Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
531
Support
 
270

Vote now in Greeneville:

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#7664 Jan 21, 2013
Gays should have the same status as a onesome on the golf course.

NONE!!!

But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!

Mother Nature's way of cleaning out the trash!!!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7665 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
I didn't state my opinion, I stated reality. Even a President, especially one who has a ponderous propensity for lies cannot override reality.
Smirk.
Reasons to marry:
--Love
--Children
--Companionship
--Convenience
--Family pressure
--Unplanned pregnancy
--Biological clock/self-pressure
--Money
--Sex/lust

My point is that there are many reasons that people get married. There's nothing exceedingly special about marriage.

And for you to keep harping on about how it's an evolutionary mating behavior to keep men faithful is just ridiculous.

Your reality is not everyone's reality.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7666 Jan 21, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution."
Which brings us back to ground hogs day.... you refusing to answer the question
You say Gay couples are a direct defective conflict w t he primary goal of evolution... so how do they differ from the infertile couples?... Neither one can contribute to the evolutionary cause.... yet one is allowed to marry... which by your own words is a conflict wth the primary goals...
Your question doesn't matter.

You have not equated gay unions with marriage.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7667 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Reasons to marry:
--Love
--Children
--Companionship
--Convenience
--Family pressure
--Unplanned pregnancy
--Biological clock/self-pressure
--Money
--Sex/lust
My point is that there are many reasons that people get married. There's nothing exceedingly special about marriage.
And for you to keep harping on about how it's an evolutionary mating behavior to keep men faithful is just ridiculous.
Your reality is not everyone's reality.
Hardly MY reality or definition.

Sociologists say marriage would not exist if it were not for evolutionary mating behavior.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7668 Jan 21, 2013
jimbo102 wrote:
Gays should have the same status as a onesome on the golf course.
NONE!!!
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!
Mother Nature's way of cleaning out the trash!!!
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!

Wow a real brain trust.... Ask yourself something... where did the homosexuals come from?... If heterosexual have the children which are gay... how will they die out?...... dont tax your pea brain to hard on that one.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7669 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question doesn't matter.
You have not equated gay unions with marriage.
Smile.
No it matters immensly.... You say marriage has to be able to produce. So if a couple, mm mf ff can not produce how can they be married....
Smile

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7670 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
Hardly MY reality or definition.
Sociologists say marriage would not exist if it were not for evolutionary mating behavior.
Your definition of marriage doesn't matter. That you want to put it high atop some pedestal; proclaiming it to be "of God" and "cross-cultural blah-blah-blah", doesn't really matter to anyone else. No one cares how you, personally, feel about marriage.

I'm hopeful that President Obama will issue an executive order legalizing same-sex marriage. As president, he can do that. The Supreme Court can also overturn laws (DOMA and state constitutional changes) that make same-sex marriage unlawful.

And who cares what the origins of marriage are? We know that marriage has changed so many times over the eons.

As I just pointed out, there are many reasons people get married--not just for kids and evolution.

I've got news for you, my dear, evolution did just fine without marriage for hundreds of thousands of years. Marriage started as a means of property transfer and the increase of wealth.

And I think you'll find that sociologists are as interested in the current development of marriage and how it applies to modern culture, as they are in the origins of marriage.

You should keep this in mind as you think of your next post... "Nobody cares about your opinion."

You've made it clear how you believe, now move on. Unless, of course, there's some other reason you enjoy frequenting this particular discussion.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7671 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
I didn't state my opinion, I stated reality. Even a President, especially one who has a ponderous propensity for lies cannot override reality.
Smirk.
Our Presidents opinion trumps your geriatric troll droppings any day of the week.

Troll on, Muntmare, Mangina Man.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7672 Jan 21, 2013
jimbo102 wrote:
Gays should have the same status as a onesome on the golf course.
NONE!!!
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!
Mother Nature's way of cleaning out the trash!!!
Not the brightest or sharpest crayon in the box, are you Jimbo.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7673 Jan 21, 2013
jimbo102 wrote:
Gays should have the same status as a onesome on the golf course.
NONE!!!
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!
Mother Nature's way of cleaning out the trash!!!
You do realize that gay people come from straight couples don't you?

We're hardly a dying breed. We'll be around from now on.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7674 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question doesn't matter.
You have not equated gay unions with marriage.
Smile.
Ooh, someone's Mangina got backed into a corner. Again.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7675 Jan 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question doesn't matter.
You have not equated gay unions with marriage.
Smile.
Nice dodge, Mangina Man.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7676 Jan 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question doesn't matter.
You have not equated gay unions with marriage.
Smile.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
No it matters immensly.... You say marriage has to be able to produce. So if a couple, mm mf ff can not produce how can they be married....
Smile
1. You lie again. I never said marriage 'has' to produce. In fact, NO ONE in thousands of years has ever said marriage 'has' to produce. The only ones asserting that the ONLY relationship that safely and effectively produces human fruit 'has' to do so, IS A RELATIONSHIP THAT NEVER PRODUCES CAN PRETEND TO BE THE SAME!

2. Your question skips the fundamental basis of equating relationships. Are they the same?

Marriage is fundamentally a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective violation of the essence of evolutionary purpose. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Next.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7677 Jan 22, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!
Wow a real brain trust.... Ask yourself something... where did the homosexuals come from?... If heterosexual have the children which are gay... how will they die out?...... dont tax your pea brain to hard on that one.
The most likely recent scientific explanation;

'epi-marker' mistake. A defective failure to erase genetic epi-markers by a parent for their opposite sex child.

With genetic engineering advancements, those types of defects will soon be eliminated.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7678 Jan 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
Hardly MY reality or definition.
Sociologists say marriage would not exist if it were not for evolutionary mating behavior.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definition of marriage doesn't matter. That you want to put it high atop some pedestal; proclaiming it to be "of God" and "cross-cultural blah-blah-blah", doesn't really matter to anyone else. No one cares how you, personally, feel about marriage.
I'm hopeful that President Obama will issue an executive order legalizing same-sex marriage. As president, he can do that. The Supreme Court can also overturn laws (DOMA and state constitutional changes) that make same-sex marriage unlawful.
And who cares what the origins of marriage are? We know that marriage has changed so many times over the eons.
As I just pointed out, there are many reasons people get married--not just for kids and evolution.
I've got news for you, my dear, evolution did just fine without marriage for hundreds of thousands of years. Marriage started as a means of property transfer and the increase of wealth.
And I think you'll find that sociologists are as interested in the current development of marriage and how it applies to modern culture, as they are in the origins of marriage.
You should keep this in mind as you think of your next post... "Nobody cares about your opinion."
You've made it clear how you believe, now move on. Unless, of course, there's some other reason you enjoy frequenting this particular discussion.
You once again fail to address the fundamental first question to equate two relationships. Are they the same?

You do so with scoffing, lies and ignorant assertions.

Moreover, you not only reject your faith to do so, you reject science. Literally leaving you 'out there'...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7679 Jan 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
Hardly MY reality or definition.
Sociologists say marriage would not exist if it were not for evolutionary mating behavior.
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Our Presidents opinion trumps your geriatric troll droppings any day of the week.
Troll on, Muntmare, Mangina Man.
Here is another example of what happens when a idiot troll tries to reason.

Your assertion would be a violation of the fundamental principle of our nation. "All men are created equal".

Second, I could give a rats ass (here comes VV...) about opinions. When you have a scientific counter to the fundamental question of equating one relationship to another, get back to me.

Snicker.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7680 Jan 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The most likely recent scientific explanation;
'epi-marker' mistake. A defective failure to erase genetic epi-markers by a parent for their opposite sex child.
With genetic engineering advancements, those types of defects will soon be eliminated.
Smile.
Here's the thing... No one, except neo-conservatives and religious fascists or fanatic would call for engineering "advancements" that would eliminate homosexuality.

See, there are only a handful of people in this country and around the world who see homosexuality as a sickness. They base their beliefs on ancient scripture and ignorance--not on science.

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, homosexuals are functioning human beings. Unlike those who are handicapped, we can work, get through our days without help, and are able to do every single thing that a straight person can do in life--include breeding.

We aren't broken and are in no need of being "fixed".

Saying that science has a means with which they may one day "fix" homosexuals is like saying that science has found a means with which they may one day be able to "fix" brunettes.

There is no reason to do either.

In order for something to need to be fixed, science and medicine need to first believe it is a disorder or an illness.

And, again, as it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the scientific community, including doctors, pediatricians, psychiatrist, social workers, etc., do not believe that homosexuality is an illness or disorder.

What you're talking about is eugenics, a despicable and outrageous practice that has long since been abandoned by most moral and educated individuals and scientists.

Only a sick person would want to "fix" a fully functional person in order to appease his own personal beliefs.

Your ideas scream of someone who is so personally assailed by homosexuality (for whatever reason), that he clings to a desperate hope that it will one day be cured.

Gays don't want to change who they are. Only certain, uncomfortable, arrogant, zealots want it to be "fixed".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7681 Jan 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Before you can equate gay unions to marriage, you have to prove they are the same type of relationship.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective conflict with the primary goal of evolution.
Bottom line? There is no relationship more opposite marriage.
:-)
<quoted text>
Hardly MY reality or definition.
Sociologists say marriage would not exist if it were not for evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
You once again fail to address the fundamental first question to equate two relationships. Are they the same?
You do so with scoffing, lies and ignorant assertions.
Moreover, you not only reject your faith to do so, you reject science. Literally leaving you 'out there'...
Smile.
Same-sex relationships and marriages do not have to "be the same" as heterosexual relationships and marriages for them to be legally recognized by the government.

A wealthy 80 year old man who marries a 20 year old buxom blond, marries for different reasons than a couple of people in their twenties who wish to start a family.

A couple who wants to marry because they are already pregnant is different from a couple who feels pressure internally or from their families to get married before they reach a certain age.

An elderly couple who have no interest in having children get married for different reasons than a couple who marries for money.

None of these marriages are "the same".

You keep insisting that all marriages MUST BE the same. And that's not reality.

You need to lighten your white-knuckle grip on your own person belief as to why people "need" to be married.

You can hold your own personal beliefs as to why people should be married, but you can't impose your personal beliefs on them. It's not your place.

You are not God. You are not God's spokes-person.

You're just some schlub with an opinion.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#7682 Jan 22, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
But of course they are a dying breed. No children!!
Wow a real brain trust.... Ask yourself something... where did the homosexuals come from?... If heterosexual have the children which are gay... how will they die out?...... dont tax your pea brain to hard on that one.
You evidently haven't studied genetics nor understand the term 'survival of the fittest' which ultimately rules and decides the future of any species. The gays of today are mostly the results of 'closet queers' having children. Attrition along with today's liberal acceptance of gays will clear these out of the gene pool. Mathmatically speaking, it's in the numbers favoring the straight population's favor.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7683 Jan 22, 2013
jimbo102 wrote:
<quoted text>
You evidently haven't studied genetics nor understand the term 'survival of the fittest' which ultimately rules and decides the future of any species. The gays of today are mostly the results of 'closet queers' having children. Attrition along with today's liberal acceptance of gays will clear these out of the gene pool. Mathmatically speaking, it's in the numbers favoring the straight population's favor.
Well how about this? While we're here, why don't you lay off--just get off our backs?

Give us the equal rights we need in order to live along side everyone else; stop verbally and physically attacking us; stop wagging your Bibles in our poor "genetically defective" faces; and help us to live a life that's as fulfilling and happy as the rest of the population.

Keep in mind, I seriously doubt that homosexuality will ever be bred out of our species. You know, it is found in over 1,000 other species of animals. Seems to me that a defect would have bred itself out of animals long before mankind.

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.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 30 min Bree_Z 5,639
Effects from smoking cigarettes 43 min Word Woman 19
Boone Fletcher 1 hr Zippy 3
"Greeneville police: 2 infants found dead in ho... 1 hr From Jenny xoxo 162
***** last post wins ***** 2 hr Bree_Z 595
On the 1st day of Christmas 2 hr From Jenny xoxo 32
Favorite Classic Music? 3 hr Bree_Z 25
What goes on at Timberfell? (Sep '11) 11 hr Greene Light 277
Principal at Mosheim 15 hr Geeze Louise 79
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]