So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Aug 17, 2012 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Comments (Page 313)

Showing posts 6,241 - 6,260 of18,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6695
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not your secretary. Find the questions and the article yourself.
Got nothing, eh?

What a shock.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6696
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

KiMare wrote:
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

Lacez wrote; Ummm, hello, have you taken a look at Canada or any of the supporting states at all? There has been zero negative effects on society in the past 8 years. Give us a credible source of information that would indicate otherwise.
So far, the affect is only good; more people are happy, economy is going up due to the extra marriages, and people are living their lives.

Common sense would tell most people that making a profound change on the most important relationship in humanity, something that has never been done in 8000 years of recorded human history, is going to have some major changes. But your claim is that it will have zilch. Why bother then?

-Glad you brought up Canada. Do you know what is happening to health and life insurance rates for families? You didn't bring up Brazil, where there is a court action to 'correct' the discrimination of limiting marriage to only two. Nor did you bring up France, where legislation is in play to remove 'mother' and 'father' from all civil documents.

-Your next claim is worse. Are you serious??? The economy is going up? Any growth is offset by inflation. Interest on saving is zero, or at a negative. And that is because of gay marriage? Are you sure you want to go there???

-The best and most thorough study of marriage and gay couples with children already show a negative consequence. Critically, only time will expose the stupidity of equating the refinement of millions of years of evolution with a genetic disorder.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6697
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
That's stating the obvious; that the law can't change any "crucial distinctions in relationships." It has nothing to do with why same-sex marriage should be allowed or disallowed.

Law distinguishes handicapped, minorities, gender, to name a few.

SCOTUS has already distinguished marriage from other human relationships;

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

YOU already acknowledge a difference this distinction makes by not just pursuing identity with marriage, but also with family. The irony is, you have to remove children from marriage to gain access to children through marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6698
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes gay couples can perpetuate their DNA just like infertile couples can. So can a lesbian couple.
So that blows up your "bottlecap" theory.
Continually a kind of 'desperate logic' from you. Let me cover the spectrum of where you will attempt to take this line of silliness.

You will bring up the instances where some heterosexuals are infertile, then use that to rationalize homosexuality. Sorry to be so blunt but it's bleeding far too heavy to leave unaddressed.

Nature uses two components to promote itself: ability and willingness. In the example of the infertile heterosexual, there is indeed a biological defect: he does not have ability to reproduce.

It's been long established that nature is not without flaw -this is hardly a surprise. In ALL members, straight or gay, there are persons who are infertile (and in both sexualities there are members that don't care to date or just end up alone, etc..,)-WE GET THAT.

But the difference that is SHOUTINGLY obvious even considering cases of infertility, is that the heterosexual method may result in reproduction say, 90% of the time. In the homosexual method reproduction has never, let me emphasize: N E V E R occurred.

It's baking with 9 pieces coming out and the 10th a failure versus the method where the tray ALWAYS comes out empty.

Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. In procreation the genes of the parents are passed (naturally or even artificially) to the child. AGAIN this is why there can be NO QUESTION: homosexuality is an evolutionary defect.

Which brings us to the absurd comment of yours; gays can procreate.

Even in an artificial scenario, HOW are the parents of those two gay men or two gay women passed to the child? Maybe gay Rob might use Sara as a surrogate to simulate a sexual reproduction (notice a member of the opposite sex is involved). BUT either way, WHERE IS ROB'S BOYFRIEND'S genes in this equation?!? The child that results will have NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO ROB'S boyfriend; not even the tiniest twinkle in his eye.

So even in artificially induced conditions, two dads or two moms ARE NOT producing a child together. If the champion to the homosexual's way to obviate reproduction is through artificial means, the best that can come of it is one parent doomed to have no genetic relation to the child. This is HARDLY "homosexual procreation" (and I can imagine for the one member who has the genetic relation to the child that is equivalent to a perfect stranger; it must be often be disheartening).

Again, heterosexuality potentially can and usually does result in reproduction -and a reproduction that enjoys having both parents genetic legacy in the child, homosexuality cannot do EITHER.

I can't imagine why you brought up such squalid reasoning?

Finally, I'll address another ridiculous comment you've will be echoing: Why is behavior centered around reproduction so important?

For the "little reason" that THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE DEPENDS ON IT.

Every person you see around you came about from the heterosexual method; obviously this includes YOU. For you to be brazen enough to minimize the very process that created you but instead support the behavior that actually bottle caps procreation, is truly a disgrace. Talk about biting the hand that fed you!

Really you can't possibly be this dim.

We have our choice with whom we occupy our time. I can no longer entertain your underdeveloped thinking.

It's the intellectual equivalent of dignifying a buzzard to crow at a song recital. Sorry if this is a bit rude but it's the case nonetheless.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6699
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
-There is only one reason to talk about anal sex on a debate site about homosexuality and gay unions being called marriage? What a silly assertion.
One of the many arguments I make is that anal sex is a simple, clear and absolute proof that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. I keep it in front of you because you cannot get past it.
100% bull pulled from your arse.
KiMare wrote:
-It is even more dangerous to shoot a gun at people. Why are YOU not talking about that???
Because we are not the ones obsessed with anal sex.
KiMare wrote:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc...
“Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:”(see article)
“The only way to completely avoid anal sex risks is to abstain from anal sex.”
The 90% that the article speaks of already discredits the entire article. We've already proven to you that only a third of gay men participate in anal sex. If you can't remember, or ignored it, that's not our fault.
Second of all, there are much riskier sexual acts that one can perform such as sounding. So again, the article discredits itself.

The only way to completely avoid vaginal sex risks is to abstain from vaginal sex.
KiMare wrote:
-We have gone over percentages about anal sex before, and you are lying. Over 80% of gays engage in anal sex.
Your "100%" is down to 90%...
And I say it again, yes we have gone over it and yes we have proven you wrong. Do you have Alzheimer's?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6700
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
Lacez wrote; We're talking about same-sex marriage. If any other issues come up, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. This is not about "any committed relationship" getting marriage rights, this is about consensual same-sex adult couples getting married.
If the law dumbs down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship' as the basis for marriage, the door is opened for numerous alternatives. You know that. Already in Brazil there are legal attempts to outlaw the restriction of 'two people' in marriage.
Closing the door after it is opened is highly unlikely, and the damage will already have been done to the most essential relationship in human culture.
Words describe reality.'If You' lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay couples. To deny those and distort reality is stupid and dangerous.
First of all, who is "If You"?
Second, we've already established that that's not what we're talking about. Please try to stay on subject, or at least bring new arguments to the table that we haven't proved wrong time and time again.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6701
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
Gay unions will accomplish all the legitimate rights for gay couples. You know that.
Nope, we know it won't. You're either too dumb or too stubborn to realize it yourself.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6702
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
-Marriage and gay unions are not equal. That is what 'If You' points out. The only identity gay couples have with marriage is the number of people. Even inserting the word 'committed' describes numerous relationships, including military buddies!
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but your lack of education shows, as well as your lack of logic.
KiMare wrote:
-You point out the real reason. It is not equality you pursue, it is a foolish attempt to impose acceptance of a orientation that is looked on as a aberration of nature. Do you realize how foolish it will be to put duplicate genders next to diverse genders and claim they are the same? The closer denial gets to reality, the more it is exposed. The inner sense that homosexuals themselves feel about the lack of normalcy will only be exacerbated!
This is exactly why I attempt to break through the denial expressed and demanded by us gays, and to begin our pursuit of life from a firm foundation of reality. Any other basis will crumble the more you build on it.
Again, you go ahead and believe that. Why don't you also go tell black people that they should only have civil unions and not marriages?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6703
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
The 90% that the article speaks of already discredits the entire article.
Actually, I made a mistake here. They were talking about sex, not homosexuality. A distinction you, KiMare, can't seem to notice.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6704
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
I think you are confused... Differences is my whole point.
'If You' is all about differences between marriage and gay couples.
Marriage is about a union of differences. Uniting every aspect of the diversity between males and females. Gay couples have no such diversity. A clear result of the difference between the union of opposite genders and duplicate genders is that only one ever results in human fruit.
So you're against tall people marrying short people?
You're against fat people marrying skinny people?
You're against people of different colour marrying each other?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6705
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
You continue the insensitivity of people of faith (Would you burn a Qur'an?) by answering with a mocking video? Missing one point and ignoring another?
You assume I am a Christian. I am simply pointing out that intelligent and sensitive people consider the beliefs AND cultural sensitivities of others.
Gays are setting up a vicious back lash by viciously stomping on the sincere and sacred beliefs of others. As you just did by your answer. Very foolish, cruel and crude. Ironically while asking others to be sensitive to your issues.
I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just saying that there isn't a "sacred tradition" of marriage left in marriage these days, so you can't use that as an argument.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6706
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
......
Really you can't possibly be this dim.
We have our choice with whom we occupy our time. I can no longer entertain your underdeveloped thinking.
It's the intellectual equivalent of dignifying a buzzard to crow at a song recital. Sorry if this is a bit rude but it's the case nonetheless.
All the silly insults in the world will not change the simple facts.

Married couples are never required to be fertile with each-other. Marriage is not required to procreation.
And procreation is not required for marriage.

You can whip up pages and pages of rebuttal, but you can't turn one gay person straight.

You can type for an hour, but you aren't going to show that having a separate procreation standard for gay and straight couple is sensible, logical, or even Constitutional.

So why try? What's in it for you?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6707
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
-You just contradicted your own claim by the video you referenced.
Even more importantly, YOU cannot tell others what is profane or hurtful to them. Your own actions expose your ignorance of that fact. Nor can you impose your morality on others (Isn't that what you like to say?).
What you call 'more acceptable' is simply a very profane actions by others.
"Marriage isn't being defiled by anyone or anything, it was raised from what society thinks of as immoral, then turned into something more acceptable."

How is that contradicting myself? Since you are obviously illiterate, I'll dissect the sentence and hand it to you on a plate with Winnie the Pooh images on it:
Marriage used to be made up of relationships that we nowadays call immoral. Therefore it is impossible to defile it with something as simple as two men who love each other, or two women.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6708
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
Common sense would tell most people that making a profound change on the most important relationship in humanity, something that has never been done in 8000 years of recorded human history, is going to have some major changes. But your claim is that it will have zilch. Why bother then?
In this, you also speak of rights for women, coloured people, and many other individuals.
KiMare wrote:
-Glad you brought up Canada. Do you know what is happening to health and life insurance rates for families? You didn't bring up Brazil, where there is a court action to 'correct' the discrimination of limiting marriage to only two. Nor did you bring up France, where legislation is in play to remove 'mother' and 'father' from all civil documents.
We aren't talking about medicare, nor polygamy, nor titles for parents. Stop trying to derail the train, it won't work.
KiMare wrote:
-Your next claim is worse. Are you serious??? The economy is going up? Any growth is offset by inflation. Interest on saving is zero, or at a negative. And that is because of gay marriage? Are you sure you want to go there???
You an economic specialist now? Let's add that to the growing list of things you claim to be.
KiMare wrote:
-The best and most thorough study of marriage and gay couples with children already show a negative consequence. Critically, only time will expose the stupidity of equating the refinement of millions of years of evolution with a genetic disorder.
Actually, no credible studies show this. At all.
You also seem to think your opinion is fact, when in fact, it is not.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6709
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
Law distinguishes handicapped, minorities, gender, to name a few.
SCOTUS has already distinguished marriage from other human relationships;
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
YOU already acknowledge a difference this distinction makes by not just pursuing identity with marriage, but also with family. The irony is, you have to remove children from marriage to gain access to children through marriage.
A wall of text that does not address the comment or what your comment implied.
It's amazing that you're so horrible and backing up what you say.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6710
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
All the silly insults in the world will not change the simple facts.
Married couples are never required to be fertile with each-other. Marriage is not required to procreation.
And procreation is not required for marriage.
You can whip up pages and pages of rebuttal, but you can't turn one gay person straight.
You can type for an hour, but you aren't going to show that having a separate procreation standard for gay and straight couple is sensible, logical, or even Constitutional.
So why try? What's in it for you?
It does not experience logic, it has no reason, it just does and does not care for the foolishness it shows itself as.
doug

Tsumeb, Namibia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6711
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

How I See It wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one who quotes from the bible without the slightest idea what they're talking about. Do any of you morons ever think it might be good to understand what you're reading or being told concerning the bible? What fools.
those who do not believe the Bible they are a fools.
doug

Tsumeb, Namibia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6712
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not experience logic, it has no reason, it just does and does not care for the foolishness it shows itself as.
Sodom
they fear the wrath of God for he will judge them ,no man that has respect for himself will perform such a act.
doug

Tsumeb, Namibia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6713
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
If you oppose gay marriages you are a homophobe and that is a mental illness, and if acted upon can also be a criminal act.
i appose it for it is immoral and i think it stinks

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6714
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

doug wrote:
<quoted text> Sodom
they fear the wrath of God for he will judge them ,no man that has respect for himself will perform such a act.
You know that sodomy pretty much means anything but sex that's dick plus vagina, right?
That includes blow-jobs, which the majority of people like, and masturbation, which everyone does at least one time in their lives, besides those who are asexual.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 6,241 - 6,260 of18,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

38 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay Games Rodeo coming to Summit County Fairgro... 4 min Homeless Wino Pete 20
Chick-fil-A Vallejo Location Faces Opposition 5 min The_Box 108
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 7 min Reverend Alan 15,907
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 15 min anonymous 52,035
MSU Gets Anonymous $1 Million Gift For Gay Center 18 min Rainbow Morality 9
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 22 min Terry rigsby 48,843
McDowell County, Spruce Pine support gay marria... (Apr '12) 28 min united states 124
DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme C... 52 min Wondering 403
•••
•••