prenuptual agreements are often struck down in court

We should. We should have an unlimited right to contract, but the government has stepped into that arena.

Hale vs. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1905):

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his own private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him..."

[mport1]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

is that all homosexuality is to you, is anal sex? the two are not synonymous. and what about heterosexual anal sex? that also spreads disease. of course in either case it only spreads disease if one or the other is carrying it, as with any STD. you have no arguement here. my point is homosexuality is well documented in many animals in nature, and you assume an awful lot about what is "natural," as evidenced by this and other forms of nature which require no male role at all.

That’s nice, but we're talking about Humans, in which case a male is needed to impregnate a Female so the spies can live on. Again tell me, what do two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease give to a society, or the Human race other then disease and death? Do Homosexual couples produce anything??? No, that means it's not ntural for them to have sex together.

We do not have to "produce" something for society to marry. Do men and women who mary and have no children produce anything for society?

Where does the government get the priviledge to decide what is or is not productive for society?


Infinite911911, people like you really scare me. I can't believe you are willing to give the government the power to legislate on something that is a victimless crime and only has to do with your strict interpretation of what is morally right and natural. I cannot believe that our country is being run by someone who has similar logic to you. America is in deep trouble if we keep heading down this path.

Also, why again does it matter if homosexuality is natural? (And if you ask most homosexuals, they will tell you that they have no choice in the matter, and that they were just born liking the same sex).

[Kt]

Whatever brings pleasure is plenty natural.

[mport1]

I will quote Michael Badnarik's book, Good to Be King, because I believe it has an excellent analysis of the issue:

Quote: Any time the government allows us the privilege of doing something, it usually documents the fact by giving us a permit or a license. Examine these definitions from Black's Law Dictionary.

permit: To suffer, allow, consent, let; to give leave or license; to acquiesce, by failure to prevent or to expressly assent or agree to the doing of an act.

Notice that a permit allows you to do something that you could not do without permission.

license: A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable.

Let's examine an issue that most people take for granted. If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before? More important, who gave you that permission, and where did that person or agency get the authority to give you permission in the first place? Did George Washington have a marriage license? (No.) Did Thomas Jefferson have a marriage license? (No.) Did they simply ask the woman they loved to settle down with them and perhaps raise a family? Remarkably-yes. This is one of the advantages of having an unlimited right to contract. What may be even more surprising to some is the fact that this is still being done today. Have you ever heard of a common-law marriage? Occasionally a couple will start living together without the formality of a ceremony. Generally the local busybodies will be all a-twitter because the pair is "living in sin," as if somehow the relationship is any of their business. So if the eleventh and thirteenth presidents of the United States (depending on where you start counting) didn't have a marriage license, then when (and why) was the very first marriage license issued?

Let's examine the status of blacks and whites during the middle 1800s. Can two white people decide to live together and make babies? Of course! White people have rights and can exercise their unlimited right to contract. Can two black people decide to live together and make babies? They certainly didn't have control over where they lived, so the fact that they had reproduced was viewed much like animal husbandry. If you owned the parents then your property inventory had simply increased by one. What if a black person and white person decided to live together and make babies? (Gasp!) Heaven forbid! The government certainly couldn't allow a mixing of the races, now could it? Here are some revealing definitions, again from Black's Law Dictionary:

marriage license: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry...

intermarriage: see miscegenation

miscegenation: Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statues prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to [the] equal protection clause of [the] Constitution. Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 1.Ed.2d 1010.

Notice that statutes prohibiting interracial marriages are considered invalid, but that wasn’t always the case. Keep in mind that white people had rights, whereas black people were only granted privileges. The white person could do just about anything they wanted; however, the black person had to get "permission" in the form of a "marriage license" in order to form a union with a white person. I'm guessing that a black person's chances of obtaining that permission were directly related to which white person they wanted to marry.

Just for the record, the "equal protection clause of [the] Constitution" can be found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal protection means that blacks and whites must now be treated the same. Did we grant blacks more freedom by eliminating the requirement to get "permission granted by public authority," or did we take away the rights of white people by requiring them to get a marriage license, too? "Equal protection under the law" apparently means that you can enslave blacks as long as whites are equally enslaved.

I hope it is now obvious that you do not require government permission in order to be married. Common law marriages are valid in all fifty states, not because the government is benevolent and generous, but because common law is the highest law jurisdiction in America. The government has no authority to tell me whom I can or cannot share a bed with, and I will adamantly ignore any statues or laws that pretend otherwise. This is not a significant issue for me because I am heterosexual, however there are millions of homosexuals who are directly affected by the government's arrogant insistence that it will determine the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, if you love someone and they love you back, you can exercise your unlimited right to contract with whomever you wish.

[BigBraveDave]

Quote: 1) No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to debate this topic.

2) Your statement implies that homosexual marriage is decadent. It is an unsupported assertion and being such, we're free to ignore it.

Decadence-Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent.

In New Orleans, once a year they have what is called the "Decadence Festival." It is a weekend of festivities for homosexuals. That is where I draw my arguement from, there are also such festivals in many other major cities, including Orlando (Disney World) and San Fransico.

The act alone might not be decadence, but it certainly leads to it. However, I don't want to make it sound like there isn't such a thing as heterosexual decadence, I just think that it is less common when looked at in ratio....


Quote: We aren't a society void of government, though. Your argument fails on its face.

I wasn't trying to say that we were, I was using certerus parabus (sp?) meaing all things remain constant and do not effect the issue, economists use that frame of mind all the time...

Quote: 'Cannot' and 'should not' are not synonymous, so it makes no sense for you to substitute the meaning of one for the other.

Then scratch cannot, where I say cannot I really mean should not. I'm arguing my opinion so I feel "should not" is a better choice of grammar anyway, looking at the essay after I wrote it I have to admit I have a few typos and bad grammar choices, especially one BIG one that I will get to in a second...


Quote: None of which has much, if anything, to do with marriage between persons of the same sex.

It has everything to do with it, they are examples of family structures different from a man and a woman together, since there are no societal bonds between same sex currently, I cannot derive any specific examples, I can only draw comparisons...


Quote: You're basically giving us an argument that depends on terms like 'marriage' and 'family' having only one meaning, or assuming that only one arrangement is valid under that meaning. Such an argument is circular by nature.

You right, the meaning of family and marriage are the undertone of the entire arguement. I am arguing that there is only one correct structure, other family structures have generally proven weaker...


Quote: Assumes that only majority opinions on issues of morality matter; that persecution of a minority isn't immoral if the majority doesn't view it as such.

It is this majority that defines morals. Therefore whether you like it or not, the act is immoral. For example, I have had pre-marital sex, I don't consider myself immoral for it, but it is immoral because that is what society deems it.


Quote: Why not? Because you say not? I don't consider that a reason.

This was the big typo I was talking about, I meant to say that we should NOT surpress the liberties of homosexuals, and my arguement is that by not allowing marriage we are not infringing on any "God given" rights. Keep in mind, I say God because I am relating the arguement to the declaration of independence, not religion.

Quote: You're certainly welcome to your belief on the matter. But should your belief be the law? I don't see you giving us any credible reasons why it should.

Should it be law that I am forced to accept something that I deem inccorrect? Should it be law at all? Probably not, but since our government is in the business of basing law on morality, it should be across the board. And since society defines morality, society defines marriage.


Quote: There is room for comparison. Drawing such comparisons doesn't equate to saying the struggles are equivalent; to suggest that they are is something that I would agree is ludicrous. But parallels do exist; not so much in the status of each group, but in the methods used to fight against them. Moreover, arguments in support of some liberty most always draw upon similar ideas. So to assert that there is no connection between the two is absurd. The struggle for marriage equality is very much a part of the neverending battle to preserve civil rights for everyone, not just one group.

Where that arguement falters is that Civil Rights are given to people, each individual was granted rights. The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with granting liberties to a group of people acting as one instatutionalized partnership. There is a very distinct difference there.

Quote: Common argument, and not terribly informative. We aren't saying they're equal; we're saying they're equivalent, and that there is room enough in the concept of marriage to encompass both types of unions.

But by making both "marriage" you are making them equal. Whether or not their equivalent. I consider that socialism.


Quote: Unsupported argument. The salient point is that there are benefits to society from marriage, period. The genders of the persons engaging in that marriage are only minimally relevant, if at all.

But the fact is that they are relevant, again showing a distinct difference. You cannot sit here and tell me that a children raised in different structures don't come out with different perceptions.


Quote: Well, you don't spell out what those differences are, so we have no way to evaluate your statement unless we start making suppositions on our own. I'm not willing to do so. Futhermore, heterosexuality and homosexuality do not by themselves meet the definition of a 'lifestyle': Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Perhaps "life-choice" would be a better word. That is what I was really trying to get across. Frankly, I feel silly having to tell you the difference between the two unions. The obvious, is procreation. In fact, that is arguably one of the most distinct functions of marriage. Whether or not that function is a really important part of marriage today (because it certainly isn't in some cases) is up for speculation.


Quote: To sum up: I don't see anything new presented here. Just the usual vague arguments amounting to 'we shouldn't change the parameters of legal recognition granted to marital contracts simply because we don't like the idea of changing it.' One big circular argument.

Its circular because there is no clear right or wrong answer, because even I can see the benifits of homosexual marriage. There are pro's and con's to both sides. The difference lie in what I consider a pro and what you consider a con and so forth.

Quote: If homosexuals are to be denied marriage recognition, then I feel the onus is upon its opponents to show how gay marriages differ significantly from heterosexual marriages, and provide solid arguments for why those differences support continuing the denial.

Honestly that is very hard to do. This is because there aren't clear examples in the US of homosexual marriages. So to attempt a black and white, these are the facts argument, is very difficult. Also since the homosexuality is till a taboo (in sociology terms) then it should be up to the minority to prove why it should be made a norm. It is gays that are trying to change what is already in existence.

[BigBraveDave]

Quote: 1) No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to debate this topic.

2) Your statement implies that homosexual marriage is decadent. It is an unsupported assertion and being such, we're free to ignore it.

Decadence-Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent.

In New Orleans, once a year they have what is called the "Decadence Festival." It is a weekend of festivities for homosexuals. That is where I draw my arguement from, there are also such festivals in many other major cities, including Orlando (Disney World) and San Fransico.

The act alone might not be decadence, but it certainly leads to it. However, I don't want to make it sound like there isn't such a thing as heterosexual decadence, I just think that it is less common when looked at in ratio....


Quote: We aren't a society void of government, though. Your argument fails on its face.

I wasn't trying to say that we were, I was using certerus parabus (sp?) meaing all things remain constant and do not effect the issue, economists use that frame of mind all the time...

Quote: 'Cannot' and 'should not' are not synonymous, so it makes no sense for you to substitute the meaning of one for the other.

Then scratch cannot, where I say cannot I really mean should not. I'm arguing my opinion so I feel "should not" is a better choice of grammar anyway, looking at the essay after I wrote it I have to admit I have a few typos and bad grammar choices, especially one BIG one that I will get to in a second...


Quote: None of which has much, if anything, to do with marriage between persons of the same sex.

It has everything to do with it, they are examples of family structures different from a man and a woman together, since there are no societal bonds between same sex currently, I cannot derive any specific examples, I can only draw comparisons...


Quote: You're basically giving us an argument that depends on terms like 'marriage' and 'family' having only one meaning, or assuming that only one arrangement is valid under that meaning. Such an argument is circular by nature.

You right, the meaning of family and marriage are the undertone of the entire arguement. I am arguing that there is only one correct structure, other family structures have generally proven weaker...


Quote: Assumes that only majority opinions on issues of morality matter; that persecution of a minority isn't immoral if the majority doesn't view it as such.

It is this majority that defines morals. Therefore whether you like it or not, the act is immoral. For example, I have had pre-marital sex, I don't consider myself immoral for it, but it is immoral because that is what society deems it.


Quote: Why not? Because you say not? I don't consider that a reason.

This was the big typo I was talking about, I meant to say that we should NOT surpress the liberties of homosexuals, and my arguement is that by not allowing marriage we are not infringing on any "God given" rights. Keep in mind, I say God because I am relating the arguement to the declaration of independence, not religion.

Quote: You're certainly welcome to your belief on the matter. But should your belief be the law? I don't see you giving us any credible reasons why it should.

Should it be law that I am forced to accept something that I deem inccorrect? Should it be law at all? Probably not, but since our government is in the business of basing law on morality, it should be across the board. And since society defines morality, society defines marriage.


Quote: There is room for comparison. Drawing such comparisons doesn't equate to saying the struggles are equivalent; to suggest that they are is something that I would agree is ludicrous. But parallels do exist; not so much in the status of each group, but in the methods used to fight against them. Moreover, arguments in support of some liberty most always draw upon similar ideas. So to assert that there is no connection between the two is absurd. The struggle for marriage equality is very much a part of the neverending battle to preserve civil rights for everyone, not just one group.

Where that arguement falters is that Civil Rights are given to people, each individual was granted rights. The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with granting liberties to a group of people acting as one instatutionalized partnership. There is a very distinct difference there.

Quote: Common argument, and not terribly informative. We aren't saying they're equal; we're saying they're equivalent, and that there is room enough in the concept of marriage to encompass both types of unions.

But by making both "marriage" you are making them equal. Whether or not their equivalent. I consider that socialism.


Quote: Unsupported argument. The salient point is that there are benefits to society from marriage, period. The genders of the persons engaging in that marriage are only minimally relevant, if at all.

But the fact is that they are relevant, again showing a distinct difference. You cannot sit here and tell me that a children raised in different structures don't come out with different perceptions.


Quote: Well, you don't spell out what those differences are, so we have no way to evaluate your statement unless we start making suppositions on our own. I'm not willing to do so. Futhermore, heterosexuality and homosexuality do not by themselves meet the definition of a 'lifestyle': Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Perhaps "life-choice" would be a better word. That is what I was really trying to get across. Frankly, I feel silly having to tell you the difference between the two unions. The obvious, is procreation. In fact, that is arguably one of the most distinct functions of marriage. Whether or not that function is a really important part of marriage today (because it certainly isn't in some cases) is up for speculation.


Quote: To sum up: I don't see anything new presented here. Just the usual vague arguments amounting to 'we shouldn't change the parameters of legal recognition granted to marital contracts simply because we don't like the idea of changing it.' One big circular argument.

Its circular because there is no clear right or wrong answer, because even I can see the benifits of homosexual marriage. There are pro's and con's to both sides. The difference lie in what I consider a pro and what you consider a con and so forth.

Quote: If homosexuals are to be denied marriage recognition, then I feel the onus is upon its opponents to show how gay marriages differ significantly from heterosexual marriages, and provide solid arguments for why those differences support continuing the denial.

Honestly that is very hard to do. This is because there aren't clear examples in the US of homosexual marriages. So to attempt a black and white, these are the facts argument, is very difficult. Also since the homosexuality is till a taboo (in sociology terms) then it should be up to the minority to prove why it should be made a norm. It is gays that are trying to change what is already in existence.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

"stupid and unnatural" nanny nanny poo poo

come on at least try to give a legitimate arguement, or do you really not care about looking foolish? what about the anal sex aspect? come on, address something for once instead of just repeating insults

If lesbian sex was natural God would have givien the women a tool to pleasure the other instead of making they rely on fingers, fruits and dildos. Dude, just because someone can do something doesn't make it Natural. I can stick my penis in an electrical socket but that doesn't make it natural.

And I apologize if you see what I am writing as insults as that’s not what I'm trying to do. You and I have debated this more times then I can count and you know I can careless if your gay and would never hate you or make fun of you for it. But that still doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

... which is pretty much baseless in logic.


Oh so now you had to start the insults, it's ok I won't lower myself to you're level, quite frankly I thought you were better then that, but I guess not.

See that's what's great about this country, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

That wasn't an insult. Insults are things like "stupid" and "name one good thing that comes from ___ besides disease and death," asserting that all gays are responsible for AIDS and that our relationships aren't based on anything but sex. please don't even try to equate my comments with those of yours. I think your arguements against the merit of homosexual relationships have no basis in logic. It's my opinion, just like you said.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Shim Eun-Ha wrote: Whatever brings pleasure is plenty natural.

I disagree with this statement, although homosexuality is a natural occurance.