[BlackAngelSS]

Originally Posted by da_mink

I'm willing to make a bet, that a superior officer that directly oversees/oversaw you is gay. I am SURE he also hurt your morale.


also, there is no such phrase as sexually retarded.
and retard means

verb (used with object)
1.to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
verb (used without object)
2.to be delayed.

so by saying they are sexually retarded, you are meaning that they are slowed in their choice of gender.

Sorry sexually retarded isn't PC . "Sexually handicapped" is that better?

Not much different than a pedofile or someone who is into incest in my book.They are all mental disorders.


gay kid above have fun with your Bieber avatar. If you need any barbie dolls let me know, My kid can trade with you

[TeamLeadersAccount]

It is a choice. And if my mindset was gay then I could be aroused by men I guess. But I've never even had the thought to be gay and have high morals and reasons not to be gay gay is a choice.

[TeamLeadersAccount]

He doesn't have the want to turn straight. Of course when u r doing something that that's all u know of course something the complete opposite isn't going to Just come naturally. But I'm not gay and never will be. One that's gross and an abomination and I will openly say so.

[TeamLeadersAccount]

Originally Posted by Angry_Birds

There is no arguing that homosexuality is not biologically natural, but you CANNOT seriously be comparing pedophilia to relations between two consenting adults.

Yea you can. Both are wrong. Then we can compare both

[TeamLeadersAccount]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The study is flawed. Women are raised/programmed differently than men.

Apparently so. If men r gay it's gay. And wrong lol

[Seahawk6060]

I would like to give everyone freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whoever they want. However, this just doesn't make for unifying a civilization and a people. They call it anarchy. If a society doesn't have normative values then there is no common culture, no shared understanding, no foundation to build relationships among people of different "tribes." While we all like to talk about embracing diversity and accepting alternate lifestyles, at some point you start to tear at a cultures' identity and at its common understanding. The result is what I think we see today, a polarization of people and the deterioration of our, once unifying, cultural identity. What we have today is an America made up of a bunch of special interest groups all clamoring for big government to grant them more entitlements, more self-serving regulation, more resource redistribution, and greater (preferential) status in society and the workplace. All you have to do is lay claim to some kind of victimhood and the nanny state lays out the red carpet. If you can't prove your victim status, too bad, your only use is to produce the spoils on which the "victim" class feeds. It's an anarchist’s paradise. It's Dante's poetic vision realized.

Since when did we delegate to the state the right to decide what marriage is and what it isn't? As far as I'm concerned, it's a religious institution, not a state institution. The institution of marriage precedes the state. It's in the state's interest only to protect the traditional institution by which its own future is secured. Traditional marriage is the foundation on which families are built and future generations of citizens are born. Families and children, the basis for all civilizations, are not organically derived from gay marriages. Gay marriage, as an institution, gives nothing back to society. In the end, there is no real compelling principle behind gay marriage, all it amounts to is a self-indulgent social movement that will simply co-opt the meaning of marriage and erode its value.

Another thought, if there are genetic reasons for gays being gay, could there be genetic origins for people who are naturally repulsed by that behavior? Isn't it just as possible that nature might select humans to oppose other humans who play no part in the continuance of the species or the group?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

I would like to give everyone freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whoever they want. However, this just doesn't make for unifying a civilization and a people. They call it anarchy. If a society doesn't have normative values then there is no common culture, no shared understanding, no foundation to build relationships among people of different "tribes." While we all like to talk about embracing diversity and accepting alternate lifestyles, at some point you start to tear at a cultures' identity and at its common understanding. The result is what I think we see today, a polarization of people and the deterioration of our, once unifying, cultural identity.

Hear that everyone? You all better start acting like the Beavers.

[ConradNorCal]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

As far as I'm concerned, it's a religious institution, not a state institution. The institution of marriage precedes the state.

The institution of marriage also precedes judeo-christian religions, so...

Gay marriage, as an institution, gives nothing back to society. In the end, there is no real compelling principle behind gay marriage, all it amounts to is a self-indulgent social movement that will simply co-opt the meaning of marriage and erode its value.

If a gay couple can provide a loving home for one of 450,000~ kids getting bounced around in the foster care system, I think that is contributing to society.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by Umami

Hear that everyone? You all better start acting like the Beavers.

Yes, a strange throwback from another time. A family not on welfare or public assistance. A husband that works hard and is dedicated to his family. A loving mother that provides a warm home and warm meals. Children that show youthful mischief, but stay respectful to the parents. Yes, to the progressive left, this kind of family deserves derision and scorn. After all, they don't fit in the left's worldview - they're not victims, they're not dysfunctional, and they're not needy.

I suppose they represent something you never had, otherwise, you wouldn't take what they represent so lightly. They symbolize the best in us, yet to you they're just a joke. You are so void of real human understanding, you can't even bring yourself to grasp the nurturing and enduring values that they represent.

Your post has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with you.

[ghost93]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Gay marriage, as an institution, gives nothing back to society. In the end, there is no real compelling principle behind gay marriage, all it amounts to is a self-indulgent social movement that will simply co-opt the meaning of marriage and erode its value.

And what exactly does heterosexual marriage give back to society? It's possible to have children without marriage, which is the only real difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. Both can raise children equally well. So really, what are heterosexual marriages giving that homosexual marriages couldn't?

Two people of the same sex that love eachother and want to get married is whats going to destroy the institute of marriage? Not the people that get married purely for money or lust? What about affairs and divorce, which seem to be ridiculously common? That sure seems to ruin the meaning of marriage.

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Yes, a strange throwback from another time. A family not on welfare or public assistance. A husband that works hard and is dedicated to his family. A loving mother that provides a warm home and warm meals. Children that show youthful mischief, but stay respectful to the parents. Yes, to the progressive left, this kind of family deserves derision and scorn. After all, they don't fit in the left's worldview - they're not victims, they're not dysfunctional, and they're not needy.

I suppose they represent something you never had, otherwise, you wouldn't take what they represent so lightly. They symbolize the best in us, yet to you they're just a joke. You are so void of real human understanding, you can't even bring yourself to grasp the nurturing and enduring values that they represent.

Your post has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with you.

I'd have to say you're glorifying that time. It wasn't all rainbows and butterflies, like you're trying to make it out to be. There were actually a lot of unhappy marriages that women stayed in just because it was expected of them.

I also don't see how that has anything to do with the left? Just because they don't cling to past, glorified ideals of marriage (which many people weren't happy in) they hate marriage? The left doesn't idealize needy, victimized citizens any more than the right. Left leaning politicians simply recognize that there are problems with the old system and try to fix them.

After that your post simply becomes one big ad hominem fallacy, which really shows desperation, so I won't say anything more about it.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by ConradNorCal

The institution of marriage also precedes judeo-christian religions, so...

Marriage has never been defined as strictly a "Judeo-Christian" institution and that was never implied. I'm not sure what point your making. Are you making a counter-argument that marriage does/should fall under the state control?

If a gay couple can provide a loving home for one of 450,000~ kids getting bounced around in the foster care system, I think that is contributing to society.

Yes, I think you're right and am sympathetic to the argument, however, not enough to redefine marriage to fit this somewhat rare scenario. Last I heard, most gay marriages do not result in adoption.

[ghost93]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Yes, I think you're right and am sympathetic to the argument, however, not enough to redefine marriage to fit this somewhat rare scenario. Last I heard, most gay marriages do not result in adoption.

33% of women same sex couples and 22% of male same sex couples have at least 1 child under the age of 18 living in their home. That averages out to 27.5%, or 1 in 4, which is not by any means rare.

EDIT - I believe he was trying to say that marriage shouldn't be controlled solely by the ideals of Judeo-Christian religions like many people try to do.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by ghost93

I'd have to say you're glorifying that time. It wasn't all rainbows and butterflies, like you're trying to make it out to be. There were actually a lot of unhappy marriages that women stayed in just because it was expected of them.

I also don't see how that has anything to do with the left? Just because they don't cling to past, glorified ideals of marriage (which many people weren't happy in) they hate marriage? The left doesn't idealize needy, victimized citizens any more than the right. Left leaning politicians simply recognize that there are problems with the old system and try to fix them.

After that your post simply becomes one big ad hominem fallacy, which really shows desperation, so I won't say anything more about it.

.

But god damn those leftists, they hate marriage.

Strange, I was planning on getting married someday.

[SuperSupra619 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Umami

And it's the exact same argument. He's saying that because some terrorists are Muslim, rational people don't decide Islam is unacceptable.

You're trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia, when the connection is no stronger than that between heterosexuality and pedophilia..

I still am completely lost as to how identifying homosexuality as a sexual perversion in the same way pedophilia is identified as a sexual perversion is any way related to people thinking all Muslims are terrorists...

I'm not trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia at all....I'm saying if you believe a persons sexuality is decided at birth, then that goes for ALL sexualities. Why can't you guys understand this?

[Angry_Birds]

Originally Posted by SuperSupra619

I'm not trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia at all....I'm saying if you believe a persons sexuality is decided at birth, then that goes for ALL sexualities. Why can't you guys understand this?

I agree, gay people are just wired differently than straight people. I'm not an expert on the brain but I would imagine it's no different with pedophilia. Saying that they should have similar social or legal consequences is just ludicrous, though.

[TeamLeadersAccount]

Originally Posted by SuperSupra619

I still am completely lost as to how identifying homosexuality as a sexual perversion in the same way pedophilia is identified as a sexual perversion is any way related to people thinking all Muslims are terrorists...

I'm not trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia at all....I'm saying if you believe a persons sexuality is decided at birth, then that goes for ALL sexualities. Why can't you guys understand this?

Cuz they're gay lol

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by ghost93

And what exactly does heterosexual marriage give back to society? It's possible to have children without marriage, which is the only real difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. So really, what are heterosexual marriages giving that homosexual marriages couldn't?

I think I already spoke to this. The fact that some people have children and don't get married doesn't lessen the inherent value of traditional marriage as an institution and its value to society as a whole.

Two people of the same sex that love eachother and want to get married is whats going to destroy the institute of marriage? Not the people that get married purely for money or lust? What about affairs and divorce, which seem to be ridiculously common? That sure seems to ruin the meaning of marriage.

Yes, rampant divorce and all the other things you mention do strip marriage of its idealic meaning, but that's not an argument for gay marriage. If you feel that marriage is a worthless institution anyway, then it seems a bit spurious to advocate gay marriage, as it would to advocate any sort of marriage at all.

If two people of the same sex love each other, there's nothing stopping them from consummating that love. Since when did a lack of a marriage license, stop a gay couple from loving one another? There are no barriers, no rules that prevent them from sharing that which they feel for one another. If gay couples are denied certain legal rights, I think that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but it shouldn't be a reason to remake marriage into simply a venue to obtain rights, previously denied.

I'd have to say you're glorifying that time. It wasn't all rainbows and butterflies, like you're trying to make it out to be. There were actually a lot of unhappy marriages that women stayed in just because it was expected of them.

I think you missed the point. It's not a generational question, it's a question of what sort of family ideal you model your family after. It's about making distinctions between the Beavers and the Kardashians. It's about understanding the essence of that which makes inspired and successful families.

After that your post simply becomes one big ad hominem fallacy, which really shows desperation, so I won't say anything more about it.

I know what I'm saying is not what you want to hear and my goal isn't to gain any converts. My point in all this is to just show that support for gay marriage isn't an open and shut case. I'm a free-thinker and I don't accept other people's "truths" simply because it's the prevailing fad. There are people who have a different view and should be heard...or optionally ignored by those less inclined to ponder other possibilities or pick up a book and read.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by BlackAngelSS

So you are saying there isn't a worldwide jihad problem among a percentage of Muslims?

If you posted a Negative picture online of allah right now odds are you wouldn't see your next birthday. If you did the same with Jesus nothing would happen

but at least they dont put little boys in the girl scouts so maybee they are doing something right

There also is a problem with Christian terrorists, Atheist terrorists, and every other group you can think of. People who fight for a 'cause' as flimsy as religion are out for blood, not what the religion truly represents.

Odds are you would, ask the cartoonist in Europe who is still alive and well. He has had a price on his head for years but they haven't killed him yet.

Nice reference, too bad you shouldn't have an opinion on the girl scouts because you never "joined up". (see what I did there?)

Originally Posted by BlackAngelSS

Then they can keep it to themselves. I doubt you have ever been in the military so be quiet or sign up

and "homosexuality" is supposedly not learned they are "born like that". that would make them "Sexually retarted" regarless if they like the term or not.

Or you could keep your opinions to yourself and let other people live their lives with other consenting adults. Get your religiously-fanatical-government out of my life. Your tag line should be: "I'm for a small government- that systematically oppresses minority groups through a bureaucracy I don't want to exist for myself."

Now that's offensive to just about everyone... congratulations, you just lost the debate.

Originally Posted by SuperSupra619

I don't see how those two statements are related in any way, shape, or form. You never answered my question. Is pedophilia decided at birth or does one choose to be a pedophile?

Or you choose not too? As a third-party observer I find your hypocrisy to be smelly and I've read enough of it to know you really don't smell it yourself.

I don't know anything about pedophilia so I can't say, maybe they are wired that way, maybe not... the one thing I DO KNOW, is that homosexuality concerns consenting ADULTS ONLY. You bringing pedophilia into the mix only shows how flimsy your arguments really are. It's time to step aside, you've already lost your "war against homosexuality", you just don't know it yet. You can't compete against todays media, it steamrolled you before you were even born.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

I think you missed the point. It's not a generational question, it's a question of what sort of family ideal you model your family after. It's about making distinctions between the Beavers and the Kardashians. It's about understanding the essence of that which makes inspired and successful families.

No, its about what makes people happy. People want to be happy. It's that simple. This basic right is allowed for anyone, as long as they don't disrupt another person's happiness through physical force of basic freedoms. It's a concept derived from the very foundation of this country.

Homosexuals cause absolutely no harm to anyone. There is not one conclusive study to show that they are innately harmful to others. This is why this link to pedophilia is so ludicrous and borderline pyschopathy. Pedophiles often harm young children, physically or mentally.

Infringing on the rights of an entire populace is ***-backwards, asinine thinking. Why the gay issue is under as much similar persecution as blacks and women's rights is well beyond me. We gave them rights because they did nothing wrong to have those rights infringed. We all reaped the benefits of an open socirty once the oppressed got their equal rights. How is this case any different? Why would the outcome be any different?

Marrriage is not confined to religious institution. Claiming for religion to have exclusive, inalienable rights to such a thing is retarded. You can be a married couple by simply signing a legal document. Married. Woohoo.

The idea that marriage is some holy foundation of eternal happiness and strong families is proven wrong every day. People aren't stuck in situations they don't have to be in anymore. There's more freedom and more overall happiness for the individuals that are able to do what they want. Check out the divorce rates. Marriage doesn't mean automatic happiness and successful families. True, honest, and intelligently chosen, unabiding love for a partner is what keeps families together. There is no real argument for gays not being allowed to be married. Go off 'values' all you want. I'll follow the recorded evidence and realize what's really going on.

It's extremely interesting to take grasp of the fact that the absolute vast majority of those that complain about gay marriage and don't want it, are those who have nothing to hold on to other than some ancient text that simply hints that it's wrong. Well, in some cases, utility calls for murdering the individual as well. But wait, homosexuals don't get killed for being gay, do they?

That's not enitrely direct response to you, Seahawk, by the way.

[PBOldTimer]

A comedian once said:

[Paraphrased] "Why shouldn't gays have the right to marry? they have as much a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

[dot.nation]

it really doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not, because:

Originally Posted by Treghc

There is not one conclusive study to show that they are innately harmful to others

imho, science has not come far enough to conclusively tell us it is either, but for the time being see above.