Feds Deny Death Benefits to Gay Congressman's Spouse

[JD50]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

 

[OrByte]

I think the ONE good thing that has come out of the Foley debacle is this:

Clearly, all republicans are NOW willing to fight for Foley's right to have gay sex with young underage males...

now who would have guessed THAT would happen in this day and age!?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think the ONE good thing that has come out of the Foley debacle is this:

Clearly, all republicans are NOW willing to fight for Foley's right to have gay sex with young underage males...

now who would have guessed THAT would happen in this day and age!?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things that I have read on this message board, and that is quite an accomplishment.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

 

[UberNeuman]

JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the {deleted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion


---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the [deeted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion

In my opinion it devalues heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.

---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the [deleted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion

In my opinion it devalues heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.

How does it do that? In what way?

---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

What do you think the point of being attracted to the opposite sex is?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the [deleted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion

In my opinion it devalues heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.

I would counter that divorce rates have more of an impact on devaluing hetero marriage and/or the "traditional" family. I am sure you think those that divorce are not "normal" too right?

---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the [deleted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion

In my opinion it devalues heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.

How does it do that? In what way?

Because what I believe, and I would think the majority of Americans believe, is that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Allowing anyone other than a man and woman to become married would devalue that.

Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
JD50 - so for sake of argument - let's say the [deleted] and [deleted] can get married tomorrow - what happens after that, and how does it affect your life?

/in your opinion

In my opinion it devalues heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.

I would counter that divorce rates have more of an impact on devaluing hetero marriage and/or the "traditional" family. I am sure you think those that divorce are not "normal" too right?

Its not really a counter, since both of them devalue the traditional family.

---------------------------------------------------
Derogatory terms were deleted

Anandtech Moderator

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

What do you think the point of being attracted to the opposite sex is?

your views on attraction and procreation are too narrow. without getting into too much verbage.. attraction satisfies one instinct, while procreation satisfies another. Gay attraction is simple enough..just as you are attracted to women, others are attracted to the same sex.

Procreation is an instinct that kicks in when a mate is found.

To make it simpler (or not) what about those couples that marry and CHOOSE never to have kids? or couples that go have vesectomies or have other "fixes" done to stop having children? Attraction does not automatically lead to procreation. So gay attraction has no impact one way or another on the instincts needed to be satisfied for procreation/

my .02

my .02

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Good point, since I can't explain it then it must not be true.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Because it has been drilled into his head since before he can remember.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JD50
What is so wrong with what he said? Why would you not want to promote healthy heterosexual marriages to our children?

Why would you not want to promote healthy homosexual marriages to our gay and lesbian children?

BTW promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't require banning gay marriage. It is perfectly possible to extol the societal benefits of marriage for heterosexual people, without discriminating against or excluding gay people.

Originally posted by: JD50
If you are gay then fine, I have no problem with it. You can't deny the fact that the best thing for society is a married couple (man and woman) raising children. Not a gay couple, not an unwed couple, not 2 people getting divorced, and not 1 man and 10 wives.

So? That does not mean gay people should therefore be banned from marrying. Also, you can't deny that gay people are happier and healthier in healthy stable homosexual relationships - marriages - than leading single lives with no stability or long-term relationships. You also cannot deny that it is more cost effective for the state for ALL people - gay and straight - to have access to marriage, as married people are generally happier and healthier an dhave much lower health bills than people who are not married.

Finally, the USA is bulit on a tradition of equality and fairness. It is a violation of that tradition to deny gay people access to marriage.

The USA is also built on a strong, traditional family, with a mother and a father.

And so? Allowing the 2-5% of the population who are homosexual to marry does nothing at all to detract from the 95% of families who are "traditional".

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you also in favor of allowing polygamy, or beastiality? Equality and fairness for all right? I am sure a polygamist is much happier and healther with 10 wives than if he was single.

I oppose bestiality on grounds animals are not able to give consent. (I also oppose eating meat.)

The would-be polygamist is at least free to marry one romantic partner (as is every other heterosexual individual of adult age and sane mind). The gay man or lesbian does not even have that luxury. The inequality here (for gay people) clearly exceeds the inequality experienced by polygamists. As for whether legalising polygamy would be a good idea - I have no opinion on that. I'm still waiting to hear the arguments from polygamists.

Yes, a gay man or woman does have that luxury, they are free to marry anyone they would like of the opposite sex. It is equal for all, any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Now of course, a gay person does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a polygamist does not want to marry just one other person. Why can't a man marry 10 women, why cant an older man/woman marry a 12 year old boy/girl, why can't a brother marry his sister, why cant a man marry a man? Because it is not morally acceptable, and it is not normal.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, be as gay as you want, I really don't care. But, being attracted to the same sex is not normal.

Edit- just to avoid any misconceptions, I am not equating being gay with being a pedophile.

your way of "thinking" is not "normal"

Hmmmm....if being gay were normal, and not being able to procreate because you can't get another man pregnant were normal.........

"normal" people would be able to differentiate between attraction and procreation.

hhmmmmmm....

What do you think the point of being attracted to the opposite sex is?

your views on attraction and procreation are too narrow. without getting into too much verbage.. attraction satisfies one instinct, while procreation satisfies another. Gay attraction is simple enough..just as you are attracted to women, others are attracted to the same sex.

Procreation is an instinct that kicks in when a mate is found.

To make it simpler (or not) what about those couples that marry and CHOOSE never to have kids? or couples that go have vesectomies or have other "fixes" done to stop having children? Attraction does not automatically lead to procreation. So gay attraction has no impact one way or another on the instincts needed to be satisfied for procreation/

my .02

my .02

So are you saying that a gay man would go have sex with a woman to fulfill his need to procreate?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Because it has been drilled into his head since before he can remember.

Another good point, anything that someone was raised to believe must not be true, since it was "drilled into their head since before they can remember"

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50
Good point, since I can't explain it then it must not be true.

For something to be true, then it should be fact - what you keep posting is "opinion."

Therefore, what you say is just your opinion, is it not?

 

[JD50]

This is pretty much an "agree to disagree" situation, since I'm not going to change your mind and you arent going to change mine. Like I said, I have no problem with gay people, but I don't think that gay people should get married. Just my opinion, shared by most people in the country (no I have absolutely no evidence to back that up, just a guess). I need to stop reading this boards when I have other stuff to do, I get way too caught up.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Because it has been drilled into his head since before he can remember.

Another good point, anything that someone was raised to believe must not be true, since it was "drilled into their head since before they can remember"

I guess the sky isn't blue and the water isn't wet then.

If you can't make a case against something other then to say that "It's not normal", don't expect to convince a lot of people with your golden rhetoric.

The point is you have to analyze and come to your own decisions.Who is to say what is normal and what isn't. I say if it isn't hurting anybody, then what business is it of mine??

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Good point, since I can't explain it then it must not be true.

For something to be true, then it should be fact - what you keep posting is "opinion."

Therefore, what you say is just your opinion, is it not?

Yes, I have said that several times. The only point that I would call a fact is that it is better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father. A child needs a loving father and mother more than he needs a loving father and father. That really shouldn't need any explaining, its just natural.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think the ONE good thing that has come out of the Foley debacle is this:

Clearly, all republicans are NOW willing to fight for Foley's right to have gay sex with young underage males...

now who would have guessed THAT would happen in this day and age!?

I'm politically liberal. I support Foley's (and all other gay adults') rights to have sex with other consenting adults. I.e., anyone over the age of 16.

If a heterosexual man has sex with a 17 year old, he's a stud, or just very lucky. If a gay man has sex with a 17 or 18 year old, he's a "pedophile". These double standards are coming primarily from Democrats. Not that Democrats have ever done much for gay people. (Other than DOMA and of course don't ask don't tell.)

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
Honestly I'm not quite sure how to explain it, its just what I believe and what I would venture to say most people believe. Kind of like how there are certain standards to get into certain colleges, letting someone in that does not meet those requirements would devalue everyone elses degree from that college. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but like I said, I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

That's the problem, you can't really explain it....

Because it has been drilled into his head since before he can remember.

Another good point, anything that someone was raised to believe must not be true, since it was "drilled into their head since before they can remember"

I guess the sky isn't blue and the water isn't wet then.

If you can't make a case against something other then to say that "It's not normal", don't expect to convince a lot of people with your golden rhetoric.

The point is you have to analyze and come to your own decisions.Who is to say what is normal and what isn't. I say if it isn't hurting anybody, then what business is it of mine??

I'm not trying to convince anybody, I have rarely seen people change their minds on this message board. The reason that I say that gay is not normal and straight is normal is because of the obvious reasons. If being gay were normal, and everyone was gay, then who would be having kids? If you can pull up an article somewhere detailing an epidemic of gay people going out and having straight sex just to have kids then I might go with the point that homosexual attraction and procreating are mutually exclusive.