ofiba Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. 116130[/snapback] I understand your point of it being a condition that doesn't harm anyone, but blaiming the molestation of children on society and not those priests?? Come on, thats a little bit extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. If we were open and honest about this in society, homosexuals would feel more comfortable about who they are, and we might not see such a high suicide rate among young gay people. It's time we stopped treating them like second-class citizens. Yet another reason from libs to blame America. I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage). Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists." Now that would be truly reversing the stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged?? 115539[/snapback] Straw man. Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not. I'd argue both are diseases. I don't think a guy who imbibes excessively in alcoholic beverages is any more diseased than a guy who uses an enema and then allows other men to anally penetrate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I'd argue both are diseases. 116158[/snapback] That doesn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Yet another reason from libs to blame America. I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage). Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists." Now that would be truly reversing the stigma. 116154[/snapback] Of course, since sodomy is your language, not theirs. How liberating. How much of a problem do you have with lesbians? Or lesbian twins? Coors light, owned by almost-Senator-of-virtue Pete Coors, seems to like it. No sodomy there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I understand your point of it being a condition that doesn't harm anyone, but blaiming the molestation of children on society and not those priests?? Come on, thats a little bit extreme. 116145[/snapback] Go back and read the quote: I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. No excuse. I am saying the grounds for the situation would not be as likely to exist if sexually confused people did not feel that celibacy and the clergy was the only way they could live a good life. The grounds are societal AND personal to the people who committed these awful acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I'd argue both are diseases. I don't think a guy who imbibes excessively in alcoholic beverages is any more diseased than a guy who uses an enema and then allows other men to anally penetrate him. 116158[/snapback] You're pretty obsessed with the act for someone who finds it so deplorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Yet another reason from libs to blame America. I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage). Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists." Now that would be truly reversing the stigma. 116154[/snapback] I'm sorry but you would not have enough jail space in America for all those who committ sodomy...be real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 That doesn't surprise me. You're pretty obsessed with the act for someone who finds it so deplorable. I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse. Next thing you know they'll be asking thier congressperson to include enemas in the government handout package for poor homosexual males. Poor men should be able to have clean homosexual relations as well, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse. Next thing you know they'll be asking thier congressperson to include enemas in the government handout package for poor homosexual males. Poor men should be able to have clean homosexual relations as well, right? 116457[/snapback] HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!! Don't be scared...let it in..don't fight it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!! Don't be scared...let it in..don't fight it So now I have a fear of homosexuals? Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition. Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do? I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this? I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 So now I have a fear of homosexuals? Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition. Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do? I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this? I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong. 117053[/snapback] I don't enjoy having my anus penetrated (well maybe Pam Anderson) but for any man that does...carry on smartly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 So now I have a fear of homosexuals? Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition. Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do? I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this? I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong. 117053[/snapback] Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'. They also believe that if you have family or friends that play for the other team that you should automatically change your views about homosexuality and march in step with them. To date none of them can explain if the 'family and friends' argument means you should accept other types of behavior, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'. 117669[/snapback] That's exactly it Thanks for pinpointing exactly what is going on in my mind. I'm feeling real great about myself, real proud. Thanks for pointing out how !@#$ing amazing I feel because I am championing this unworthy cause. It would just be the worst thing ever to treat people like people, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'. They also believe that if you have family or friends that play for the other team that you should automatically change your views about homosexuality and march in step with them. To date none of them can explain if the 'family and friends' argument means you should accept other types of behavior, but oh well. It's really quite humorous, actually. Libs believe homosexuals should not only have all rights granted to heterosexual couples on the basis of consenting adults but also should be broadly socially embraced to the point of teaching our Kindergarteners about them. Yet if a third partner were to want to enter a marriage with two other consenting adults, they would still be discriminated against. Or if two cousins were consenting adults they would still be discriminated against. The basis for this? Not good for the family to have polygamist parents or cousins hitting on each other at family reunions? If health of the traditional family structure were an issue with libs we wouldn't even be talking about gay marriage. Potential for birth defects among cousins? Libs already have the solution for this through genetic testing and abortion. No lib has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation as to why homosexual marriage should be legal while polygamy and marriage between cousins should not. Instead of facing these issues head on, libs claim they are red herrings and don't even delve into them. I guess the argument would be gushing with hypocracy were they ever to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 It would just be the worst thing ever to treat people like people, wouldn't it? We are not talking about treating homosexuals like people (which I do, BTW). We are talking about recognizing their relationships as institutional marriage. 70% of the American voters see a distinction there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 We are not talking about treating homosexuals like people (which I do, BTW). We are talking about recognizing their relationships as institutional marriage. 117785[/snapback] I know plenty of people who would argue with you that as marriage is a right that those who are not gay enjoy, it does place gay relationships on a lower-tier status. Regardless, a majority in our country feel that committed same-sex relationships should be recognized by either civil unions or marriage. I am saying marriage should be left up to the church and all couples should have access to a civil union. Referring back to the original topic of this thread, church vs. state -- if the objection to same-sex marriage is grounded in one's church, it should remain in that church. Churches can decide for themselves what will be recognized as a marriage and gays can find churches that will accept their unions as marriage, such as Unitarian congregations. Plenty of people are married with no justification of marriage as sacred in a religious sense, in secular ceremonies. What makes the union sacred is the commitment the two people have made to one another. And what is sacred has nothing to do with government these days, if it ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 No lib has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation as to why homosexual marriage should be legal while polygamy and marriage between cousins should not. Instead of facing these issues head on, libs claim they are red herrings and don't even delve into them. I guess the argument would be gushing with hypocracy were they ever to try. 117768[/snapback] Hell, I would say there is a MUCH stronger argument to recognize polygamy then there is to recognize 'homosexual marriage'. My wife and I are raising our 3-month old son right now and it keeps us perpetually exhausted. Just imagine if we could add another wife or husband to the mix. Then you could have 1 person stay home as exclusive caregiver while the other two work their normal jobs. 3 can live as cheaply as 2 right? And you save all that money you otherwise would have spent on childcare. It's win-win, and it passes KtFBD's 'cultures have accepted it since time began' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Hell, I would say there is a MUCH stronger argument to recognize polygamy then there is to recognize 'homosexual marriage'. My wife and I are raising our 3-month old son right now and it keeps us perpetually exhausted. Just imagine if we could add another wife or husband to the mix. Then you could have 1 person stay home as exclusive caregiver while the other two work their normal jobs. 3 can live as cheaply as 2 right? And you save all that money you otherwise would have spent on childcare. It's win-win, and it passes KtFBD's 'cultures have accepted it since time began' argument. 117859[/snapback] Gavin in 2008! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts