So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Grou...

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

There are 18008 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 17, 2012, titled So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Another

Rochester, MN

#6756 Oct 14, 2012
So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Themselves, they are truly just more Amoral, leftist terrorists who brainwash children
Another

Rochester, MN

#6757 Oct 14, 2012
Jackson wrote:
Always vote NO on gay marriage and gay adoption for the sake of the innocent, little children!!!
I 100% agree thanks
Gay are Inhuman, tripped-out communists who love government intervention

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6758 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
Lacez wrote; That would not be equal, you can't have separate and equal, that doesn't exist.
If it were simply the word "marriage," then we would have had proper civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage years ago. Though this is not the case, for people don't care about the word "marriage," they care that same-sex couples are receiving equality, which means that same-sex couples would no longer be looked at as inferior. That is a huge issue with the anti-gay people.
-Marriage and gay unions are not equal.
Why not? Be specific.
Don't mention reproduction. Many opposite sex couples can't or won't reproduce. They are still married, right?
Don't mention anal sex. Many opposite sex couples engage in anal sex. They are still married, right?
KiMare wrote:
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!

-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?
How are they not the same? You never tell us that.

BidensSmirk

Rochester, MN

#6759 Oct 14, 2012
Gays are stupid They work with socialists and muslims who would like to kill them, They are such a stupid race of people they are nothing more than Money-stealing, ballot-box-stuffing idiots who keep the masses down-trodden

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6760 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
Lacez wrote; The following YouTube video is my rebuttal to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
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.
If I were to marry anybody it would be my white bf. It that were to offend any Xians (many still think god does not approve of interracial marriage), they are free to go fk themselves. I'd even like to give him a bj in front of them. Why should people have to live their lives around other people's bigotry and superstitions?
KiMare wrote:
Gays are setting up a vicious back lash by viciously stomping on the sincere and sacred beliefs of others.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
KiMare wrote:
As you just did by your answer. Very foolish, cruel and crude. Ironically while asking others to be sensitive to your issues.
There was only one argument mentioned *against* interracial marriage in Loving v VA.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Should the Lovings have been denied the right to marry to avoid hurting the poor wittle feewings of Xians?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#6761 Oct 14, 2012
BidensSmirk wrote:
Gays are stupid They work with socialists and muslims who would like to kill them, They are such a stupid race of people they are nothing more than Money-stealing, ballot-box-stuffing idiots who keep the masses down-trodden
Posting with different names and locations is not fooling anyone. We all know you're just another psychotic with multiple personalities.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#6762 Oct 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were to marry anybody it would be my white bf. It that were to offend any Xians (many still think god does not approve of interracial marriage), they are free to go fk themselves. I'd even like to give him a bj in front of them. Why should people have to live their lives around other people's bigotry and superstitions?
<quoted text>
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
<quoted text>
There was only one argument mentioned *against* interracial marriage in Loving v VA.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Should the Lovings have been denied the right to marry to avoid hurting the poor wittle feewings of Xians?
I really like the placement of that Albert Einstein quote.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6763 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
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.
Such as? You have nada. Squat. Zip.
Well, you do have one thing, baseless fear mongering.
KiMare wrote:
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?
LOL.
"Meteor Coming! Gays fault?"
http://youtu.be/rixkck8QnjY

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6764 Oct 14, 2012
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.

Worth repeating, don't you think?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6765 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
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
Skinner v OK wasn't about marriage. It had nothing to do with marriage. Nobody was trying to change marriage law. Skinner was about using forced sterilization as a means of punishment for crime. Doing that was ruled unconstitutional, as it should have been.
KiMare wrote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
And?
KiMare wrote:
"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¬óits inclusion of one woman and one man¬óreflects 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.
You don't have to be married in order to adopt, or "access to children" by any other means.

You still haven't come up with a good argument against gay marriage.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#6766 Oct 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as? You have nada. Squat. Zip.
Well, you do have one thing, baseless fear mongering.
<quoted text>
LOL.
"Meteor Coming! Gays fault?"
http://youtu.be/rixkck8QnjY
Aww, I was excited for a second...I had thought that you would show us a new video...for example:
http://youtu.be/Wp76ly2_NoI

Look at the dislike bar! It's like a red light saber, you know, the kind the bad guys always have?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#6767 Oct 14, 2012
Jackson wrote:
Always vote NO on gay marriage and gay adoption for the sake of the innocent, little children!!!
And kittens.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6768 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nobody has done that.
Why lie?
KiMare wrote:
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.
BS. Think amoebas make a decision to divide?
KiMare wrote:
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.
Or who just choose not to spawn.
Bet your parents wish they had made that decision!
KiMare wrote:


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.
So what? Nobody is saying it has. Do you have some kind of point?
KiMare wrote:

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.
And? Seven billion people aren't enough for you?
KiMare wrote:

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.
How so? You even contradict yourself.
You say:
"Nature uses two components to promote itself: ability and willingness."
AFAIK, a homosexual person is no more or less likely to be sterile than a straight person, so if they are willing to reproduce, they can.


“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#6769 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Continually a kind of 'desperate logic' from you. Let me cover the spectrum of where you will attempt to take this line of silliness.
Sure, "desperate logic."
This coming from the one that's pulling random statements from thin air and attempting to make it about gay people marrying...
KiMare wrote:
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.
No, we're addressing your bull that procreation has anything to with with what marriage is about. You are pulling procreation out of your arse as an excuse, a bad one at that.
KiMare wrote:
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.
Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
KiMare wrote:
***A bunch of stuff about reproduction that has nothing to do with the subject because reproduction is not a requirement in marriage.***
I just eliminated two thirds of your comment because it has nothing to do with allowing gay people to marry. Your attempt to derail the the topic is not working.
KiMare wrote:
Really you can't possibly be this dim.
Hahahaha!
This coming from you?
KiMare wrote:
We have our choice with whom we occupy our time. I can no longer entertain your underdeveloped thinking.
So why don't you take your illogical, irrational, and uneducated thinking and leave?
KiMare wrote:
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.
Worth repeating, don't you think?
Actually no, that's a dull metaphor and your repetition of it speaks in volumes as to the fact that you can't come up with anything else.
You are a maniac, babbling to the walls whenever you can't babble online. Wait, that doesn't work, that's the truth, not a metaphor...hmm...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6770 Oct 14, 2012
doug wrote:
<quoted text> those who do not believe the Bible they are a fools.
Is it foolish to believe the earth is a sphere and not flat? The Buy-bull indicates the earth is flat.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6772 Oct 14, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I really like the placement of that Albert Einstein quote.
Thank you. And he was so right!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6773 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
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.
Nobody has done that. Nobody.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#6774 Oct 14, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww, I was excited for a second...I had thought that you would show us a new video...for example:
http://youtu.be/Wp76ly2_NoI
Look at the dislike bar! It's like a red light saber, you know, the kind the bad guys always have?
OMG. Poe's Law!
I like this reply to it.
http://youtu.be/bIefEZhW8T0

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#6775 Oct 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can get to your destination sitting in the back of the bus instead of the front. Guess that whole Montgomery Bus Boycott was a waste of time.
Brava!

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#6776 Oct 14, 2012
Jackson wrote:
Always vote NO on gay marriage and gay adoption for the sake of the innocent, little children!!!
Ok, who's the douche who turned on FoxNews?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Terra Firma 25,283
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 2 hr Chris Rather 40
News Catholic parents fight gay couple's adoption 3 hr Mullahing It Over 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 46,340
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 105
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 hr GomerPyle 13,282
News Audra McDonald joins Michael Tilson Thomas for ... 6 hr Mullahing It Over 3
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 9 hr Will 80
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 hr Wondering 5,416
More from around the web