Gay Marriage Debate - El Paso, TX

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in El Paso, TX.

Do you support gay marriage?

El Paso opposes
Oppose
 
337
Support
 
324

Vote now in El Paso:

Paul Wheaton

Dayton, OH

#4694 Nov 29, 2012
There is no vital public interest deserving support for queer hedonism, queer sodomy, or queer abortions.

There is a very obvious vital public interest in birthing and raising children, which is the basis for traditional marriage.

You will not get public support via a marriage license for your queer hedonism, your queer sodomy, or your queer abortions.

Since you do desire material support, go ask your rich Hollywood buddies to share the wealth.
Paul Wheaton

Dayton, OH

#4695 Nov 29, 2012
Have you noticed how mass media pundits spin the identity of homosexual child molesters as merely the actions of generic pedophiles, never identifying the attacks as homosexual in particular?

For example, take the chickenhawk homosexual molestor Jerry Sandusky. Never once was it revealed by mass media pundits that all of Jerry's victims were boys or that Jerry is a bi-sexual queer.

The most obvious mass media deception is the male catholic priest molestation of boys. Once again, mass media never mention the priestly attacks were practically all man-boy homosexual attacks. Instead the queer gatekeepers in mass media blame religion as the culprit, not queers in robes of authority.

Mass media queers spin the news to give gullible people the mistaken impression that queers are only pervy around adults.

Corey Feldman revealed not too long ago the rampant infestation of child molestors in Hollywood. Of course, Hollywood is infested with male homosexuals, so it doesn't take a wild imagination to believe that all of the attacks Corey witnessed were homosexual man-boy molestation.

When an adult lesbian attacks a young girl, queers in media spin that news too as just another case of normal dating gone wrong...

http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2010/07/...

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/state/ohio-w...
fox

El Paso, TX

#4696 Nov 29, 2012
Read the bible. How can you claim to be christian if your gay, when God strickly forbids it? Leviticus 20:13. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abominatio: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them." it dont get any clearer than that.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4697 Nov 29, 2012
Paul Wheaton wrote:
There is no vital public interest deserving support for queer hedonism, queer sodomy, or queer abortions.
There is a very obvious vital public interest in birthing and raising children, which is the basis for traditional marriage.
You will not get public support via a marriage license for your queer hedonism, your queer sodomy, or your queer abortions.
Since you do desire material support, go ask your rich Hollywood buddies to share the wealth.
"There is no vital public interest deserving support for queer hedonism, queer sodomy, or queer abortions."

A) The public issue is equal treatment for all citizens...been a public interest since continental congress convened
B) You do realize how silly your statement sounds.... "queer abortions".... when you would be the first to say they can't have children.....

"There is a very obvious vital public interest in birthing and raising children, which is the basis for traditional marriage."

Really, so what is the public interest in infertile couples, couples where one is "fixed" or post menopausal women marrying?.... obviously neight one of these groups can produce children which, according to you, is " "the basis for traditional marriage."

"You will not get public support via a marriage license for your queer hedonism, your queer sodomy, or your queer abortions."

You really need to go back to who ever taught you civics and ask why they did not tell you that civil rights was not a popularity contest.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4698 Nov 29, 2012
fox wrote:
Read the bible. How can you claim to be christian if your gay, when God strickly forbids it? Leviticus 20:13. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abominatio: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them." it dont get any clearer than that.
First, do not use leviticus "rules" unless you are infavor of killing adulterers.

Second, We are not a theocracy so what you understand your holy book to say... is irrelevant.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4699 Nov 29, 2012
Paul Wheaton wrote:
Have you noticed how mass media pundits spin the identity of homosexual child molesters as merely the actions of generic pedophiles, never identifying the attacks as homosexual in particular?
For example, take the chickenhawk homosexual molestor Jerry Sandusky. Never once was it revealed by mass media pundits that all of Jerry's victims were boys or that Jerry is a bi-sexual queer.
The most obvious mass media deception is the male catholic priest molestation of boys. Once again, mass media never mention the priestly attacks were practically all man-boy homosexual attacks. Instead the queer gatekeepers in mass media blame religion as the culprit, not queers in robes of authority.
Mass media queers spin the news to give gullible people the mistaken impression that queers are only pervy around adults.
Corey Feldman revealed not too long ago the rampant infestation of child molestors in Hollywood. Of course, Hollywood is infested with male homosexuals, so it doesn't take a wild imagination to believe that all of the attacks Corey witnessed were homosexual man-boy molestation.
When an adult lesbian attacks a young girl, queers in media spin that news too as just another case of normal dating gone wrong...
http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2010/07/...
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/state/ohio-w...
"Have you noticed how mass media pundits spin the identity of homosexual child molesters as merely the actions of generic pedophiles, never identifying the attacks as homosexual in particular?

For example, take the chickenhawk homosexual molestor Jerry Sandusky. Never once was it revealed by mass media pundits that all of Jerry's victims were boys or that Jerry is a bi-sexual queer."

Gee could be because homosexual and child molesters ARE two completely different things. I know dont bother you with facts when you are on a rant.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4700 Nov 29, 2012
Orman Puller wrote:
American queers are sooo frickin brazen they have created a political pressure group NAMBLA to legalize man-boy molestation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_M ...
NAMBLA has a website too, but if I post it here the moderator will probably delete the post.
Google "NAMBLA" and discover the perversity of Diversity.
The only reason a foul organization like NAMBLA is allowed to exist is because American queers have lots of political power they exercise through their Diversity scheme.
They are liars extraordinaire and the mass media and Hollywood is riddled with them, and with other Diversity people.
A) your link is bad
B) NAMBLA is about pedophilia... has nothing to do with homosexuals
C) more pedophile cases are done by heterosexual than homosexuals.

But again I shouldn't bother you with facts when you are on an irrational rant

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4701 Nov 29, 2012
come on now wrote:
...C) more pedophile cases are done by heterosexual than homosexuals...
Do you have the FBI statistics on sexual assault by gender? I can't find them, what's up with that?
Ned

Rancho Cordova, CA

#4702 Nov 29, 2012
lean forward and spread your cheeks....
Mariee

El Paso, TX

#4706 Dec 11, 2012
Love sees no gender, race, religion.
Humans should be allowed to marry humans.
Marie

El Paso, TX

#4707 Dec 11, 2012
BESSY_MAE_CULO wrote:
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS JUST PLAIN WRONG , IT ALSO SERVES NO PURPOSE
Love is for everyone! If you don't gay marriage, don't do it. Mind your own business

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4708 Dec 12, 2012
Changing the definition of marriage is everyone's business.

If you like civilization, I recommend you don't change its most basic institutions like marriage...
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4709 Dec 12, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Changing the definition of marriage is everyone's business.
If you like civilization, I recommend you don't change its most basic institutions like marriage...
Sorry, not changing definition in the least. A marriage is a civil binding contract between two consenting adults. Such contract offers various government granted privledges both legal and monetary. As a contract it is gender neutral... party of the first part party of the second.

So where is the "change of definition" again?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4710 Dec 13, 2012
The US Supreme Court has decided marriage is more than a contract. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; I support them as a perfect compromise.

Until the 21st Century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female. That's why gender segregated same sex marriage is a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

If you care about civilization; I recommend not messing about with central gender roles. We're civilized when we have women and children go aboard the lifeboats first; unisex law in uncivilized.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4711 Dec 13, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The US Supreme Court has decided marriage is more than a contract. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; I support them as a perfect compromise.
Until the 21st Century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female. That's why gender segregated same sex marriage is a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.
If you care about civilization; I recommend not messing about with central gender roles. We're civilized when we have women and children go aboard the lifeboats first; unisex law in uncivilized.
It said it was more than just a contract... not that it was not a contract. Therefore contract law still is usable... which means the 14th and equal protection is still the over riding factor against anti ssm laws.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4712 Dec 13, 2012
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment explicitly lists different rights for males and females.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#4713 Dec 14, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment explicitly lists different rights for males and females.
Realy... please show that from the 14th,
Plus since we are not in the 1870, the constitution has evolved to have equal rights for women...
wrong again
MARZ

Midland, TX

#4714 Dec 14, 2012
BESSY_MAE_CULO wrote:
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS JUST PLAIN WRONG , IT ALSO SERVES NO PURPOSE. you can't make babies with spit
Are you saying couples who can't have children shouldn't marry?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4715 Dec 16, 2012
come on now wrote:
Realy... please show that from the 14th,
Section Two explicitly lists separate rights for males, an example of no gender equality right.

.
come on now wrote:
Plus since we are not in the 1870, the constitution has evolved to have equal rights for women...
Not evolved, Amended; the 19th is limited to the right to vote. Women always had the right to run for office and many states had already granted suffrage. There is no right to same sex marriage or gender equality; the Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification.

.
come on now wrote:
wrong again
The issue might be more complex than right and wrong. The point is the best outcome for society. There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's hardly reason to redefine the fundamental social institution of marriage.

Consider, if gender diversity in marriage helps government provide the next generation of taxpayer or if immigration and surrogacy provides that requirement. There is value in male/female marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4716 Dec 16, 2012
MARZ wrote:
Are you saying couples who can't have children shouldn't marry?
No, I've never written couples who can't have children shouldn't marry, but I've read same sex marriage supporters propose that conclusion every day. They are wrong; couples have a right to reproductive privacy. So do individuals. I've never written there is anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality either; but that's not a reason to make law unisex and create ersatz gender equality.

Men and women differ; that's human nature. Law and nature are often coincident. If you want same sex marriage, move to Maryland. At least the people endorsed their legislated law instead of activist courts imposing two men or two women as marriage equality.

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.

El Paso Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sun Bowl is over 12 hr Gunther Gonzalez 1
2014 NFL Cowboys Talk 12 hr Petro 82
Free gift cards 14 hr huey goins 6
DWI laws and enforcement: is enough being done? 17 hr L Morales 23
El Paso Border Patrol officials taking addition... 19 hr L Morales 3
Why I vote democrat? Sat Petro 2
Abundant Living Faith Center Christmas Celebrat... Fri UR BS 11
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]