Give me some arguments why homosexuality is wrong and should be declared illegal.

[soulcougher73]

No, but the overwhelming majority of them can. And trying to separate those who factually can and those who factually cannot is cost-prohibitive.

But if gays aren't going to produce children regardless of being legally married vs not being allowed to marry, does it really matter then if they are allowed to legally marry? I mean they aren't going away regardless of the legal marriage decision.

 

[dank69]

I largely agree with the reason why that arguement is put forth, but you guys are simply cherry-picking when nature should apply to a particular subject.

You guys would jump at the opportunity to call a convicted mass-murderer a "monster", yet, he's really just doing what natrue dictates.

Have you ever seen a Hornet raze a beehive? That's some of the most outstanding displays of home invasion, and mass, wanton genocide.

It happens in nature as well, but we don't want to go there when it doesn't suit our purpose...

I see Rob is yet again arguing against an argument that was never made. I know I've explained all this to him before as I am sure others have as well. Hopefully God will overlook this little bout of dishonesty when you get to the Pearly Gates.

 

[Exophase]

The vast majority of straight marriages can and do produce children. The cost to police the outliers outweighs the benefit.

The cost of preventing 60 year old women from marrying would be comparable to the cost of preventing same sex marriages, both of which would be in the noise compared to any other administrative costs of marriage licensing. May as well start there, right?

 

[JEDIYoda]

I see Rob is yet again arguing against an argument that was never made. I know I've explained all this to him before as I am sure others have as well. Hopefully God will overlook this little bout of dishonesty when you get to the Pearly Gates.

says who that it was never made? Perhaps you need to comprehend better??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well, I'm pretty sure society does give benefits to people who raise children. I think the child credit on federal tax returns, for example, applies to anyone, married or not, with a child who is a dependent. My argument is that marriage is intended by society to sanction couples likely to produce children as well as raise them.

hahahaaaaa

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm sure whatever types of answers you give your smugness and bigotry come shining through.

Never truer words spoken!!

 

[dank69]

says who that it was never made? Perhaps you need to comprehend better??

Then it should be easy for you to quote where someone said that everything that is natural should be legal. Once you finish failing to do that you can apologize to me.

Not that you are capable of understanding this, but the point that homosexuality is natural is merely a rebuttal to the claim that same sex marriage should be illegal because it is not natural. Mouth-breathers such as you and Rob then take that as an argument that it should be legal because it is natural, which nobody has claimed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I admitted in a previous post that this logic might exclude elderly couples from marrying. But I wonder how often the elderly get married. I can think of some anecdotal examples, but I'd bet the statistics on it yield that it's quite uncommon.

When will you see that marriage isn't about the cost to the state, the statistical variables of who marries what at what age, it's about the right to declare before God and everybody that they intend to love each other for life. You have to be a donkey diddles his brain to try to figure out reasons why that shouldn't happen.

 

[Zorkorist]

Hell, we're 17 Trillion Dollars in Debt.

Let's let the gays collect fake money too.

-John

 

[Retro Rob]

I see Rob is yet again arguing against an argument that was never made.

Whenever it is said "it's been observed in nature", then nature becomes fair game, no matter the context.

There are perhaps a gazillion things we observe in nature that we would be repulsed by. Not sure why "homosexuality" is the exception.

However I do understand the innate desire to find justification for our actions to quell the prodding of our conscious.

Hopefully God will overlook this little bout of dishonesty when you get to the Pearly Gates.

FWIW, while I believe Heaven exists, I'm not going there...nor do I want to.

 

[Zorkorist]

No one is.

-John

 

[Retro Rob]

No one is.

-John

I don't care.

 

[Zorkorist]

Nor should you.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Be free to be the best you that you can be. Without worrying about society, or religion.

You, are your own judge, jury, and executioner.

You are also your own author, play write and muse.

Enjoy life, live, love,

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

You don't need Government (or Religion) stopping you from doing 60 in a 55, and you sure as shit don't need them telling you who you can or cannot love.

-John

 

[Retro Rob]

Be free to be the best you that you can be. Without worrying about society, or religion.

LOL - and if you want marriage rights for gays, you are "worrying about society".

You, are your own judge, jury, and executioner.

No, not really. If that were the case, I could get away with speeding and not paying taxes.

You operate within the confines of Law. But you're welcome to your own delusion.

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't need Government stopping you from doing 60 in a 55, and you sure as shit don't need them telling you who you can or cannot love.

-John

The Government doesn't tell you who you can "love"...it tells you who you can marry. You can love whomever you want.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not true. Every aspect of life today is "Governed." There are criminal, and civil penalties, depending on if I am married or not.

The tax code differentiates if I am married, or not.

If, I were Gay, I may not be allowed to see my Gay "husband" in the hospital.

THAT, is Government intrusion into "love."

-John

 

[JEDIYoda]

Then it should be easy for you to quote where someone said that everything that is natural should be legal. Once you finish failing to do that you can apologize to me.

Not that you are capable of understanding this, but the point that homosexuality is natural is merely a rebuttal to the claim that same sex marriage should be illegal because it is not natural. Mouth-breathers such as you and Rob then take that as an argument that it should be legal because it is natural, which nobody has claimed.

a liitle dank..oops I meant dense aren`t you??

 

[Retro Rob]

If, I were Gay, I may not be allowed to see my Gay "husband" in the hospital.

THAT, is Government intrusion into "love."

-John

No, it isn't. If you cannot visit your spouse in the hospital, that means you cannot visit your spouse in the hospital...that's not preventing you from "loving" them.

If anything, that limits your expressions of love...marriage is an example of that expression, it is not "love" itself.

Shucks, I'm married, and I sure loved my wife before we were married. If we were not allowed to marry, that had did NOT mean I couldn't love her.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yes, right. As you say, Government is limiting Gays expression of love.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Just like Religion.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Both, Government and Religion serve only to limit the individual.

And there is nothing wrong with the individual.

Both you and I, are individuals.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

America, was a great country, because it fucked with the individual, less.

-John

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, right. As you say, Government is limiting Gays expression of love.

-John

Well, that's what the issue really is. Love itself isn't limited, and cannot be due to the nature of it.