Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

58,836 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96868 Feb 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
1. There are a tremendous number of passionate relationships of love that never involve sex.
"Tremendous" numbers? Remember, I specified ROMANTIC love. And how many of the people in these passionate ROMANTIC relationships don't look forward to expanding their relationships into sex? How many of them are deliberately planning lives together WITHOUT sex?
KiMare wrote:
2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. A truly loving relationship would never submit the other to such abuse. The conflict of sexual function exposes homosexuality as a sexual defect.
Sorry, I've got 26 years of experience working against this claim. No harm yet. I'm as healthy as any typical 44 year old. And "demeaning"? How about you let people decide for THEMSELVES what they consider demeaning? You don't get to tell other people what demeans them.

But if there are "tremendous" numbers of people in romantic relationships that hope to never progress to sex, then there are certainly significant numbers of homosexuals who don't practice anal sex, as well as significant numbers of heterosexuals who DO.
KiMare wrote:
3. At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Yeah, that's just what my cousin tells all of his babymamas.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron. No legislation or ruling can change that fact.
Legislation in 17 states (and counting) has done exactly that.
KiMare wrote:
4. Ss couples can never equate to marriage at any level except the number of people involved.
Except at the legal level. Since you personally are not the arbiter or administrator of what marriage is, I'm not particularly worried about how you define it, or who you consider to be married. If you happened to be racist, and you proclaimed that two people of different races could never equate to marriage, interracial couples would be just as free to ignore your opinion as gay people are. We only care what the government considers marriage, not what independent citizens think.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#96869 Feb 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
"Tremendous" numbers? Remember, I specified ROMANTIC love. And how many of the people in these passionate ROMANTIC relationships don't look forward to expanding their relationships into sex? How many of them are deliberately planning lives together WITHOUT sex?
<quoted text>
Sorry, I've got 26 years of experience working against this claim. No harm yet. I'm as healthy as any typical 44 year old. And "demeaning"? How about you let people decide for THEMSELVES what they consider demeaning? You don't get to tell other people what demeans them.
But if there are "tremendous" numbers of people in romantic relationships that hope to never progress to sex, then there are certainly significant numbers of homosexuals who don't practice anal sex, as well as significant numbers of heterosexuals who DO.
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's just what my cousin tells all of his babymamas.
<quoted text>
Legislation in 17 states (and counting) has done exactly that.
<quoted text>
Except at the legal level. Since you personally are not the arbiter or administrator of what marriage is, I'm not particularly worried about how you define it, or who you consider to be married. If you happened to be racist, and you proclaimed that two people of different races could never equate to marriage, interracial couples would be just as free to ignore your opinion as gay people are. We only care what the government considers marriage, not what independent citizens think.
1. You are referring to defective mating behavior. Literally the opposite of functioning mating behavior.

2. You can't be serious. Here again, we have the clearly natural function of intercourse involving a penis and a vagina being equated to the violent violation of the anus??? Heterosexuals have an option, gays do not.

3. Really a childish avoidance of the truth.

4. Legislation is powerless against reality. Ss marriage will always be an oxymoron.

5. Manipulated law hardly equates to justice. A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage. African Americans have no such problem.

SMile.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96870 Feb 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
1. You are referring to defective mating behavior. Literally the opposite of functioning mating behavior.
Why do I need to care about “mating behavior”? My state government doesn't care about that, why should I? I don’t need “mating behavior” in order to have a marriage. No one does.

Besides, what would “defective” have to do with it? If gay people are truly “defective”, why would that mean that they can’t be married? We don’t tell people with defective legs that they can’t come upstairs, we build ramps (we legally require them, in fact). We don’t tell people with defective eyes that they can’t read a book, we print it in Braille. Why would any defect be a barrier to marriage?
KiMare wrote:
2. You can't be serious.
I’m completely serious. I guarantee that you do not have more objective information than I do about anal sex. Try it out for a couple decades, THEN come tell me about its health effects.
KiMare wrote:
Here again, we have the clearly natural function of intercourse involving a penis and a vagina being equated to the violent violation of the anus???
Who said anything about “violent”? It can be as gentle as a caress. I've had thousands of burritos that were more violent going through. And even vaginal sex can be consensually violent. Some people LIKE a little violence.

And what difference to YOU is it what people do with their body parts? Again, quit telling people how demeaned they should feel, or what should constitute a “violation”. These are not your assertions to make about other people’s lives or bodies.
KiMare wrote:
Heterosexuals have an option, gays do not.
Again you speak where you have no experience (I presume). No options? How about, NOT having anal sex? Isn’t THAT an option? Can’t we be part of your TREMENDOUS numbers of people having sexless, passionate relationships? Having anal sex is not a prerequisite for being gay, you know. Besides, there are plenty of options. There’s oral sex, manual sex, frottage… get creative.

This is FAR too prurient an interest for a person to have about someone ELSE’S marriage.
KiMare wrote:
3. Really a childish avoidance of the truth.
No, just a practical (if sarcastic) application of your premise.

Honestly. You consider “a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior” to be a BASIC essence? I can get a FAR more basic essence out of marriage: a joining. Bam. Done. How long did it take you to cobble together that seven-word monstrosity?
KiMare wrote:
4. Legislation is powerless against reality. Ss marriage will always be an oxymoron.
Oh, really? I didn’t know that. Well, now I have a conundrum. Do I listen to my state government, who administers the marriage benefits, or do I listen to a stranger on the internet? Tough call.
KiMare wrote:
5. Manipulated law hardly equates to justice.
Right, the law has nothing to do with justice. Good one.
KiMare wrote:
A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
…and? Is there a point to that? So what?

Plenty of marriages are sterile. Some are even GUARANTEED to pass debilitating conditions on to their children. No one stops them. And gay couples may certainly RAISE children, so their sterility is irrelevant.

EVERYONE’S sterility is irrelevant to their ability marry. Everyone. You can drop the sterility angle.
KiMare wrote:
African Americans have no such problem.
But they are just as beholden to your opinion as gay couples are. If you personally don’t recognize or respect someone else’s marriage, they aren't obligated to give your personal opinion any weight whatsoever. Wherever the state recognizes a marriage, then there is a marriage. Individual citizens have no power to negate that, you included.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#96871 Feb 11, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said anything about “violent”? It can be as gentle as a caress. I've had thousands of burritos that were more violent going through.
Thank God I put my wine glass down before reading this. That's one of the best retorts EVER to KiMerde.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#96872 Feb 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You are referring to defective mating behavior. Literally the opposite of functioning mating behavior.
2. You can't be serious. Here again, we have the clearly natural function of intercourse involving a penis and a vagina being equated to the violent violation of the anus??? Heterosexuals have an option, gays do not.
3. Really a childish avoidance of the truth.
4. Legislation is powerless against reality. Ss marriage will always be an oxymoron.
5. Manipulated law hardly equates to justice. A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage. African Americans have no such problem.
SMile.
You poison the world with your vile comments. You are definitely NOT a man of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#96874 Feb 12, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank God I put my wine glass down before reading this. That's one of the best retorts EVER to KiMerde.
I agree.

Smirk.

mandingowillsay

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#96875 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see this posting before. I don't know you, but you might just be a terrible person, with terrible morals. You appear to be blindly following orders, which I already recognize as dangerous and amoral.
If you don't believe that being gay is for you, then don't. No one will force you. But it seems that you can't recognize in your fellow human the freedom that you demand for yourself.
Why should I care what the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran have to say on these subjects? How reliable have these books been shown to be in their morality? Take the land of the unbelievers, and keep the virgin daughters. Stone unruly children to death. Quarantine menstruating women outside of town. The drowning of every human being on Earth. THESE are morals? Talking animals. Resurrection. Virgin births. A tower to Heaven. Tearing the moon in half with one's bare hands. These are truths? These books are myths of the most blood-thirsty kind. They have nothing to say about morality, except how NOT to do it.
I know you think you are refuting me but I promise you are not, all you have is what every pro hetero has experienced on this forum. A bunch of homo's thumbing up every point you make and thumbing down every point against them.

First of all no one cares if you specifically accept the bible koran or torah. The point is those in cahoots with you DO argue that the bible does not condemn them. They have been arguing this for dear life.

As for you opinion on me, it's not really worth a define and won't define anyone including me. The point is homosexuals have FORCED hetero men to accept their stuff.

You post a whole load of subjective hypothetical nonsense and think you made a point.

mandingowillsay

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#96876 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see this posting before. I don't know you, but you might just be a terrible person, with terrible morals. You appear to be blindly following orders, which I already recognize as dangerous and amoral.
If you don't believe that being gay is for you, then don't. No one will force you. But it seems that you can't recognize in your fellow human the freedom that you demand for yourself.
Why should I care what the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran have to say on these subjects? How reliable have these books been shown to be in their morality? Take the land of the unbelievers, and keep the virgin daughters. Stone unruly children to death. Quarantine menstruating women outside of town. The drowning of every human being on Earth. THESE are morals? Talking animals. Resurrection. Virgin births. A tower to Heaven. Tearing the moon in half with one's bare hands. These are truths? These books are myths of the most blood-thirsty kind. They have nothing to say about morality, except how NOT to do it.
Klmare is doing a good job of refuting all your nonsense, But I don't have the time to write against any of these inane massive parables of crap you keep posting.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#96877 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is homosexuals have FORCED hetero men to accept their stuff.
.
What stuff? And why are the homosexuals not FORCING straight women their stuff?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96879 Feb 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
5. "A joining" equates to the basic essence of marriage?'A joining' equates to countless things.
And the word marriage is used to describe countless things. That's what makes this essence BASIC. Your mile-long Frankenstein of a phrase doesn't exist anywhere else, it's just your own personal concoction, and it certainly isn’t “basic”.
KiMare wrote:
What doesn't equate is a duplicate gendered couple to a diverse gendered couple. Vastly distinct at the get-go.
Their gender composition doesn't negate their common humanity. I don't understand how someone can be so callous as to ignore and defy that. You seem to care more about pretty little pigeon-holes than you do about the people you’re trying to cram into them.

Many states disregard gender, to no ill effect. If THEY don't care, then you've got to convince me why I should care.
KiMare wrote:
6. There goes that deceitful denial again. I equated the fallacious law to reality, not my opinion. You top that off with the idiotic claim that the law and justice equate. Isn't that YOUR claim about DOMA?
It’s difficult to refute your accusations of “deceitful denial”, when you number your sentences with no reference to the original statement. I don’t remember saying anything about DOMA. I certainly don’t see any “justice” in denying citizens in good standing the right to protect their loved ones like anyone else.

Whatever law is enacted in reality, THAT’S reality. I don’t know how else to explain that to you. These aren’t imaginary laws governing elves and orcs. They’ve been enacted in the real world, in real courtrooms, and they govern real human beings.
KiMare wrote:
7. The point of 'A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.'? How about the fact that it makes ss marriage an oxymoron?
How does it do that, if sterility and gender don’t matter? My state government does not care about your opinion of oxymorons, so why should I?
KiMare wrote:
Even if you ignore the fact that 94% of marriages involve procreation, and only consider the marriages of medically handicapped couples, old couples and couples who have a choice to procreate, ss couples STILL cannot even equate to them, being 100% mutually sterile!!!
I’m not trying to CLONE someone else’s marriage. Mine will be unique to my husband and myself, just as anyone’s marriage is unique to their relationship. There isn’t a single state in the Union which considers sterility to be a barrier to marriage. No one cares. Except for you. About other people’s marriages. This is bizarrely intrusive and overly-personal of you.
KiMare wrote:
8. I am fully aware of my right to state facts and reality in the face of idiotic denial.
You have the right to say whatever you want. It’s just very strange to hear you claim that “reality” does not constitute the currently occurring events in our world. These laws do not go away just because you claim they are not real.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96880 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
I know you think you are refuting me but I promise you are not, all you have is what every pro hetero has experienced on this forum. A bunch of homo's thumbing up every point you make and thumbing down every point against them.
Thumbs up are nice, but I usually feel better about just honing my arguments. It's more disappointing when I get no coherent defense back. It makes the opposition's points seem all the more indefensible, and that's no challenge.
mandingowillsay wrote:
First of all no one cares if you specifically accept the bible koran or torah. The point is those in cahoots with you DO argue that the bible does not condemn them. They have been arguing this for dear life.
I agree with you here. I believe the Bible DOES condemn homosexual activity, and I think that gay people who argue against this are reaching for a rationalization.

This is one of the reasons that I think that the Bible is largely immoral. Condemnation of consensual human activity is irrational, pointless, and cruel. The Bible makes no good point as to WHY homosexuality should be condemned, and its calls for DEATH have produced a blood stain on human history that can never be forgiven.
mandingowillsay wrote:
As for you opinion on me, it's not really worth a define and won't define anyone including me. The point is homosexuals have FORCED hetero men to accept their stuff.
How awful. Imagine, human beings hoping for acceptance. What HAS the world come to?

No one is trying to force you to have gay sex against your will, so I don't understand what your problem is. All you have to accept is that the world is full of people who are different than you, and you need to share the place without expecting them to hide or apologize for who they are.
mandingowillsay wrote:
You post a whole load of subjective hypothetical nonsense and think you made a point.
If I didn’t, then surely you can refute some of them. The Bible does not suddenly become less bloodthirsty and inhumane, just because you call what I say nonsense. Elijah still called on bears to kill children. The punishment for rape is still listed as having the rapist marry his victim. The children of slaves are still inheritable property. Working on the Sabbath is still listed as a good reason to kill someone (at least until Jesus comes along and says “What? Where did you ever get THAT idea?” as if he wasn’t the one who made the rule in the first place). The book is still contradiction upon slaughter upon magic.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96881 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
Klmare is doing a good job of refuting all your nonsense
Then I wonder why the arguments he uses aren't having any effect in court.
mandingowillsay wrote:
But I don't have the time to write against any of these inane massive parables of crap you keep posting.
Because... the internet is on a timer?

Sorry if my deep analysis doesn't fit in a twitter-sized soundbyte. The list of things that I think are wrong with the Bible is long.

mandingowillsay

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#96882 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I wonder why the arguments he uses aren't having any effect in court.
<quoted text>
Because... the internet is on a timer?
Sorry if my deep analysis doesn't fit in a twitter-sized soundbyte. The list of things that I think are wrong with the Bible is long.
There is nothing to refute because you haven't made any points.

I made solid points against a group who were claiming the bible does not condemn homosexual acts.

You agreed with this, so what point do you claim to have made that I did not refute earlier?

Homosexuals are not begging to be accepted, they are not a marginalized cut off group like say the Aboriginal Australians, or African Americans in the 50's etc. They are a group with the power to lobby governments.

This is why they are in Africa threatening to sanction people if they don't accept the gay agenda. How the hell does that represent a people begging for acceptance? You are trying to force people to change their legislation; and incorporate things like gay marriage. I'm not down with that, and when you look you will see that near the entire African continent supports their leaders and are rejection the gay maffias agenda.

And you'll disappoint me if you continue to try and dismiss these points as being motivated by an irrational hate of homosexuals. They exist no one can change that. but don't try and contort every institution and force countries to put things in their legislation so you can feel normal.

There are gay people all over the world being treated normal even in Africa. But this is not enough for them, they want to force governments to see constitutions written specifically around them not marginalized groups which they are not.

And again, please make a point and tell me what you want me to refute because I don't see any point you have made in over three pages of extremely long rambling posts.
Don't think you refuted something just because people know you are against something someone said;

Lmao!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#96883 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And the word marriage is used to describe countless things. That's what makes this essence BASIC. Your mile-long Frankenstein of a phrase doesn't exist anywhere else, it's just your own personal concoction, and it certainly isn’t “basic”.
<quoted text>
Their gender composition doesn't negate their common humanity. I don't understand how someone can be so callous as to ignore and defy that. You seem to care more about pretty little pigeon-holes than you do about the people you’re trying to cram into them.
Many states disregard gender, to no ill effect. If THEY don't care, then you've got to convince me why I should care.
<quoted text>
It’s difficult to refute your accusations of “deceitful denial”, when you number your sentences with no reference to the original statement. I don’t remember saying anything about DOMA. I certainly don’t see any “justice” in denying citizens in good standing the right to protect their loved ones like anyone else.
Whatever law is enacted in reality, THAT’S reality. I don’t know how else to explain that to you. These aren’t imaginary laws governing elves and orcs. They’ve been enacted in the real world, in real courtrooms, and they govern real human beings.
<quoted text>
How does it do that, if sterility and gender don’t matter? My state government does not care about your opinion of oxymorons, so why should I?
<quoted text>
I’m not trying to CLONE someone else’s marriage. Mine will be unique to my husband and myself, just as anyone’s marriage is unique to their relationship. There isn’t a single state in the Union which considers sterility to be a barrier to marriage. No one cares. Except for you. About other people’s marriages. This is bizarrely intrusive and overly-personal of you.
<quoted text>
You have the right to say whatever you want. It’s just very strange to hear you claim that “reality” does not constitute the currently occurring events in our world. These laws do not go away just because you claim they are not real.
Eddy, I'm tired of exposing your ranting irrational denial.

As to DOMA, I simply note that gays decry a law that was repeatedly affirmed by the vote of citizens. I simply expose a manipulated law that flies in the face of reality.

You have a piece of paper claiming that your mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered relationship equates to marriage. That distinction bothers you immensely, in spite of your claim otherwise.

You know as well as I do that nothing can change the inferior status of your relationship. It is visibly a counterfeit, scientifically defective mating behavior, factually fallacious and socially a forced sympathy to denial.

Smile.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96884 Feb 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Eddy, I'm tired of exposing your ranting irrational denial.
As to DOMA, I simply note that gays decry a law that was repeatedly affirmed by the vote of citizens.
The citizenry did not vote on DOMA. It was introduced by Congress and signed into law by Clinton. At no time was a public vote made available. Are you sure you UNDERSTAND these issues you're arguing?
KiMare wrote:
I simply expose a manipulated law that flies in the face of reality.
If the law says that gay couples are married, THAT'S REALITY. It's weird that you don't get this. You seem to be saying that "reality" is different from presently occuring events, just because you don't LIKE the turn of those events. "Reality" isn't going to jump up and say "Oh no, you can't have that law!" and then somehow magically repeal it.

Don't like the law? Then find a way to change it (that's what we did). Until it's changed, it's part of reality.
KiMare wrote:
You have a piece of paper claiming that your mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered relationship equates to marriage. That distinction bothers you immensely, in spite of your claim otherwise.
I don't have anything yet, just a domestic partnership. We have a date planned in late May, or we may just do nothing and let the state convert it to marriage in June.

Nothing about this "bothers" me. I see no distinction. I don't NEED to see any distinctions. The state doesn't ask me to. How will these alleged distinctions affect the functions of my marriage? Not in any way I can see, nor in any way you could name.
KiMare wrote:
You know as well as I do that nothing can change the inferior status of your relationship.
So now that you're done telling me how demeaned I should be feeling, you've moved on to telling me what I know? THIS is the debate style of equality opposers?

The only thing "inferior" about the status of my (pending) marriage, is that it isn't yet recognized in all 50 states.

Yet.
KiMare wrote:
It is visibly a counterfeit, scientifically defective mating behavior, factually fallacious and socially a forced sympathy to denial.
Wow, that's a lot of issues to sort out. I wish you well with it.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#96885 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
<quoted text>
Klmare is doing a good job of refuting all your nonsense, But I don't have the time to write against any of these inane massive parables of crap you keep posting.
LOL. Kimare has nothing but a third nipple, a schizophrenic sidekick, and a completely useless vagina.

That one can't even make it into Ripleys believe it or not.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96886 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
There is nothing to refute because you haven't made any points.
Look, I just came here because the headline caught my eye, and I jumped to the last page for the most recent conversation. Someone mentioned "sin" not being a real concept, and I weighed in. But if you want to see the points I've made which deny the validity of the Bible, then scroll back up.

Here are a few highlights:

The Bible is claimed to be "truth", but includes such fantastic impossibilities as talking animals, the repopulation of both prey and predator animals from only 2 of each, the formation of languages all at once rather than the migratory evolution we know to have happened (and this at the base of a tower that God was so fearful would reach Heaven, that he deliberately confounded humankind's best efforts at cooperation). The book includes dragons, unicorns, satyrs, and a beast called a cockatrice (look it up). It gives a cure for leprosy, by rubbing bird's blood on the HOUSE of the afflicted. Their HOUSE, for Pete's sake. NONE of this is even CLOSE to "truth".

The Bible is claimed to be the source of all good morality, yet it gives EXTENSIVE instructions for slave-keeping (and slave-beating). It puts a dollar-value on a man's daughter for when he's ready to sell her. It mis-describes quarantine as a necessity when a woman is menstruating, and sundown as the cleansing cure. It orders women into silence and submission around men, forbidding them from teaching or having authority over men. It calls for the death penalty for the most TRIVIAL of crimes (about five minutes after God says that killing breaks one of his Top Ten rules). It blames humans for the crimes of their ancestors (crimes committed before they had any knowledge of good or evil). It encourages God's Chosen People in the theft of the land of their neighboring tribes, and the seizure of the virgin daughters as spoils of war. None of this even approaches morality.

I could go on and on and on.

And I think I made my points about "sin", when I first posted. See my post #96855 for a re-cap. If you STILL think none of these points are worth refuting, that's fine. I'll continue feeling how I feel about this book which calls on people to obey orders rather than exercise their own better reason and judgment, and I'll continue to remain confident that "true believers" are not actually able to defend the horrors of their own religion, even when those horrors are laid out in a long uncomfortable list.

mandingowillsay

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#96887 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The citizenry did not vote on DOMA. It was introduced by Congress and signed into law by Clinton. At no time was a public vote made available. Are you sure you UNDERSTAND these issues you're arguing?
<quoted text>
If the law says that gay couples are married, THAT'S REALITY. It's weird that you don't get this. You seem to be saying that "reality" is different from presently occuring events, just because you don't LIKE the turn of those events. "Reality" isn't going to jump up and say "Oh no, you can't have that law!" and then somehow magically repeal it.
Don't like the law? Then find a way to change it (that's what we did). Until it's changed, it's part of reality.
<quoted text>
I don't have anything yet, just a domestic partnership. We have a date planned in late May, or we may just do nothing and let the state convert it to marriage in June.
Nothing about this "bothers" me. I see no distinction. I don't NEED to see any distinctions. The state doesn't ask me to. How will these alleged distinctions affect the functions of my marriage? Not in any way I can see, nor in any way you could name.
<quoted text>
So now that you're done telling me how demeaned I should be feeling, you've moved on to telling me what I know? THIS is the debate style of equality opposers?
The only thing "inferior" about the status of my (pending) marriage, is that it isn't yet recognized in all 50 states.
Yet.
<quoted text>
Wow, that's a lot of issues to sort out. I wish you well with it.
I think you may have difficulty reading; either that or you just like boring people with long parables about nothing. Which wouldn't surprise me because I know you are as aware as me that whatever psychobabble you post the strong arm of the gay mafia will put at least 5 thumbs up on your non-point.

what KilMare has pointed out is that gay marriage is nothing more than a caricature of a real wedding with of a real marriage between a man and a woman. All you have is one man pretending he is a wife!! What nonsense is that?

And just because the state has allowed you to certify this non-wedding with a certificate it does not make it any thing like a real marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#96888 Feb 12, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The citizenry did not vote on DOMA. It was introduced by Congress and signed into law by Clinton. At no time was a public vote made available. Are you sure you UNDERSTAND these issues you're arguing?
<quoted text>
If the law says that gay couples are married, THAT'S REALITY. It's weird that you don't get this. You seem to be saying that "reality" is different from presently occuring events, just because you don't LIKE the turn of those events. "Reality" isn't going to jump up and say "Oh no, you can't have that law!" and then somehow magically repeal it.
Don't like the law? Then find a way to change it (that's what we did). Until it's changed, it's part of reality.
<quoted text>
I don't have anything yet, just a domestic partnership. We have a date planned in late May, or we may just do nothing and let the state convert it to marriage in June.
Nothing about this "bothers" me. I see no distinction. I don't NEED to see any distinctions. The state doesn't ask me to. How will these alleged distinctions affect the functions of my marriage? Not in any way I can see, nor in any way you could name.
<quoted text>
So now that you're done telling me how demeaned I should be feeling, you've moved on to telling me what I know? THIS is the debate style of equality opposers?
The only thing "inferior" about the status of my (pending) marriage, is that it isn't yet recognized in all 50 states.
Yet.
<quoted text>
Wow, that's a lot of issues to sort out. I wish you well with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#96889 Feb 12, 2014
mandingowillsay wrote:
I think you may have difficulty reading; either that or you just like boring people with long parables about nothing. Which wouldn't surprise me because I know you are as aware as me that whatever psychobabble you post the strong arm of the gay mafia will put at least 5 thumbs up on your non-point.
I really don't care about "thumbs up". I'm more interested in hearing what real people have to say, in their own words, showing that they've thought out their position logically and reasonably. When they huff and puff about thumbs up icons, instead of addressing individiual points directly, then I have to start thinking that they HAVEN'T thought their position out very deeply.
mandingowillsay wrote:
what KilMare has pointed out is that gay marriage is nothing more than a caricature of a real wedding with of a real marriage between a man and a woman.
What KiMare (I don't think there's an L in there) is saying is that a same-sex marriage is not what HE considers marriage. What I keep telling him is that no one CARES what he personally thinks marriage is. He's not in charge of administering it.

Some people don't think that an interracial marriage is really a marriage. But does that mean that the people IN an interracial marriage must LISTEN to such opinions?
mandingowillsay wrote:
All you have is one man pretending he is a wife!! What nonsense is that?
It's you deliberately misunderstanding the issue, that's what it is. Two married men are both husbands. Wives are females who are married. Husbands are men who are married. It's as simple as that. Go ahead and make it complicated and confusing for yourself if you like. It has no bearing on my life or my marriage.
mandingowillsay wrote:
And just because the state has allowed you to certify this non-wedding with a certificate it does not make it any thing like a real marriage.
Yes, actually, that's exactly what it does. The state says we're married, the state says we get all the same rights and benefits as any other marriage, the state will recognize every last aspect of our marriage the same as any other marriage. All this takes place on planet Earth, right here in Reality.

Just because you don't like these facts doesn't mean I need to give your opinion any weight. Only the opinion of the state matters to me. I'm not sure if you're hoping I'll be sad that you don't consider my marriage "real", or if you're hoping I'll run out and divorce my husband and start looking for a wife, or if you think I'll go running to my county marriage license office and say in a panic "Somebody on the internet says I don't have a real marriage! What should I do?!"

I won't do any of these things. I'll continue to live my life, as a married man, utterly heedless of your complaints. Neither you nor KiMare are responsible for recognizing marriages, or for administering marriage benefits. I don't understand why either of you have the hubris to think that anyone should consider your opinions anything other than laughable.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 min Neville Thompson 42,221
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 min Adam 615,642
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min lightbeamrider 950,182
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr who 278,328
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 3 hr White Male_ 3,351
maa ko kaise choda jay (Mar '14) 3 hr dost ki ma ka khasam 159
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Patrick Daniels 626,952
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 hr gundee123 14,126
More from around the web