"Don't cop in us way," the bloomin' crowd answered. "Yor an outsider. Wot right do yer 'ave ter order us 'round, isit?We'll do worse fings ter yer than we're gonna do ter ffem." The bloody crowd kept arguin' wiv Lot. Finally, right, they rushed toward the door ter break it dahn.
Google: What's Good for Kids, by Lisa Belkin, New York Times
This article exposes the myths that same sex couples are not as good heterosexual couples at parenting. In fact, it shows some evidence why same sex couples often do BETTER...
Words of wisdom from Jesse Ventura on CNN tonight regarding Maine's referendum: This shows that we still do not have separation of church and state. You cannot put up civil rights to a vote, otherwise the minority loses. We'd still have slavery if it were up for a vote. Issues like this should be decided by our elected officials and courts, not the people's vote. They are the only ones who have the courage to do the right thing, and protect the minority...
"You cannot put up civil rights to a vote, otherwise the minority loses"
that is absolute common sense. I actually am stunned that the gay marriage vote in both maine and california is only losing by a small margin.
This only tells us that this is going to be passed in the future. It's going to happen. All this fuss is just going to end up being a few more pages in future student's History books.
You know it's very ironic that Prop 8 in California might actually be the route by which gay marriage gains its ultimate prize- nationalized gay marriage. In CA we have two classes of gay couples, those that ARE married and those that CANNOT marry. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The people that promoted Prop 8 didn't see it coming. All important civil rights issues have been decided by courts, and gay marriage will be no different. We didn't decide school integration by vote!
Prop 8 is incredible for the gay population to gain the right to marry. Win or Lose, the subject actually being discussed now is a victory. It's going to take time but it will happen.
To me, it's ridiculous that people even argue over this. I said it before, I can care less about the gay/straight thing, the big picture is that prides need to be swallowed and monogamous relationships should be encouraged.
I am definitely not the type to buy into stereotypes. However, I do know the stereotype of gay people is promiscuity. So why the F*CK would you not encourage monogamy among that group of people? I don't understand it.
Anyone who thinks that homosexuality can 100% be rid of in the entire world one day is living in a coo coo clock.
It'll never happen....next best thing.... PROMOTE MONOGAMOUS relationships. one person one partner....no cheating....less STDS worldwide.
Yes, first the Christian right condemns gays for having too many sex partners. Then they say, well we don't want you to get married. Bottom line: They'd rather EXTERMINATE gays than give us rights. The truth of the matter is that they want gays to not be gay. We have to "pretend" to be striaght. At least this is something the Catholic church gets right. They say sexual orientation is not a choice, but is innate and immutable. They say gays should be celibate. At least that is humane!
Fags rule, and we'll save the planet. We make more money per capita, have more education and travel more. Sorry loser... You're not invited into the club. Oh, almost forgot we have better sex too! NO ON ONE!
In Sweden it was made a crime to speak out against homosexuality, even from the pulpit. The Swedish Lutheran church has just voted to perform same sex marriages in their churches. The new anti-gay hate crimes bill, which was just signed into law in the US is a step in the right direction. Will logo still be able to attend his church if they start marrying gay couples? Time will tell END THE HATE, VOTE NO ON ONE! Save the children! Protect marriage!
It must be difficult for Christian folks like logofreetv to see that they are losing their grip on today's society. The stranglehold of the Christian right over our laws is slowly but surely lifting. I can see now why logo is so desparate to get his message of hate across. It must have been similar to what KKK members felt when blacks were given the right to vote, equal housing and integrated schools. It's terrifying to lose control like this. But, we WILL prevail! NO ON ONE!
One more thing, civil rights should NEVER be up for a vote, otherwise the majority ALWAYS squashes the rights of the minority. We'd still have slavery if it were up for a vote. Is that the "right thing to do" because the public wanted it? It's sad you can't see this... You otherwise seem to be a caring and fairly intelligent (although painfully outdated) individual. You're a social dinosaur, and I hope you live a long life, but within your lifetime we might have nationalized gay marriage!
Can you live with the fact that you might have gay neighbors who are legally married? Will this interfere with YOUR marriage in ANY way? And, what if one of your grandchildren were gay? Would you want that child to live a fulfilled life with a life partner? Or would you deny them this? Sooner or later WE will prevail. Of this I have NO doubt. Just remember what it was like when interracial marriage was debated. Gay marriage will have the same fate! NO ON ONE!
Lisznut, FYI you can NEVER ultimately prevail because the ssm movement is based on a LIE about human biology. You can run, but you can't hide from this fact as long as you like. You MIGHT succeed in making it legal, but you will never fool nature, and nature will then wreak its havoc on the generations to come because of your selfishness.
I just want to stick with what works best, and that is male-female marriage, BECAUSE IT REFLECTS REALITY. You are in a delusion.
Delusional, I see, I'm delusional because I acknowledge the FACT that sexual orientation is INNATE and UNCHANGEABLE! LOL. Can you once and for all explain to me why YOU personally have a vested interest in MY marriage? I'm trying to understand this. Is it that you want everyone to buy into your ancient belief system? What motivates your hatred? I want YOU to be happy, why don't you want the same for me? I AM happily married, isn't that great? Who would have thought it possible?
You miss the point - you CLAIM you have entered into the institution of marriage but you have ACTUALLY entered into a slimy shadowy counterfeit that put up the sign 'marriage' on the door instead. You have not met the basic criteria first. YES that IS delusional.
YOU want me to accept that counterfeit as the real thing. Sorry, I KNOW the real thing and THAT is not it, not the least reason because it DOES NOT reflect basic biology. AMrriage is for men and women.
Oh, I see, so my tax refund is a counterfeit, and my spousal benefits are a counterfeit, and my health insurance is a counterfeit? Maybe in YOUR eyes it is, but in the eyes of my government, and of my beautiful spouse, they aren't. Guess what? I could care less what YOUR imaginary friend or YOU say about it, because you don't sign my tax refund check, do you? LEGAL CONTRACT, remember? NO ON ONE! It must be scary to still live mentally in 1950, while physically being in 2009!
PS Don't you sleep at night? It's 2:30 in the morning. I'm a nightowl, but it's not like your generation. Maybe you ARE in Australia after all? No worries. I need to get some sleep though. I have had fun sparring with you, if only because it sharpens my thinking process, and continues to confirm my point of view, which IS correct! Good night!
logofreetv, you really are just a little troll having problems thinking about this don't you. That's not equal or anything like that, so I'm glad you just agreed that as long as they don't want to do anything you say is wrong, there "equal". Just like the ppl used to say about blacks.
Also, keep on saying the samething, denying evidence, censering, etc AND maybe someday someone will buy your bs.
I'm sorry to say logofreetv still lives in 1950. We have come so far in understanding human sexual orientation since then, but he continues to live back then. Yes, there is a direct correlation between the treatment of blacks and the current treatment of gays. Unfortunately, some people can't see this. Isn't it ironic that black women would vote to deny gays rights they take for granted? The oppressed becomes the oppressor. NO ON ONE!
I'm glad that you are smart enough to acknowledge that you will lose the war. You might win a battle or two, but you WILL lose this war. Just preparing you in advance... By the way, I'm one who views Prop 8 as a tremendous GIFT for SSM. It's because this is the case which might ultimately end ALL bans on gay marriage. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! To top it off, MY marriage is still legal in California. Isn't that GREAT! HOORAY! NO ON ONE!
You will likely die much earlier lisznut, because homosexual sex between males is very bad for the body. Even if ssm is legal, AIDS, rectal cancer, early deaths, treatment costs, less children etc will eventually wreak their terrible toll on any society. You CANNOT win, it is neither up to you or me, or anybody else, but I just want to go with what nature dictates.
Male and female go together, it's just natural and normal
I feel so very sorry for you. You live your life in fear of this terrible imagined "being." This is one of the reasons I reject Christianity outright. A god is not worthy of my worship if I fear it. Your doom and gloom scenario is no way to live. And, I TOTALLY disagree about my lifespan being shorter. Where did you get such nonsense? Gay sex is no more likely to shorten my life than straight sex. NONSENSE. You have bought into the Christian doom and gloom agenda. And, I WILL win!
And, once and for all, please give up this ridiculous statement that homosexual sex is unnatural. Are animals part of nature? 450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for LIFE. If animals are part of nature, and represent it, then homosexual sex IS MOST DEFINITELY NATURAL. For you to repeat this untruth is disingenious. And, you also continue to deny that AIDS is now mostly spread by HETEROSEXUALS. Denial is what you are about, because that's the Christian way... NO ONE ONE!
You should be very careful about hijacking the civil rights movement- many blacks REALLY HATE it- which is just one reason why the vote on Prop 8 from them (I believe it was about 30% or less)was so low.
They wake up every morning with black skin, something they can NEVER change. And every morning they wake up human ,the dignity of which was debased with slavery.
Anyone, however, can change who they go to bed with.
I wake up every day as a gay man, so it IS the same as race. Sorry, you fail on that one. And, I have a theory about why black women voted Yes on Prop 8. Most black women have trouble finding a man who will commit to them, so they view two men getting married as yet another nail in their coffin. It's funny that you'd hold up the black community as a bastion of marriage. 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, are you aware of this? Marriage reflects LEGAL contract!
Michael Jackson did everything he could to appear white, and never could quite do it. He even adopted white children, as if to make his name associated with whites. It's true that gay people can more easily "mask" themselves as straight, and it was the norm back in 1950 for gay men to marry women. However, those sad days are quickly coming to an end, aren't they? Look at the options available to gay men today! I'm SO happy to be alive NOW! NO On ONE!
Check out this youtube video for more info on the complete failure of the Christian "ex-gay" movement. Many people have had their lives destroyed by this cult like behaviour modification:
Sorry Lizsnut, but all you will do is destroy western civilization to the same extent that 80 other civilizations that eroded marriage before did as well. FYI JD Unwin was not what you call 'religious', so you can put aside your irrelevant and hateful bias right there. His findings went against his personal beliefs, but he published them anyway.
Marriage between a man and a woman is right, anything else is a counterfeit.
Destroy western civiliation. LOL! Has Canada been destroyed? Has Spain been destroyed? NO, as a matter of fact, the Spanish have long ago forsaken their church. They are turning their churches into museums and cafes. And, guess what? Spain is thriving as never before. Today's Spain is far more powerful, happy and healthy than it was just decades ago. The end of civilization will be caused by the religious nuts, such as Al Queda. Not those who've long ago given up their beliefs.
Read JD Unwin. Stop bleating - just look it up. He spent 7 years researching 5000 years of human history expecting to find that societies displaying strict sexual regulations would be the lame ones. Guess what? He found the opposite! And I don't know where you got the idea Spain is thriving - they are in trouble last I heard.
Unwin made it clear you have ONE generation and then it is over if you go down this road. 75-100 years, then it's over. Happened EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Go to Spain, and if you've been there before, you'll see a society in rebirth. They are THRILLED to have thrown out a dictator and a church that imposed terrible things on them. The Spanish claim to be religious, but only go on holidays, otherwise,, they completely IGNORE the teachings of the church, to their benefit... They are finally free, and finally happy! Viva la Spain...
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and you will see the EVIL caused by religion. I'm living proof of this, because I was raised by an Evangelical minister, and lived to tell about it. My early years were spent in brainwashing. I am free from this now, and better off for it. What happened to me as a child is pure child abuse. Protect Children! VOTE NO ON ONE!
I'm sorry you feel that way, but God is not the author of your horrible experience, the people who did things to you are. I've had bad things happen to me too - at the hands of church pastors no less - people I thought were my friends! But notice how my feelings are not the be-all and end-all.
(And Dawkins is clueless about philosophy and religion, btw.)
Marriage is for men and women, that's just the way it is.
And, I agree God (the imaginary friend you happen to believe in) is not the issue. God was "created" by man, not vice versa. In and of itself, this being is not a threat to me. It is the people who believe that crap that are the problem. They are convinced that only their version of this being (which is man-made) is the correct one, and they will go to no ends to prove this, including blowing up buildings to accomplish this goal. Religion is the greatest scourge on modern society.
Are you afraid that someone will FORCE you or someone you love to marry a same sex partner? I don't understand why this is viewed as a threat to YOUR marriage, or to anyone you know. It has NO impact on your life. It does, however, affect MY life, therefore I have a vested interest. You, on the other hand, are only interested in imposing your personal beliefs in an intolerant manner. If you believe in FREEDOM, you believe in FREEDOM. That means freedom FROM religion, too!
Relgion has created more harm than good in the world. Religion denegrates women in the Islamic world. Religion dengrates gays in the Christian world. Religion is the cause of most wars, and religion should have NO part in the laws of our country!
It's still unhealthy - in fact the reason why I'm informed about this issue is precisely because of a discussion on the subject which did not specify the gender of the receiving partner as such. The rectum is, for all intents and purposes, the same in women as it is for men. An erect penis is not meant to go there.
A man & woman are not forced to have anal sex, whereas M2M are - assuming they act fully sexual, which virtually all would.
Why is a erect penis not ment to go there? You need to back up such a thing with evidence or otherwise say, "imo".
Also, they're not focing you to celebrate this, another person that doesn't know what there talking about. It's clear you have no idea what you're spewing out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Common, Maine! Show people that you're more intelligent and progressive than the general population of voters in California. Make a positive change for this country. Be a good role model. Put the children first. Children shouldn't be ostracised because their parents are gay. Period!
Yeah because a man sticking his erect penis into another man's anus is soooo great Yay! Put the children first! Teach them how to get AIDS! C'mon Maine! It might be infertile 100% of the time, but it suuuure is "positive"! Be a good role model!
logofreetv, putting your penis into a anus doesn't mean you will get aids. The person has to have aids first of all. Yet again, a simple google search would have told you that.
Plz, read up on this subject before making another comment.
Krensharpaw, you're missing the point - it's about risk factors. compare the rectum with the vagina in respect of potential AIDS transmission: V: Elastic fibres present R: NO elastic fibres V: 25-40 cells thick wall R: 1 cell V: Ph low - inactivates the virus R: Ph higher V: No M cells R: M cells present. Their function? To ATTRACT foreign particles for transmission to the immune system - the very target of the HIV virus. The rectum is SETUP to absorb. It is part of the digestive system.
The likelihood of a healthy woman getting AIDS from an infected man if she only engages in normal sex has been likened to the same risk factor as getting struck by lightning. It's true. Look it up.
The fact is, changing the definition of marriage FORCES people to accept and even CELEBRATE behavior that can be directly traced to spreading disease.
If adults want to make private choices, they can, but they should not FORCE others to call something bad 'good'.
The fact is still that you're telling ppl how to have sex and doing something you have no right to do. Even if it is set up to absorb, the fact is the way to avoid getting aids by this is to make sure your partner doesn't have it, thus avoiding it, no matter where you decide to stick your dick.
WRONG! LOL! What people do behind closed doors will not change - you're right about that. BUT marriage is a PUBLIC institution that I have a RIGHT to raise my voice about. You're confusing the two. This debate is about the latter.
As far as your answer in regards to AIDS transmission is concerned, answer me this - if YOU had AIDS and were going to die anyway, how much care would you take in taking care with sex?
How can I be wrong if you just said what ppl do behind closed doors won't change?
The thing is marrige is a civil right issue. You can voice your opinion, but you're doing the same thing when ppl back then said whites shouldn't have a right to marry blacks.
I wouldn't have it, because I would know that I was going to spread the thing to someone else and make ther elife a living hell, also fyi, I have a friend who has aids, so I know how one gets it.
And don't you go pulling out that bogus 'civil rights' card. Most blacks HATE it when activists do that. You CAN modify sexual behavior but you CANNOT change the color of your skin. The 2 issues aren't remotely related.
This is about FORCING normal people to accept behavior that is unhealthy, infertile and spreads AIDS more readily. That is sadly just fact, Krensharpaw.
The 2 issues are 100% related, because you can't change who you are attratied to. Sorry, it's the same issue and if you can't see that, then I feel sry for you.
How is it unhealthy, I've asked three times for you to back up a assertion as that. Also, you don't have to accept, just let them be, how is them being gay hurt you in anyway?
Also, if they don't have aids, they won't spread aids, do you know how aids is spread?
So yet again, back up your assertions with evidence plz.
Of course you can change, I know many who have. Since it is behavior, not identity, we are talking about, you can do it, or not do it. Attraction is irrelevant.
And your pity is also irrelevant - I prefer basing marriage definitions on things like biological fact and social science.
How is it unhealthy - huh? I gave you a detailed breakdown of the risk factors of AIDS for anal sex - required by definition of homosexual behavior. Want me to do it for rectal cancer too?
Since you lacked to give evidence of your claim, I dismiss it. It's not a choice and since you've given no evidence this is your opinion backed by nothing.
So you would deny them the right to be married and be happy based on the fact of someone is man and someone is women? Then I wonder what about ppl who are both.
And I disproved your stuff. Aids can only be spread though blood if said person has aids, if they don't, then there is no way to get it if there partner doesn't have it.
Also, what is the issue then? You've brought up many things and then when they're addressed you claim that's not the issue, so then, why don't you stay on this issue at hand and stop bringing up other things?
Also, I don't remeber ever saying you don't have a right to voice your opinion about marrige. You were talking about how having sex though the anus is unhealthy and I asked you to back up your claim. You are saying it's wrong, which is telling someone how they can and can't have sex, therefor, this has nothing to do with marrgie, since you were tlaking about having sex though the anus.
Well, FYI, there are two sexualities - male and female and 'gay' is about behavior NOT identity.
A simple example of that is the response to the confusion in using infertile couples as some kind of 'gotcha' argument. There is a BIG difference between innate (ie. not by choice) infertility and engaging in infertile ACTS by CHOICE.
Our sexual behavior is a choice even if it is directed by very strong impulses. Otherwise we are less than human.
So let me get this straight, are you saying that being gay is a choice? because I'm hoping you're not that stupid. Or are you saying acting on such urges is a choice, which is is, however the fact is, that if a man and man want to have sex, what right do you to have them no?
Of course it is a choice - it's BEHAVIOR! You can do it - or not.
Unlike skin color, or gender, which cannot be changed. There is NO scientific evidence WHATSOEVER that homosexual activity is amoral because it is so-called genetically determined. In fact, some of the researchers (even pro-gay ones) have SPECIFICALLY spoken against that idea.
And like I said, people can do whatever they like in private, but they have no right to FORCE others to CELEBRATE it publicly (ie. wedding)
Thanks for showing how stupid you are, it's not a choice, look up this subject before looking like a fool again.
Also, there is evidence to show it's not a choice, it's clear you've yet to look this up.
Also, how are they forcing you? Plz back this assertion up or I will dismiss it. Because that with can be assurted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Also, now I'm going to take you to task, you claim it's a choice, prove it. Give me evidence backed by studies onto this subject, because I've seen the ones done on it's not a choice so, if theres evidence to back this up, it should be easy for you to bring forward.
"Despite common assertions to the contrary, evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or policy consequences. . . . No clear conclusions about the morality of a behaviour can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behaviour is biologically caused. (Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [Nov. 2003], 432) "
pro-homosex scientists, Brian Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey.
In short, even if the evidence existed, it would not matter...
Ummm, since it is YOU who is asking for change it is actually YOUR responsibility to show the evidence for genetic influence. But I went FURTHER than that - I showed that it DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF YOU DID.
So what if it is 6 years old? - I wasn't aware that male and female are any different since 2003. Perhaps you could enlighten me...
And yes, here we have the name-calling starting. I bask in the knowledge that it is the last tactic of a failed argument to engage in that.
So you give me a study that gives no evidence or anyhting like that, and doesn't do anything to show how it's a choice, yet I'm the one wanting them to be treated as ppl instead of 2nd class ones and I'm the one who has to give evidence, clearly you don't understand who has the burden of proof. You claim it's a choice, therefor, it's on you.
Studies are done all the time and old ones sometimes are disproven, anyone who studies stuff knows this.
Krensharpaw, if you get nothing else from me, remember this - I very much do accept you and your sexual identity - but it is limited to male or female.
Your sexual behavior is another matter, and you should not be able to FORCE me to accept or even celebrate (which is what most people do at weddings, right?) that behavior as good, when I have done enough study to know it is really bad.
There's nothing second class about you, I just think you're wrong about the function of sex.
Ok, but the thing is that, you don't choose who you like.
Yet again, i'm not forcing you, stop using strawmen arguments plz, I've stated many times what it is and they're not forcing you, I'm not going to say it for a 5th time. Also, you've not done enough studing as I've just shown.
I said nothing about me being 2nd class, I said you are treating gays as 2nd class ppl, thus you still are doing it.
Also, I think you're wrong about the function of sex, sry.
Of course you don't choose who you like, but you do choose what you DO with that attraction.
What I'm trying to make clear to you is that changing the definition of marriage FORCES people to at the very least ACCEPT that which they consider doesn't qualify as marriage. They understand that marriage is limited - you can't marry a dog or a tree, or 5 people or a child or someone you're related to. By your logic - those people could scream 'Inequality!' too.
So then you do admit that you don't choose who to like, but yet you are saying that you choose to act on that, which is true, but to deny someone the right to do what they want with there partner is denying them rights since they might be different.
The defintion was changed to what it is now and until you reliaze that or look it up, you are going to contiue to look foolish as you've done this whole time. Also, so what if you don't like something? why deny them the right?
because it might make you feel weird or you don't like it? Also, what about a person who has both male and femlae parts, what about that?
Marrying a dog or a tree has nothing to do with gay marrige. Since marrige is between 2 consenting adults, therefor, how can you marry a dog when it's not a consenting adult? it's not even human, I can see how despreate you're getting now.
No, on 1.
Also, this subject is about gays, not incest or anyhting like that, stay on topic.
Hermaphrodites is an exception. Exceptions make for bad examples. Let's stick with over 99% of the population, shall we?
You missed the point. The point is the same logic - YOUR logic - can be applied to each of those examples to allow them as legitimate for 'marriage' as well, since you base it all on attraction and private choice. You're opening a can of worms and you don't even know it.
So you're ok with them, but not with the others, why?
No it can't, because it's between consenting adults. And if a grown women and her child wanted to get married, what harm would it do to you. A dog or a tree is not even human, this has nothing to do with this and is only brought up as a despreate thing in such a debate.
Also, I'm not basing it all on attraction, you're claiming something I never said. Thus, you don't know what you're talking about.
all I said about attraction is, you don't choose who you're attracted to, in the case of humans. Being attracted to a dogis another issue that has nothing to do with this.
You're not listening and at this point, being like a troll.
Not backing up your claims, acting as if your opinion is truther, etc.
Rubbish - I keep pointing to the obvious fact that male and female go together. That's pretty good "backing up" in my book. But you just ignore FACT. Obviously that is just too much rocket science for you.
They do, but then I showed that also male and male and female and femlae do, since you don't get to choose who you like. I never ignored this, you claimed that, this is the only way and I gave a paper that has it all and shows you're wrong. I see you've got nothing left, but this over used argument by you tards.
So now, since you won't answer this, I guess someone who has both parts, shouldn't marry, since only male and female go together.
Also, are you assuming I'm gay because I think gays should have equal rights? if so, you are showing yourself as a fool, because ppl who aren't gay see that they deserve equal rights.
Calling someone a bigeot when it fits them is not name calling. I see you have no evidence for your claims, so I dismiss them all. What can be assurted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
LOL! How is it being 'bigeoted' (sic) to state simple biological fact s about human sexuality?
We are born male and female - fact. The only fertile and the most healthy expression of that is for the 2 complementary sexes to join. You want to FORCE people to CELEBRATE a distortion of this.
The thing is that, you would deny them the right to get married based on, one is not the oppisite sex, thereofr denying them the right.
Yet again a strawman argument and I'm calling it at last. As I said many times and you contiue to ignore, they don't want you to force it, they only want the same rights and I'm with them on getting equal rights, it's not about forcing anything. if anyhting, you wish to force them to contiue to be treated as 2nd class ppl.
Also, I just read up of something else written by, Chandler Burr that says something very different and it goes though everyhting and gives much more then the guy you listed. Weird how in 5 mins I find a source that backs up everyhting I said and you find a source after like 15 mins that doesn't claim what you claimed it would.
Right. So now if the conversation degenerates into point-scoring about studies and papers and opinions it would just go round in circles forever. So I just stick with stuff that fits into 500 characters that normal people can understand.
Like this - we are born male and female and there is a logical practical fertile expression of that upheld through traditional marriage. Simple. No pseudo intellectual opinion can avoid biological fact. It's not rocket science.
The thing is, I gave you aa uther of one that has everyhting there, not a lot of assurtions bced by nothing and claiming things yet, giving nothing to back up his statements, that's the thing. You gave a opinion based paper, I gave one that has the facts right on it.
Traditional marrige, o you mean where women are treated as objects and used to make allaies with another nation. Ya, it doesn't take a rocket sciencetist to you you don't know what you're talking about.
Krensharpaw, I have consistently pointed to the obvious functional biological fact of male and female sexuality as being complementary and being echoed in the criteria given to be married. Any study on this subject which overlooks or attempts to reject any of this basic information isn't worth the paper it is printed on and I will not enter into any discussion of it. It would be similar in level to a study which claimed gravity is optional.
The thing is that, you've given arguments that time after time have been refuted, given forth by ppl like youself.
Also, it doesn't reject anything. You're now claiming it's unnatural basicly, claiming that a man should always like a female, which shows you've done no real research into this.
No on 1. So is this all you have left? assurtions and strawmen arguments?
Huh? Again - male and female go together - it's not rocket science, just biological FACT. Marriage reflects this - how is that a "strawman argument?"
The fact is, the arguments STAND. They have not been refuted, they just get ignored or shouted down. I have backed up my claims - it is unhealthy, infertile and spreads AIDS. FACT. End of argument for you until you deal with it.
I didn't call this a strawman argument, iw as calling you claiming I was forcing you to do something and then saying it was wrong that I was, when I wasn't.
Also, the female thing and male thing yes but marrige has not always refleted this, because at one time it was ok to marry as many as you wanted, thus you don't understadn marrige.
No they don't, since you gave no evidence and you even said in a comment above, you "believe" no one is gay, so thus the truth comes out.
ALso, you've backed nothing. unhealthy, still waiting on the evidence for that, infertile, well ya, but sex is not just used to have children, spreads aids? all sex does so thus, you don't know what you're talking about. End of argument, i rest my case. Sorry to have to bitch slap you so hard, but morons deserve to be hit that hard.
Next time in a debate, give evidence and take the time to look at what the other side has to say and gives. Also, stop using logical fallcies.
Unhealthy - anus is not meant for erect penis (ie rectal cancer increased risk)
Infertile - whether people like it or not is irrelevant, the primary function of sex is procreation, in a similar way that food is for sustenance - of course it can be enjoyed, but it would be odd to chew food and spit it out always, no?
Spreads AIDS - already gave a strong case for vaginal sex over anal sex.
The funny thing is, you actually think you have scored points, my friend - you have NOTHING.
LOL! It makes NO difference whether I like it or not! I'm just sticking to the biological FACT that anal sex is unhealthy. It is also FACT that it is 100% infertile.
You don't to understand that the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence. If YOU want to change something then YOU have to explain why it is better to change this PUBLIC institution. I just want the status quo, I don't have to life a finger actually. But happens to those FORCED to celebrate a so-called 'wedding?'
Yet again, it's your opinion it's unhealthy. Also, sex is not only used for having children.
The burden of proof is on you, since you claimed it was a choice and the like, you're shifting the burden of proof now. Also, you're not forced to celebrate anything, didn't know they kidnape you, tie you up and force you to sit in the church when the church chooses to marry a gay couple, so can you give evidence now that you're being forced to celebrate it?
Not opinion to state biological FACTS about increased risk of rectal cancer. Are you purposely being so obtuse? I mean, who in their right mind is going to think that sticking something up the wrong end of your digestive system that doesn't belong there is going to have no effect on the human body if repeated over and over again? Homosexual behavior IS unhealthy and you had better wise up quick. It is opinions such as YOURS that KILL.
I maintain that your point of view DOES kill, since you see no problem advocating behavior that increases risks for rectal cancer and AIDS, and as a bonus, is infertile by definition.
NONE of that is opinion, that is just basic FACT about the consequences of homosexual behavior.
And as I have stated before, anyone is free to do what they want - BUT when they want to change a public institution that affects everybody, THAT is a different matter.
ok, it's your opinion, but it'sy opinion that you're a moron, so there.
Ya, you know, giving ppl the right to have sex, what a ass I am.
Then give evidence, also, if being gay is a choice, when did you choose not to be gay?
So everyone is free to do what they want, until they want equal rights...I get ya. So what about ppl who have both male and female parts? who should the be allowed to marry and what about ppl who can't have kids? I'm going to keep asking until you answer.
LOL! Since when did you think I'm stopping people having sex? Read my points again, Krensharpaw, I have consistently maintained that what people do in private is of no interest to me.
I never chose anything to do with my sexuality since I am male. What I choose to do with that is entirely different though.
I simply maintain marriage should reflect male and female biology. It isn't rocket science.
Then why do you contiue to claim such things as it kills ppl and that I'm wrong, if what they do in privite is of no interest to you, then why claim these things a fact?
So then, you've went against your claim, you said being gay is a choice and I asked when you choose it and now you said you never did, ty for proving my point.
This si your opinion and nothing else. So I guess ppl who have male and femlae parts can't get married and ppl who can't have kids...how nice of you.
The problem for me is not that they do it in private - although if I had a friend or relative I might voice my concerns - the problem is that this debate is not about that, it is about changing the very nature of marriage - which is a public interest issue. At that moment it is no longer about private acts, but public institutions which currently have certain criteria for qualification. That criteria exists for reasons, best understood by those who highly value it.
No, the burden on proof will be on you because you are the one wanting change. But biological facts are just ignored by those wanting change. Instead you get all kinds of bogus points:
Attraction? Big deal. Genetics? Doesn't matter. Historical examples? Irrelevant.
We are created male and female for the purposes of procreation. Enjoyment is part of it, but secondary, first the biological facts must be acknowledged.
You're the one claiming such things as being gay si a choice and the like, so thus it's on you.
Now you're claiming I'm ignoring something, but what you mean is, I'm ignoring your claim as that's it. Attraction? big deal? /facepalm Genetics do play a part. Histrical expalems aren't, you're a fool.
SO then when you have ex, are you always going to be doing it to have children?
Also, if being gay is a choise, when did you choose not to be gay, just answer the question.
Also, created? by what? for the purposes of making sure our species go on? yes, but the thing is I've proven that gays are real and is natural, we even see this in nature.
Also, what about ppl who have both parts? who should they be allowed to marry? and if sex is only to have kids, what about ppl who can't have kids? guess we shouldn't let them have sex or get married then right?
Gays don't exist the way you define them - people with homosexual problems however DO exist. And here we go - that bogus 'nature' argument.
There are about 3 mil species, but less than 1500 have been observed doing 'gay' sex. But let's double that - 3000. Soooo, best numbers are - 0.1% of species have a *handful* of examples that never procreate and are equivalent to a dog grinding against your leg? Glad to see you put such a high value on the equivalent 'love' of 2 men! LOL!
Bogus? Without evidence, I dismiss your claim on this, now you're claiming it's a problem? evidence plz?
Wow, seems you can't answer it, thanks for disproving yourslef, if being gay is a choice, wonder when you choose to not be one. Also, ty for agreeing that weve seen this in nature, also, now you're trying to claim that when I borught up animlas, I'm degrading there love? /facepalm
Also, what about ppl who can't have kids or who have both male and female parts?
Ahem - I know the 'nature' argument quite well as I demonstrated. It IS bogus since it doesn't equate in any way to anything of merit. The numbers are too small. Animals do not choose and do not 'love' like humans. Are you also going to follow animals that eat their young? What point is monogamy since many animals ignore that too?
Humans are made to use sex with one male and one female. We are set up that way. Marriage reflects this. Is that concept just too complicated for you?
NO! Anybody reading this will see your error - you can't just pick and choose whatever behavior in nature to suit yourself - if homosexual acts are OK because - as you say - they happen in nature, then eating young must also be OK.
And I already told you hermaphrodites are irrelevant to this issue, you only bring it up because I have you running like a rabbit about the 99+% of the population and you want to draw attention away. Why don't you try to stick to the main issue?
No ther enot and what about ppl who can't have kids, you alreayd said marrige and sex is for having kids, therefor, they can't get married, you've proven that being gay is not a choice and you've never given evidence, thereofr you lsot sir, sry to break it to you. You are picking and choosing here claiming they are irrelevant.
Why can't you stick to the main issue, this is why ppl laugh at you bigeots, anyway, ty for the win.
Sorry, but everybody will see your logical error - you just keep right on digging a hole for yourself, don't you?
As far as the old chestnut - 'what about people who are infertile?' - sorry, but people who discover they are infertile only do so as a result of first having engaged in a heterosexual act and usually many many times - it is not their choice to BE infertile. This is clearly different from engaging in a 100% infertile ACT. They CHOOSE that act. Apples and oranges.
I'd like to start by stating that you are a moron. Okay, now that's out of the way. By what basis do you believe you can push your bronze age sky daddy bullshit onto other people? I need a good laugh so don't disappoint me. I plan on pwning you shitless.
Are you aware that name-calling is the NUMBER 1 tactic of someone who has lost the argument? So thank you for allowing me to win before I even said anything. That must be a record somewhere. I have a paypal account if you want to send money.
Now, have you got anything to say that includes good spelling, logic and courtesy?
Probably not, so let me just say this - marriage reflects biological fact, it isn't rocket science. Men and women go together sexually - imagine that!
Sorry, but the purpose of marriage is NOT procreation. Otherwise, we wouldn't allow senior citizens to marry. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between TWO adults and their government, nowhere in the marriage license is a child mentioned. So, why do you say procreation is a "requirement" of marriage? 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Tell them that marriage is necessary for procreation....
Not really. You think you've one in your mind, you haven't in reality. I'll leave you to your own bigotry. The only record here is the amount of times arguments like yours have been completely pwned for what they are, idiocy. You want money? Why don't you just pray for it? Or how about asking one of that circus of bead jiggling child rapist called Catholic Priests? They've got more than enough money.
Thanks for confirming NOTHING. Two men are MORE sexually complimentary, and I can prove it... Nature has provided the PERFECT form of sex with anal sex. The prostate gland is located in EXACTLY the right spot for stimulation. No such thing exists in the woman's anus. And, how many MILLIONS of straights get divorced, or have affairs simply because they aren't sexually compatable? I guess you haven't read the Joy of Sex, which teaches you all how to do it successfully?
Really? Compare the rectum with the vagina in respect of potential AIDS transmission: V: Elastic fibres present R: NO elastic fibres V: 25-40 cells thick wall R: 1 cell V: Ph low - inactivates the virus R: Ph higher V: No M cells R: M cells present. Their function? To ATTRACT foreign particles for transmission to the immune system - the very target of the HIV virus. The rectum is SETUP to absorb. It is part of the digestive system. Meanwhile men and women procreate... FAIL. YES on 1
Guess you didn't know that the NUMBER ONE form of transmission of AIDS around the WORLD, is heterosexual sex? Do some research... FAIL! No On ONE! Protect marriage, and protect children....
AIDS is a virtual NON-issue in the gay community now. Why are you even bringing this up, when it's basically a heterosexual disease internationally? No On 1!
Rubbish. AIDS is rampant and I actually accuse you on the basis of your statement of standing by while people DIE. Anal sex encourages transmission of AIDS - I just made that abundantly clear - in fact if you looked it up you would discover that the risk of a healthy woman contracting AIDS from an infected man through vaginal intercourse is about the same as being struck by lightning.
Homosexual activity is essentially unhealthy and 100% infertile. Get with the facts.
LOL! You are funny. Guess you've never heard of condoms, have you? Gays are not spreading AIDS now, because we've known for a VERY LONG time now that condoms will prevent it. We can still get the pleasure without getting the disease. It's something that the African heterosexual community has not caught onto yet. Let's get off this topic, which has NOTHING to do with marriage, except that fewer people will get AIDS if they can marry their partners. VOTE NO on ONE!
Ah but sorry, anal sex is part of the SSM package whether you like it or not - and your attempt to get away from this discussion as well as ignore the obvious compatibility and complementary nature of a male female sexual relationship (not to mention your claim of Kinsey as an authority) in repect to marriage is pathetic. It's clear you can't even stick to a subject if you are found out to believe a lie. Just admit it, you're completely wrong.
So, what's your answer? Have YOU tried homosexual sex? If you are such an authority, on what grounds do you say hetero sex is superior? I've tried both, and tell you that homosexual sex is VASTLY SUPERIOR. NOT EVEN CLOSE... So, quote your authority, and I'll shut up... VOTE NO on ONE!
It's a physiological FACT that people with the same genital parts can please their partners better than someone with different parts. This cannot be denied.... I'm waiting for your authority on this topic. Unless you've had PERSONAL experience, then you have NO authority, do you? VOTE No On ONE!
You quoted Kinsey as an authority about this. I'm sorry, but the guy was a certified pervert. You have no credibility about that - male and female so obviously go together it's just STUPID what you are saying.
Marriage just reflects the truth of male and female being complementary.
Your claim means that most people - the majority that engage in heterosexual acts, are wrong. LOL!
I didn't say heterosexual sex was wrong. You're misquoting me, which is yet another tactic of those who have NO argument. I said homosexual sex was SUPERIOR to heterosexual sex. That's all. Go back and reread what I wrote. And, see the movie Kinsey, if you haven't already. The right wing nuts, such as yourself, were on a mission to destroy him. He was a genius... Yes, a genius, and a visionary, and I standby that 100 percent.... Do you believe in Jesus? LOL! NO ON ONE!
Rubbish. In no way can it be superior. There are plenty of people who no longer engage in homosexual activity who would refute your idea there.
And Kinsey the movie is just a Hollywood LIE. The guy was a pervert, seriously. He is a JOKE amongst anybody credible looking at sexuality. He was a sicko who was prepared to SEXUALLY MOLEST CHILDREN UNDER 2 YEARS OLD. and you want to stand by your support?!?
I beg to differ. The numbers of "former" homosexuals who are now heterosexual is miniscule in proportion to those closeted gays who left heterosexuals to be in HAPPY homosexual relationships. Quote your stats, if you think otherwise. I stand by Kinsey. Do you still believe in Jesus? Wait, let me guess, Joe Smith too! LOL!!!!!!!!! NO on ONE!
Too bad for you, you have just admitted that homosexuality is not an identity that is immutable. For even ONE of these people undermines the whole premise of the gay militant agenda.
(and you "stand by Kinsey" LOL) You are done.
And, btw, the numbers are not miniscule. But the numbers are irrelevant thanks to your admission.
Marriage should be kept how it is - it's just normal.
Can you please translate this? I have NO idea what you are saying: For even ONE of these people undermines the whole premise of the gay militant agenda. I have never met a homosexual person that returned to a heterosexual "lifestyle" who was happy with this decision. They do it for their religion ONLY. Let me explain it to you, in case you aren't aware there is an evil religious mob that is out to "get" homosexuals however they can. It's called an agenda!
First of all, I will never concede that such a thing as a 'homosexual' person even exists. There are male and females who may do homosexual acts. Identity is different from behavior.
As far as being not being happy about it, are you kidding me?!? PLEASE do a search - there are literally thousands of people and many places on the internet with testimonies. They are ecstatic about it, too.
There is no-one out to 'get' you to be anything other than the best you can be, lisznut...
Oh, I see homosexuals don't exist. Nice one. So, does that mean that Caucasians, and Asians, and women and men don't exist, too? Sexual orientaion is equal to race, and gender. It is innate, and unchangeable. We've already discussed those who "change" from homo to hetero, and vice versa, BUT internally these people are either one of the other. As Kinsey pointed out there is a scale of bisexuality, and we all fall somewhere on it.
I KNEW you wouldn't read it properly, but perhaps somebody else will...
IN NO WAY is 'orientation' a concept equivalent to race or gender. The fact I could point to even ONE person who used to engage in homosexual acts refutes that stupid claim. No-one can wake and decided not to be black or not to be a woman, OK? Behavior is very different to identity. Simple.
You finally GOT something I was saying. Yes, nobody can wake up and decide to be homosexual or heterosexual. We are BORN one or the other (or on a scale of bisexual). Eureka moment! Therefore, when people get into "faux" hetero relationships, who are really homosexual they are lying to themselves and to their spouses. Their attraction for people of the same sex NEVER goes away. Ask one of your 'happy" Jesus friends who converted. It NEVER goes away
WRONG. You did not read what I said (am I surprised?)
LOTS of people have woken up and decided no longer to degrade their sexuality by engaging in homosexual acts. That cannot be done with race, that cannot be done with gender.
ergo - there is no such thing as a homosexual 'identity', only homosexual behavior.
WRONG, there IS such a thing as a homosexual, and it's really a stupid thing to say otherwise. You are operating on the BELIEF that your imaginary friend "created" only heterosexuals. NONSENSE. Our sexual orientation is every bit as much a part of us as our gender and race.... You were somewhat lucid until now. I think you are showing your true colors now. DE-LU-SION-AL....
And, lots of people have "woken" up to the fact that they can no longer live a lie, and they have come out of the closet as gay people. I know MANY such people, and not a SINGLE one of them regrets their decision to be HONEST with themselves, their spouses, their children and the world about WHO they are. I have never met a religious person who changed from homosexual to heterosexual who was happy with this decision. If you know one, I'd like to meet them the next time I'm in Sydney...
By the way, I know you are in Australia and it's the middle of the morning or day, but I it's VERY late here, and I have to teach at a university tonight. Thanks for at least being civil. Just wish you could get off your Jesus kick, because it's sad to see otherwise smart people fall for this delusion... Bye, bye. No worries! NO ON ONE!
Try homosex, and you will finally come to terms with the fact that you've wasted your life with a person of the opposite sex. Good night logo (or should I say "loco?")... NO ON ONE! And, marriage equality to Australia, too! I love you, my Aussie friends...
I've never heard of a happy person who denied their TRUE, INNATE sexual orientation in favor of some antiquated religious tomes. Those people are delusional, just like you. Are you really from Australia? I was just there in August. Had a great time.... But, only went to Sydney. Will definitely go back. It's very sad to me that there are bigoted Aussies, who still base their beliefs on an outdated book written thousands of years ago. Very sad....
No, their true innate nature is this - male or female. That is all. Marriage reflects this, and the majority know it. And 21st Century science backs me up.
LOL Your posts are the ones full of projection, name-calling, hatred, intolerance, and you say 'end the hate'?
I'm sticking to biological facts here, that is all, you keep on going off on tangents and believing that Kinsey had anything worthwhile to say. I can only deduce now that you are OK with sexually molesting young children, are you?
If I was a wedding photographer I would be forced to cover your wedding over a real one. THAT IS FORCING. THAT IS HATE.
You need to look up the meaning of the word "innate." An innate characteristic is something like left handedness. Do you think people choose whether to be right or left handed? There has been extensive research into comparing sexual orientation and handedness, with surprising results. Scientists are zeroing in on where sexual orientation comes from, and it appears to be both genetic and possibly environmental, although less likely to be the latter...
Sorry, but you're about 6 years behind. The fact is that 2 pro-homosexual researchers realized that it would not matter even if there was a so-called 'gay-gene'. The reason? Effectively ALL behavior can attributed in some way to genetics, so NONE can be justified. Otherwise, we can't lock up even the most perverted or violent, do you understand?
Do you understand that gay researchers are AGAINST finding the gay gene? There is a POWERFUL group that has an agenda to prevent this from being discovered. Know why? It's because they fear Nazi like extermination of unborn gay children. Don't believe me? Look it up. You are FAR behind in your beliefs, and accuse ME of being behind. You believe in an imaginary friend. How funny is that? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My point is that one way or the other it would prove NOTHING. The researchers I quoted actually wouldn't care. Gay-gene or not, it means nothing. So all your talk about an agenda means nothing too.
We are born male and female, and marriage simply reflects that. I just like repeating the biological facts!
"Don't cop in us way," the bloomin' crowd answered. "Yor an outsider. Wot right do yer 'ave ter order us 'round, isit?We'll do worse fings ter yer than we're gonna do ter ffem." The bloody crowd kept arguin' wiv Lot. Finally, right, they rushed toward the door ter break it dahn.
loonmaniac 1 year ago
Google: What's Good for Kids, by Lisa Belkin, New York Times
This article exposes the myths that same sex couples are not as good heterosexual couples at parenting. In fact, it shows some evidence why same sex couples often do BETTER...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Comment removed
lisztnut 2 years ago
Words of wisdom from Jesse Ventura on CNN tonight regarding Maine's referendum: This shows that we still do not have separation of church and state. You cannot put up civil rights to a vote, otherwise the minority loses. We'd still have slavery if it were up for a vote. Issues like this should be decided by our elected officials and courts, not the people's vote. They are the only ones who have the courage to do the right thing, and protect the minority...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut... 100% agree
"You cannot put up civil rights to a vote, otherwise the minority loses"
that is absolute common sense. I actually am stunned that the gay marriage vote in both maine and california is only losing by a small margin.
This only tells us that this is going to be passed in the future. It's going to happen. All this fuss is just going to end up being a few more pages in future student's History books.
crazy.
Jakeof5 2 years ago
You know it's very ironic that Prop 8 in California might actually be the route by which gay marriage gains its ultimate prize- nationalized gay marriage. In CA we have two classes of gay couples, those that ARE married and those that CANNOT marry. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The people that promoted Prop 8 didn't see it coming. All important civil rights issues have been decided by courts, and gay marriage will be no different. We didn't decide school integration by vote!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Prop 8 is incredible for the gay population to gain the right to marry. Win or Lose, the subject actually being discussed now is a victory. It's going to take time but it will happen.
To me, it's ridiculous that people even argue over this. I said it before, I can care less about the gay/straight thing, the big picture is that prides need to be swallowed and monogamous relationships should be encouraged.
Jakeof5 2 years ago
I am definitely not the type to buy into stereotypes. However, I do know the stereotype of gay people is promiscuity. So why the F*CK would you not encourage monogamy among that group of people? I don't understand it.
Anyone who thinks that homosexuality can 100% be rid of in the entire world one day is living in a coo coo clock.
It'll never happen....next best thing.... PROMOTE MONOGAMOUS relationships. one person one partner....no cheating....less STDS worldwide.
People are too stubborn
Jakeof5 2 years ago
Yes, first the Christian right condemns gays for having too many sex partners. Then they say, well we don't want you to get married. Bottom line: They'd rather EXTERMINATE gays than give us rights. The truth of the matter is that they want gays to not be gay. We have to "pretend" to be striaght. At least this is something the Catholic church gets right. They say sexual orientation is not a choice, but is innate and immutable. They say gays should be celibate. At least that is humane!
lisztnut 2 years ago
faglovers >.>
Spyke4242 2 years ago
Fags rule, and we'll save the planet. We make more money per capita, have more education and travel more. Sorry loser... You're not invited into the club. Oh, almost forgot we have better sex too! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
In Sweden it was made a crime to speak out against homosexuality, even from the pulpit. The Swedish Lutheran church has just voted to perform same sex marriages in their churches. The new anti-gay hate crimes bill, which was just signed into law in the US is a step in the right direction. Will logo still be able to attend his church if they start marrying gay couples? Time will tell END THE HATE, VOTE NO ON ONE! Save the children! Protect marriage!
lisztnut 2 years ago
It must be difficult for Christian folks like logofreetv to see that they are losing their grip on today's society. The stranglehold of the Christian right over our laws is slowly but surely lifting. I can see now why logo is so desparate to get his message of hate across. It must have been similar to what KKK members felt when blacks were given the right to vote, equal housing and integrated schools. It's terrifying to lose control like this. But, we WILL prevail! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
One more thing, civil rights should NEVER be up for a vote, otherwise the majority ALWAYS squashes the rights of the minority. We'd still have slavery if it were up for a vote. Is that the "right thing to do" because the public wanted it? It's sad you can't see this... You otherwise seem to be a caring and fairly intelligent (although painfully outdated) individual. You're a social dinosaur, and I hope you live a long life, but within your lifetime we might have nationalized gay marriage!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Can you live with the fact that you might have gay neighbors who are legally married? Will this interfere with YOUR marriage in ANY way? And, what if one of your grandchildren were gay? Would you want that child to live a fulfilled life with a life partner? Or would you deny them this? Sooner or later WE will prevail. Of this I have NO doubt. Just remember what it was like when interracial marriage was debated. Gay marriage will have the same fate! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Lisznut, FYI you can NEVER ultimately prevail because the ssm movement is based on a LIE about human biology. You can run, but you can't hide from this fact as long as you like. You MIGHT succeed in making it legal, but you will never fool nature, and nature will then wreak its havoc on the generations to come because of your selfishness.
I just want to stick with what works best, and that is male-female marriage, BECAUSE IT REFLECTS REALITY. You are in a delusion.
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Delusional, I see, I'm delusional because I acknowledge the FACT that sexual orientation is INNATE and UNCHANGEABLE! LOL. Can you once and for all explain to me why YOU personally have a vested interest in MY marriage? I'm trying to understand this. Is it that you want everyone to buy into your ancient belief system? What motivates your hatred? I want YOU to be happy, why don't you want the same for me? I AM happily married, isn't that great? Who would have thought it possible?
lisztnut 2 years ago
You miss the point - you CLAIM you have entered into the institution of marriage but you have ACTUALLY entered into a slimy shadowy counterfeit that put up the sign 'marriage' on the door instead. You have not met the basic criteria first. YES that IS delusional.
YOU want me to accept that counterfeit as the real thing. Sorry, I KNOW the real thing and THAT is not it, not the least reason because it DOES NOT reflect basic biology. AMrriage is for men and women.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Oh, I see, so my tax refund is a counterfeit, and my spousal benefits are a counterfeit, and my health insurance is a counterfeit? Maybe in YOUR eyes it is, but in the eyes of my government, and of my beautiful spouse, they aren't. Guess what? I could care less what YOUR imaginary friend or YOU say about it, because you don't sign my tax refund check, do you? LEGAL CONTRACT, remember? NO ON ONE! It must be scary to still live mentally in 1950, while physically being in 2009!
lisztnut 2 years ago
PS Don't you sleep at night? It's 2:30 in the morning. I'm a nightowl, but it's not like your generation. Maybe you ARE in Australia after all? No worries. I need to get some sleep though. I have had fun sparring with you, if only because it sharpens my thinking process, and continues to confirm my point of view, which IS correct! Good night!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Good night.
logofreetv 2 years ago
logofreetv, you really are just a little troll having problems thinking about this don't you. That's not equal or anything like that, so I'm glad you just agreed that as long as they don't want to do anything you say is wrong, there "equal". Just like the ppl used to say about blacks.
Also, keep on saying the samething, denying evidence, censering, etc AND maybe someday someone will buy your bs.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry to say logofreetv still lives in 1950. We have come so far in understanding human sexual orientation since then, but he continues to live back then. Yes, there is a direct correlation between the treatment of blacks and the current treatment of gays. Unfortunately, some people can't see this. Isn't it ironic that black women would vote to deny gays rights they take for granted? The oppressed becomes the oppressor. NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
I'm glad that you are smart enough to acknowledge that you will lose the war. You might win a battle or two, but you WILL lose this war. Just preparing you in advance... By the way, I'm one who views Prop 8 as a tremendous GIFT for SSM. It's because this is the case which might ultimately end ALL bans on gay marriage. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! To top it off, MY marriage is still legal in California. Isn't that GREAT! HOORAY! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
You will likely die much earlier lisznut, because homosexual sex between males is very bad for the body. Even if ssm is legal, AIDS, rectal cancer, early deaths, treatment costs, less children etc will eventually wreak their terrible toll on any society. You CANNOT win, it is neither up to you or me, or anybody else, but I just want to go with what nature dictates.
Male and female go together, it's just natural and normal
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
I feel so very sorry for you. You live your life in fear of this terrible imagined "being." This is one of the reasons I reject Christianity outright. A god is not worthy of my worship if I fear it. Your doom and gloom scenario is no way to live. And, I TOTALLY disagree about my lifespan being shorter. Where did you get such nonsense? Gay sex is no more likely to shorten my life than straight sex. NONSENSE. You have bought into the Christian doom and gloom agenda. And, I WILL win!
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, once and for all, please give up this ridiculous statement that homosexual sex is unnatural. Are animals part of nature? 450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for LIFE. If animals are part of nature, and represent it, then homosexual sex IS MOST DEFINITELY NATURAL. For you to repeat this untruth is disingenious. And, you also continue to deny that AIDS is now mostly spread by HETEROSEXUALS. Denial is what you are about, because that's the Christian way... NO ONE ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
everyone is born equal
its just common sense
no on 1
idaman12345 2 years ago
but i suppose you believe in the lie that there is a god
no on 1
idaman12345 2 years ago
You should be very careful about hijacking the civil rights movement- many blacks REALLY HATE it- which is just one reason why the vote on Prop 8 from them (I believe it was about 30% or less)was so low.
They wake up every morning with black skin, something they can NEVER change. And every morning they wake up human ,the dignity of which was debased with slavery.
Anyone, however, can change who they go to bed with.
This is NEVER a civil rights issue
Marriage just reflects biology.
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
I wake up every day as a gay man, so it IS the same as race. Sorry, you fail on that one. And, I have a theory about why black women voted Yes on Prop 8. Most black women have trouble finding a man who will commit to them, so they view two men getting married as yet another nail in their coffin. It's funny that you'd hold up the black community as a bastion of marriage. 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, are you aware of this? Marriage reflects LEGAL contract!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Michael Jackson did everything he could to appear white, and never could quite do it. He even adopted white children, as if to make his name associated with whites. It's true that gay people can more easily "mask" themselves as straight, and it was the norm back in 1950 for gay men to marry women. However, those sad days are quickly coming to an end, aren't they? Look at the options available to gay men today! I'm SO happy to be alive NOW! NO On ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Check out this youtube video for more info on the complete failure of the Christian "ex-gay" movement. Many people have had their lives destroyed by this cult like behaviour modification:
Gay education
lisztnut 2 years ago
One more thing. VOTE NO ON ONE TO END CENTURIES OF DISCRIMINATION. PROTECT MARRIAGE NO ON ONE! NO ON ONE! NO ON ONE! WE WILL WIN!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Sorry Lizsnut, but all you will do is destroy western civilization to the same extent that 80 other civilizations that eroded marriage before did as well. FYI JD Unwin was not what you call 'religious', so you can put aside your irrelevant and hateful bias right there. His findings went against his personal beliefs, but he published them anyway.
Marriage between a man and a woman is right, anything else is a counterfeit.
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Destroy western civiliation. LOL! Has Canada been destroyed? Has Spain been destroyed? NO, as a matter of fact, the Spanish have long ago forsaken their church. They are turning their churches into museums and cafes. And, guess what? Spain is thriving as never before. Today's Spain is far more powerful, happy and healthy than it was just decades ago. The end of civilization will be caused by the religious nuts, such as Al Queda. Not those who've long ago given up their beliefs.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Read JD Unwin. Stop bleating - just look it up. He spent 7 years researching 5000 years of human history expecting to find that societies displaying strict sexual regulations would be the lame ones. Guess what? He found the opposite! And I don't know where you got the idea Spain is thriving - they are in trouble last I heard.
Unwin made it clear you have ONE generation and then it is over if you go down this road. 75-100 years, then it's over. Happened EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Go to Spain, and if you've been there before, you'll see a society in rebirth. They are THRILLED to have thrown out a dictator and a church that imposed terrible things on them. The Spanish claim to be religious, but only go on holidays, otherwise,, they completely IGNORE the teachings of the church, to their benefit... They are finally free, and finally happy! Viva la Spain...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and you will see the EVIL caused by religion. I'm living proof of this, because I was raised by an Evangelical minister, and lived to tell about it. My early years were spent in brainwashing. I am free from this now, and better off for it. What happened to me as a child is pure child abuse. Protect Children! VOTE NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
I'm sorry you feel that way, but God is not the author of your horrible experience, the people who did things to you are. I've had bad things happen to me too - at the hands of church pastors no less - people I thought were my friends! But notice how my feelings are not the be-all and end-all.
(And Dawkins is clueless about philosophy and religion, btw.)
Marriage is for men and women, that's just the way it is.
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Your god murderers children all throughout the bible, I can quote it if you like.
Dawkins is one of many atheist who've pwned religious nutters like yourself. Deal with it. You are that ridiculous.
Telling other people other people they can't get married is that act of a bigoted trash, and that's what you are, trash, that's just the way it is.
Yes, you are as ridiculous and ignorant as racists.
akinadownhillace 2 years ago
And, I agree God (the imaginary friend you happen to believe in) is not the issue. God was "created" by man, not vice versa. In and of itself, this being is not a threat to me. It is the people who believe that crap that are the problem. They are convinced that only their version of this being (which is man-made) is the correct one, and they will go to no ends to prove this, including blowing up buildings to accomplish this goal. Religion is the greatest scourge on modern society.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Are you afraid that someone will FORCE you or someone you love to marry a same sex partner? I don't understand why this is viewed as a threat to YOUR marriage, or to anyone you know. It has NO impact on your life. It does, however, affect MY life, therefore I have a vested interest. You, on the other hand, are only interested in imposing your personal beliefs in an intolerant manner. If you believe in FREEDOM, you believe in FREEDOM. That means freedom FROM religion, too!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Relgion has created more harm than good in the world. Religion denegrates women in the Islamic world. Religion dengrates gays in the Christian world. Religion is the cause of most wars, and religion should have NO part in the laws of our country!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Off topic. Can you cope with no answer?
logofreetv 2 years ago
Oh, forgot, VOTE NO on 1! Protect marriage equality....
lisztnut 2 years ago
It's still unhealthy - in fact the reason why I'm informed about this issue is precisely because of a discussion on the subject which did not specify the gender of the receiving partner as such. The rectum is, for all intents and purposes, the same in women as it is for men. An erect penis is not meant to go there.
A man & woman are not forced to have anal sex, whereas M2M are - assuming they act fully sexual, which virtually all would.
Don't FORCE Maine people to celebrate this.
YES on 1!
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
Why is a erect penis not ment to go there? You need to back up such a thing with evidence or otherwise say, "imo".
Also, they're not focing you to celebrate this, another person that doesn't know what there talking about. It's clear you have no idea what you're spewing out.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Common, Maine! Show people that you're more intelligent and progressive than the general population of voters in California. Make a positive change for this country. Be a good role model. Put the children first. Children shouldn't be ostracised because their parents are gay. Period!
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Yeah because a man sticking his erect penis into another man's anus is soooo great Yay! Put the children first! Teach them how to get AIDS! C'mon Maine! It might be infertile 100% of the time, but it suuuure is "positive"! Be a good role model!
Vote Yes on 1 for normal humanity.
logofreetv 2 years ago 10
Yep... Nothin' but the best for the kiddies.
ayoungbuck 2 years ago 3
logofreetv, putting your penis into a anus doesn't mean you will get aids. The person has to have aids first of all. Yet again, a simple google search would have told you that.
Plz, read up on this subject before making another comment.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
The likelihood of a healthy woman getting AIDS from an infected man if she only engages in normal sex has been likened to the same risk factor as getting struck by lightning. It's true. Look it up.
The fact is, changing the definition of marriage FORCES people to accept and even CELEBRATE behavior that can be directly traced to spreading disease.
If adults want to make private choices, they can, but they should not FORCE others to call something bad 'good'.
And don't teach kids!
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
The fact is still that you're telling ppl how to have sex and doing something you have no right to do. Even if it is set up to absorb, the fact is the way to avoid getting aids by this is to make sure your partner doesn't have it, thus avoiding it, no matter where you decide to stick your dick.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
WRONG! LOL! What people do behind closed doors will not change - you're right about that. BUT marriage is a PUBLIC institution that I have a RIGHT to raise my voice about. You're confusing the two. This debate is about the latter.
As far as your answer in regards to AIDS transmission is concerned, answer me this - if YOU had AIDS and were going to die anyway, how much care would you take in taking care with sex?
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
How can I be wrong if you just said what ppl do behind closed doors won't change?
The thing is marrige is a civil right issue. You can voice your opinion, but you're doing the same thing when ppl back then said whites shouldn't have a right to marry blacks.
I wouldn't have it, because I would know that I was going to spread the thing to someone else and make ther elife a living hell, also fyi, I have a friend who has aids, so I know how one gets it.
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
RIGHT about what people do in private.
WRONG about what is the issue here.
OK?
And don't you go pulling out that bogus 'civil rights' card. Most blacks HATE it when activists do that. You CAN modify sexual behavior but you CANNOT change the color of your skin. The 2 issues aren't remotely related.
This is about FORCING normal people to accept behavior that is unhealthy, infertile and spreads AIDS more readily. That is sadly just fact, Krensharpaw.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
The 2 issues are 100% related, because you can't change who you are attratied to. Sorry, it's the same issue and if you can't see that, then I feel sry for you.
How is it unhealthy, I've asked three times for you to back up a assertion as that. Also, you don't have to accept, just let them be, how is them being gay hurt you in anyway?
Also, if they don't have aids, they won't spread aids, do you know how aids is spread?
So yet again, back up your assertions with evidence plz.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Of course you can change, I know many who have. Since it is behavior, not identity, we are talking about, you can do it, or not do it. Attraction is irrelevant.
And your pity is also irrelevant - I prefer basing marriage definitions on things like biological fact and social science.
How is it unhealthy - huh? I gave you a detailed breakdown of the risk factors of AIDS for anal sex - required by definition of homosexual behavior. Want me to do it for rectal cancer too?
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
Since you lacked to give evidence of your claim, I dismiss it. It's not a choice and since you've given no evidence this is your opinion backed by nothing.
So you would deny them the right to be married and be happy based on the fact of someone is man and someone is women? Then I wonder what about ppl who are both.
And I disproved your stuff. Aids can only be spread though blood if said person has aids, if they don't, then there is no way to get it if there partner doesn't have it.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, what is the issue then? You've brought up many things and then when they're addressed you claim that's not the issue, so then, why don't you stay on this issue at hand and stop bringing up other things?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, I don't remeber ever saying you don't have a right to voice your opinion about marrige. You were talking about how having sex though the anus is unhealthy and I asked you to back up your claim. You are saying it's wrong, which is telling someone how they can and can't have sex, therefor, this has nothing to do with marrgie, since you were tlaking about having sex though the anus.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, you know that you can't teach someone to be gay right?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Ummm, yeah is that so?
Well, FYI, there are two sexualities - male and female and 'gay' is about behavior NOT identity.
A simple example of that is the response to the confusion in using infertile couples as some kind of 'gotcha' argument. There is a BIG difference between innate (ie. not by choice) infertility and engaging in infertile ACTS by CHOICE.
Our sexual behavior is a choice even if it is directed by very strong impulses. Otherwise we are less than human.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 5
So let me get this straight, are you saying that being gay is a choice? because I'm hoping you're not that stupid. Or are you saying acting on such urges is a choice, which is is, however the fact is, that if a man and man want to have sex, what right do you to have them no?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Of course it is a choice - it's BEHAVIOR! You can do it - or not.
Unlike skin color, or gender, which cannot be changed. There is NO scientific evidence WHATSOEVER that homosexual activity is amoral because it is so-called genetically determined. In fact, some of the researchers (even pro-gay ones) have SPECIFICALLY spoken against that idea.
And like I said, people can do whatever they like in private, but they have no right to FORCE others to CELEBRATE it publicly (ie. wedding)
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
Thanks for showing how stupid you are, it's not a choice, look up this subject before looking like a fool again.
Also, there is evidence to show it's not a choice, it's clear you've yet to look this up.
Also, how are they forcing you? Plz back this assertion up or I will dismiss it. Because that with can be assurted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, now I'm going to take you to task, you claim it's a choice, prove it. Give me evidence backed by studies onto this subject, because I've seen the ones done on it's not a choice so, if theres evidence to back this up, it should be easy for you to bring forward.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, since you claim that some pro-gay researches have spoekn against the idea, give forth there stuff to also.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
You'll have to give me a few minutes to look it up... I read it literally 4 days ago.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
Ok, let's hope it's backed by some nice stuff and not assurtions as what I've seen them claim.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
"Despite common assertions to the contrary, evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or policy consequences. . . . No clear conclusions about the morality of a behaviour can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behaviour is biologically caused. (Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [Nov. 2003], 432) "
pro-homosex scientists, Brian Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey.
In short, even if the evidence existed, it would not matter...
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
So wait, you have no evidence to back up your claim, but you claim it wouldn't matter if it did? /facepalm
You're a bigeot, you know that?
Also, that is over 6 years old, wouldn't you think he could have a more up to date thing also, where's the evidence?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Ummm, since it is YOU who is asking for change it is actually YOUR responsibility to show the evidence for genetic influence. But I went FURTHER than that - I showed that it DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF YOU DID.
So what if it is 6 years old? - I wasn't aware that male and female are any different since 2003. Perhaps you could enlighten me...
And yes, here we have the name-calling starting. I bask in the knowledge that it is the last tactic of a failed argument to engage in that.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
So you give me a study that gives no evidence or anyhting like that, and doesn't do anything to show how it's a choice, yet I'm the one wanting them to be treated as ppl instead of 2nd class ones and I'm the one who has to give evidence, clearly you don't understand who has the burden of proof. You claim it's a choice, therefor, it's on you.
Studies are done all the time and old ones sometimes are disproven, anyone who studies stuff knows this.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Krensharpaw, if you get nothing else from me, remember this - I very much do accept you and your sexual identity - but it is limited to male or female.
Your sexual behavior is another matter, and you should not be able to FORCE me to accept or even celebrate (which is what most people do at weddings, right?) that behavior as good, when I have done enough study to know it is really bad.
There's nothing second class about you, I just think you're wrong about the function of sex.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
Ok, but the thing is that, you don't choose who you like.
Yet again, i'm not forcing you, stop using strawmen arguments plz, I've stated many times what it is and they're not forcing you, I'm not going to say it for a 5th time. Also, you've not done enough studing as I've just shown.
I said nothing about me being 2nd class, I said you are treating gays as 2nd class ppl, thus you still are doing it.
Also, I think you're wrong about the function of sex, sry.
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Of course you don't choose who you like, but you do choose what you DO with that attraction.
What I'm trying to make clear to you is that changing the definition of marriage FORCES people to at the very least ACCEPT that which they consider doesn't qualify as marriage. They understand that marriage is limited - you can't marry a dog or a tree, or 5 people or a child or someone you're related to. By your logic - those people could scream 'Inequality!' too.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
So then you do admit that you don't choose who to like, but yet you are saying that you choose to act on that, which is true, but to deny someone the right to do what they want with there partner is denying them rights since they might be different.
The defintion was changed to what it is now and until you reliaze that or look it up, you are going to contiue to look foolish as you've done this whole time. Also, so what if you don't like something? why deny them the right?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
because it might make you feel weird or you don't like it? Also, what about a person who has both male and femlae parts, what about that?
Marrying a dog or a tree has nothing to do with gay marrige. Since marrige is between 2 consenting adults, therefor, how can you marry a dog when it's not a consenting adult? it's not even human, I can see how despreate you're getting now.
No, on 1.
Also, this subject is about gays, not incest or anyhting like that, stay on topic.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Hermaphrodites is an exception. Exceptions make for bad examples. Let's stick with over 99% of the population, shall we?
You missed the point. The point is the same logic - YOUR logic - can be applied to each of those examples to allow them as legitimate for 'marriage' as well, since you base it all on attraction and private choice. You're opening a can of worms and you don't even know it.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
So you're ok with them, but not with the others, why?
No it can't, because it's between consenting adults. And if a grown women and her child wanted to get married, what harm would it do to you. A dog or a tree is not even human, this has nothing to do with this and is only brought up as a despreate thing in such a debate.
Also, I'm not basing it all on attraction, you're claiming something I never said. Thus, you don't know what you're talking about.
no on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
all I said about attraction is, you don't choose who you're attracted to, in the case of humans. Being attracted to a dogis another issue that has nothing to do with this.
You're not listening and at this point, being like a troll.
Not backing up your claims, acting as if your opinion is truther, etc.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Rubbish - I keep pointing to the obvious fact that male and female go together. That's pretty good "backing up" in my book. But you just ignore FACT. Obviously that is just too much rocket science for you.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
They do, but then I showed that also male and male and female and femlae do, since you don't get to choose who you like. I never ignored this, you claimed that, this is the only way and I gave a paper that has it all and shows you're wrong. I see you've got nothing left, but this over used argument by you tards.
So now, since you won't answer this, I guess someone who has both parts, shouldn't marry, since only male and female go together.
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, you claim being gay is a choose, so when did you choose not to be gay?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
choice*
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, are you assuming I'm gay because I think gays should have equal rights? if so, you are showing yourself as a fool, because ppl who aren't gay see that they deserve equal rights.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
I don't believe ANYONE *IS* gay. Sexuality is limited to male and female.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
Calling someone a bigeot when it fits them is not name calling. I see you have no evidence for your claims, so I dismiss them all. What can be assurted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
LOL! How is it being 'bigeoted' (sic) to state simple biological fact s about human sexuality?
We are born male and female - fact. The only fertile and the most healthy expression of that is for the 2 complementary sexes to join. You want to FORCE people to CELEBRATE a distortion of this.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
The thing is that, you would deny them the right to get married based on, one is not the oppisite sex, thereofr denying them the right.
Yet again a strawman argument and I'm calling it at last. As I said many times and you contiue to ignore, they don't want you to force it, they only want the same rights and I'm with them on getting equal rights, it's not about forcing anything. if anyhting, you wish to force them to contiue to be treated as 2nd class ppl.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, I just read up of something else written by, Chandler Burr that says something very different and it goes though everyhting and gives much more then the guy you listed. Weird how in 5 mins I find a source that backs up everyhting I said and you find a source after like 15 mins that doesn't claim what you claimed it would.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Right. So now if the conversation degenerates into point-scoring about studies and papers and opinions it would just go round in circles forever. So I just stick with stuff that fits into 500 characters that normal people can understand.
Like this - we are born male and female and there is a logical practical fertile expression of that upheld through traditional marriage. Simple. No pseudo intellectual opinion can avoid biological fact. It's not rocket science.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
The thing is, I gave you aa uther of one that has everyhting there, not a lot of assurtions bced by nothing and claiming things yet, giving nothing to back up his statements, that's the thing. You gave a opinion based paper, I gave one that has the facts right on it.
Traditional marrige, o you mean where women are treated as objects and used to make allaies with another nation. Ya, it doesn't take a rocket sciencetist to you you don't know what you're talking about.
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Krensharpaw, I have consistently pointed to the obvious functional biological fact of male and female sexuality as being complementary and being echoed in the criteria given to be married. Any study on this subject which overlooks or attempts to reject any of this basic information isn't worth the paper it is printed on and I will not enter into any discussion of it. It would be similar in level to a study which claimed gravity is optional.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
The thing is that, you've given arguments that time after time have been refuted, given forth by ppl like youself.
Also, it doesn't reject anything. You're now claiming it's unnatural basicly, claiming that a man should always like a female, which shows you've done no real research into this.
No on 1. So is this all you have left? assurtions and strawmen arguments?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Huh? Again - male and female go together - it's not rocket science, just biological FACT. Marriage reflects this - how is that a "strawman argument?"
The fact is, the arguments STAND. They have not been refuted, they just get ignored or shouted down. I have backed up my claims - it is unhealthy, infertile and spreads AIDS. FACT. End of argument for you until you deal with it.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
I didn't call this a strawman argument, iw as calling you claiming I was forcing you to do something and then saying it was wrong that I was, when I wasn't.
Also, the female thing and male thing yes but marrige has not always refleted this, because at one time it was ok to marry as many as you wanted, thus you don't understadn marrige.
No they don't, since you gave no evidence and you even said in a comment above, you "believe" no one is gay, so thus the truth comes out.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
ALso, you've backed nothing. unhealthy, still waiting on the evidence for that, infertile, well ya, but sex is not just used to have children, spreads aids? all sex does so thus, you don't know what you're talking about. End of argument, i rest my case. Sorry to have to bitch slap you so hard, but morons deserve to be hit that hard.
Next time in a debate, give evidence and take the time to look at what the other side has to say and gives. Also, stop using logical fallcies.
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Unhealthy - anus is not meant for erect penis (ie rectal cancer increased risk)
Infertile - whether people like it or not is irrelevant, the primary function of sex is procreation, in a similar way that food is for sustenance - of course it can be enjoyed, but it would be odd to chew food and spit it out always, no?
Spreads AIDS - already gave a strong case for vaginal sex over anal sex.
The funny thing is, you actually think you have scored points, my friend - you have NOTHING.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
This is your claim and nothing else, therefor, you don't like anul sex, others might. What you think is wrong, is not the same for others.
Yet our species seems to have sex for fun, which is true, stop degrading sex to such a thing.
If the partner doesn't have aids, it's ok, you should always check you and your partner for it, thus you've got nothing here.
You really think you've proven your point. I guess giving no evidence and acting like your opinion is fact is ok with you.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
LOL! It makes NO difference whether I like it or not! I'm just sticking to the biological FACT that anal sex is unhealthy. It is also FACT that it is 100% infertile.
You don't to understand that the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence. If YOU want to change something then YOU have to explain why it is better to change this PUBLIC institution. I just want the status quo, I don't have to life a finger actually. But happens to those FORCED to celebrate a so-called 'wedding?'
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
Yet again, it's your opinion it's unhealthy. Also, sex is not only used for having children.
The burden of proof is on you, since you claimed it was a choice and the like, you're shifting the burden of proof now. Also, you're not forced to celebrate anything, didn't know they kidnape you, tie you up and force you to sit in the church when the church chooses to marry a gay couple, so can you give evidence now that you're being forced to celebrate it?
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Not opinion to state biological FACTS about increased risk of rectal cancer. Are you purposely being so obtuse? I mean, who in their right mind is going to think that sticking something up the wrong end of your digestive system that doesn't belong there is going to have no effect on the human body if repeated over and over again? Homosexual behavior IS unhealthy and you had better wise up quick. It is opinions such as YOURS that KILL.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 5
It might, but the fact is, who are you to say they can't?
Also, now you're making a assurtion, claiming mine kills, when it doesn't.
I've proven that you think it's unhealthy and is only your opinion and I'll ask again, if being gay is a choice, when did you choose not to be gay?
Also, what about ppl who have both male and female parts? who should they be allowed to marry?
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
I maintain that your point of view DOES kill, since you see no problem advocating behavior that increases risks for rectal cancer and AIDS, and as a bonus, is infertile by definition.
NONE of that is opinion, that is just basic FACT about the consequences of homosexual behavior.
And as I have stated before, anyone is free to do what they want - BUT when they want to change a public institution that affects everybody, THAT is a different matter.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
ok, it's your opinion, but it'sy opinion that you're a moron, so there.
Ya, you know, giving ppl the right to have sex, what a ass I am.
Then give evidence, also, if being gay is a choice, when did you choose not to be gay?
So everyone is free to do what they want, until they want equal rights...I get ya. So what about ppl who have both male and female parts? who should the be allowed to marry and what about ppl who can't have kids? I'm going to keep asking until you answer.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
LOL! Since when did you think I'm stopping people having sex? Read my points again, Krensharpaw, I have consistently maintained that what people do in private is of no interest to me.
I never chose anything to do with my sexuality since I am male. What I choose to do with that is entirely different though.
I simply maintain marriage should reflect male and female biology. It isn't rocket science.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
Then why do you contiue to claim such things as it kills ppl and that I'm wrong, if what they do in privite is of no interest to you, then why claim these things a fact?
So then, you've went against your claim, you said being gay is a choice and I asked when you choose it and now you said you never did, ty for proving my point.
This si your opinion and nothing else. So I guess ppl who have male and femlae parts can't get married and ppl who can't have kids...how nice of you.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
The problem for me is not that they do it in private - although if I had a friend or relative I might voice my concerns - the problem is that this debate is not about that, it is about changing the very nature of marriage - which is a public interest issue. At that moment it is no longer about private acts, but public institutions which currently have certain criteria for qualification. That criteria exists for reasons, best understood by those who highly value it.
YEs on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 4
marrige was already changed as statd now 6 times.
Look up issues, I close this now, because it's clear you've lost.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
No, the burden on proof will be on you because you are the one wanting change. But biological facts are just ignored by those wanting change. Instead you get all kinds of bogus points:
Attraction? Big deal. Genetics? Doesn't matter. Historical examples? Irrelevant.
We are created male and female for the purposes of procreation. Enjoyment is part of it, but secondary, first the biological facts must be acknowledged.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
You're the one claiming such things as being gay si a choice and the like, so thus it's on you.
Now you're claiming I'm ignoring something, but what you mean is, I'm ignoring your claim as that's it. Attraction? big deal? /facepalm Genetics do play a part. Histrical expalems aren't, you're a fool.
SO then when you have ex, are you always going to be doing it to have children?
Also, if being gay is a choise, when did you choose not to be gay, just answer the question.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Also, created? by what? for the purposes of making sure our species go on? yes, but the thing is I've proven that gays are real and is natural, we even see this in nature.
Also, what about ppl who have both parts? who should they be allowed to marry? and if sex is only to have kids, what about ppl who can't have kids? guess we shouldn't let them have sex or get married then right?
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Gays don't exist the way you define them - people with homosexual problems however DO exist. And here we go - that bogus 'nature' argument.
There are about 3 mil species, but less than 1500 have been observed doing 'gay' sex. But let's double that - 3000. Soooo, best numbers are - 0.1% of species have a *handful* of examples that never procreate and are equivalent to a dog grinding against your leg? Glad to see you put such a high value on the equivalent 'love' of 2 men! LOL!
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Bogus? Without evidence, I dismiss your claim on this, now you're claiming it's a problem? evidence plz?
Wow, seems you can't answer it, thanks for disproving yourslef, if being gay is a choice, wonder when you choose to not be one. Also, ty for agreeing that weve seen this in nature, also, now you're trying to claim that when I borught up animlas, I'm degrading there love? /facepalm
Also, what about ppl who can't have kids or who have both male and female parts?
No on 1.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Ahem - I know the 'nature' argument quite well as I demonstrated. It IS bogus since it doesn't equate in any way to anything of merit. The numbers are too small. Animals do not choose and do not 'love' like humans. Are you also going to follow animals that eat their young? What point is monogamy since many animals ignore that too?
Humans are made to use sex with one male and one female. We are set up that way. Marriage reflects this. Is that concept just too complicated for you?
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
FYI, we are animals, because they choose to eat there young has nothing to do ont his subject, the point is it happens in nature.
SO then ppl who have male and femlae parts can't get married and ppl who can't have kids, so thus you've just answered the question. how nice of you.
Also, I've heard this argument before and you're doing the same thing as always.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
NO! Anybody reading this will see your error - you can't just pick and choose whatever behavior in nature to suit yourself - if homosexual acts are OK because - as you say - they happen in nature, then eating young must also be OK.
And I already told you hermaphrodites are irrelevant to this issue, you only bring it up because I have you running like a rabbit about the 99+% of the population and you want to draw attention away. Why don't you try to stick to the main issue?
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 3
That's a logical fallcy, gratz on doing another.
No ther enot and what about ppl who can't have kids, you alreayd said marrige and sex is for having kids, therefor, they can't get married, you've proven that being gay is not a choice and you've never given evidence, thereofr you lsot sir, sry to break it to you. You are picking and choosing here claiming they are irrelevant.
Why can't you stick to the main issue, this is why ppl laugh at you bigeots, anyway, ty for the win.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Sorry, but everybody will see your logical error - you just keep right on digging a hole for yourself, don't you?
As far as the old chestnut - 'what about people who are infertile?' - sorry, but people who discover they are infertile only do so as a result of first having engaged in a heterosexual act and usually many many times - it is not their choice to BE infertile. This is clearly different from engaging in a 100% infertile ACT. They CHOOSE that act. Apples and oranges.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
I'd like to start by stating that you are a moron. Okay, now that's out of the way. By what basis do you believe you can push your bronze age sky daddy bullshit onto other people? I need a good laugh so don't disappoint me. I plan on pwning you shitless.
akinadownhillace 2 years ago
Are you aware that name-calling is the NUMBER 1 tactic of someone who has lost the argument? So thank you for allowing me to win before I even said anything. That must be a record somewhere. I have a paypal account if you want to send money.
Now, have you got anything to say that includes good spelling, logic and courtesy?
Probably not, so let me just say this - marriage reflects biological fact, it isn't rocket science. Men and women go together sexually - imagine that!
Thanks,
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Sorry, but the purpose of marriage is NOT procreation. Otherwise, we wouldn't allow senior citizens to marry. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between TWO adults and their government, nowhere in the marriage license is a child mentioned. So, why do you say procreation is a "requirement" of marriage? 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Tell them that marriage is necessary for procreation....
lisztnut 2 years ago
Not really. You think you've one in your mind, you haven't in reality. I'll leave you to your own bigotry. The only record here is the amount of times arguments like yours have been completely pwned for what they are, idiocy. You want money? Why don't you just pray for it? Or how about asking one of that circus of bead jiggling child rapist called Catholic Priests? They've got more than enough money.
akinadownhillace 2 years ago
LOL! Is there a single argument in ANYTHING you've just written?
Marriage reflects the biological complementary reality of men and women. Sorry if that is just too much rocket science for you.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago 2
Thanks for confirming NOTHING. Two men are MORE sexually complimentary, and I can prove it... Nature has provided the PERFECT form of sex with anal sex. The prostate gland is located in EXACTLY the right spot for stimulation. No such thing exists in the woman's anus. And, how many MILLIONS of straights get divorced, or have affairs simply because they aren't sexually compatable? I guess you haven't read the Joy of Sex, which teaches you all how to do it successfully?
lisztnut 2 years ago
logofreetv 2 years ago
Guess you didn't know that the NUMBER ONE form of transmission of AIDS around the WORLD, is heterosexual sex? Do some research... FAIL! No On ONE! Protect marriage, and protect children....
lisztnut 2 years ago
AIDS is a virtual NON-issue in the gay community now. Why are you even bringing this up, when it's basically a heterosexual disease internationally? No On 1!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Rubbish. AIDS is rampant and I actually accuse you on the basis of your statement of standing by while people DIE. Anal sex encourages transmission of AIDS - I just made that abundantly clear - in fact if you looked it up you would discover that the risk of a healthy woman contracting AIDS from an infected man through vaginal intercourse is about the same as being struck by lightning.
Homosexual activity is essentially unhealthy and 100% infertile. Get with the facts.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
LOL! You are funny. Guess you've never heard of condoms, have you? Gays are not spreading AIDS now, because we've known for a VERY LONG time now that condoms will prevent it. We can still get the pleasure without getting the disease. It's something that the African heterosexual community has not caught onto yet. Let's get off this topic, which has NOTHING to do with marriage, except that fewer people will get AIDS if they can marry their partners. VOTE NO on ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Ah but sorry, anal sex is part of the SSM package whether you like it or not - and your attempt to get away from this discussion as well as ignore the obvious compatibility and complementary nature of a male female sexual relationship (not to mention your claim of Kinsey as an authority) in repect to marriage is pathetic. It's clear you can't even stick to a subject if you are found out to believe a lie. Just admit it, you're completely wrong.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
So, what's your answer? Have YOU tried homosexual sex? If you are such an authority, on what grounds do you say hetero sex is superior? I've tried both, and tell you that homosexual sex is VASTLY SUPERIOR. NOT EVEN CLOSE... So, quote your authority, and I'll shut up... VOTE NO on ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
It's a physiological FACT that people with the same genital parts can please their partners better than someone with different parts. This cannot be denied.... I'm waiting for your authority on this topic. Unless you've had PERSONAL experience, then you have NO authority, do you? VOTE No On ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
You quoted Kinsey as an authority about this. I'm sorry, but the guy was a certified pervert. You have no credibility about that - male and female so obviously go together it's just STUPID what you are saying.
Marriage just reflects the truth of male and female being complementary.
Your claim means that most people - the majority that engage in heterosexual acts, are wrong. LOL!
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
I didn't say heterosexual sex was wrong. You're misquoting me, which is yet another tactic of those who have NO argument. I said homosexual sex was SUPERIOR to heterosexual sex. That's all. Go back and reread what I wrote. And, see the movie Kinsey, if you haven't already. The right wing nuts, such as yourself, were on a mission to destroy him. He was a genius... Yes, a genius, and a visionary, and I standby that 100 percent.... Do you believe in Jesus? LOL! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Rubbish. In no way can it be superior. There are plenty of people who no longer engage in homosexual activity who would refute your idea there.
And Kinsey the movie is just a Hollywood LIE. The guy was a pervert, seriously. He is a JOKE amongst anybody credible looking at sexuality. He was a sicko who was prepared to SEXUALLY MOLEST CHILDREN UNDER 2 YEARS OLD. and you want to stand by your support?!?
LOL!
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
I beg to differ. The numbers of "former" homosexuals who are now heterosexual is miniscule in proportion to those closeted gays who left heterosexuals to be in HAPPY homosexual relationships. Quote your stats, if you think otherwise. I stand by Kinsey. Do you still believe in Jesus? Wait, let me guess, Joe Smith too! LOL!!!!!!!!! NO on ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Too bad for you, you have just admitted that homosexuality is not an identity that is immutable. For even ONE of these people undermines the whole premise of the gay militant agenda.
(and you "stand by Kinsey" LOL) You are done.
And, btw, the numbers are not miniscule. But the numbers are irrelevant thanks to your admission.
Marriage should be kept how it is - it's just normal.
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Can you please translate this? I have NO idea what you are saying: For even ONE of these people undermines the whole premise of the gay militant agenda. I have never met a homosexual person that returned to a heterosexual "lifestyle" who was happy with this decision. They do it for their religion ONLY. Let me explain it to you, in case you aren't aware there is an evil religious mob that is out to "get" homosexuals however they can. It's called an agenda!
lisztnut 2 years ago
First of all, I will never concede that such a thing as a 'homosexual' person even exists. There are male and females who may do homosexual acts. Identity is different from behavior.
As far as being not being happy about it, are you kidding me?!? PLEASE do a search - there are literally thousands of people and many places on the internet with testimonies. They are ecstatic about it, too.
There is no-one out to 'get' you to be anything other than the best you can be, lisznut...
YES on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Oh, I see homosexuals don't exist. Nice one. So, does that mean that Caucasians, and Asians, and women and men don't exist, too? Sexual orientaion is equal to race, and gender. It is innate, and unchangeable. We've already discussed those who "change" from homo to hetero, and vice versa, BUT internally these people are either one of the other. As Kinsey pointed out there is a scale of bisexuality, and we all fall somewhere on it.
lisztnut 2 years ago
I KNEW you wouldn't read it properly, but perhaps somebody else will...
IN NO WAY is 'orientation' a concept equivalent to race or gender. The fact I could point to even ONE person who used to engage in homosexual acts refutes that stupid claim. No-one can wake and decided not to be black or not to be a woman, OK? Behavior is very different to identity. Simple.
(And Kinsey was a sick deluded pervert.)
I'm a man, I go with woman. Just like marriage.
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
You finally GOT something I was saying. Yes, nobody can wake up and decide to be homosexual or heterosexual. We are BORN one or the other (or on a scale of bisexual). Eureka moment! Therefore, when people get into "faux" hetero relationships, who are really homosexual they are lying to themselves and to their spouses. Their attraction for people of the same sex NEVER goes away. Ask one of your 'happy" Jesus friends who converted. It NEVER goes away
lisztnut 2 years ago
WRONG. You did not read what I said (am I surprised?)
LOTS of people have woken up and decided no longer to degrade their sexuality by engaging in homosexual acts. That cannot be done with race, that cannot be done with gender.
ergo - there is no such thing as a homosexual 'identity', only homosexual behavior.
logofreetv 2 years ago
WRONG, there IS such a thing as a homosexual, and it's really a stupid thing to say otherwise. You are operating on the BELIEF that your imaginary friend "created" only heterosexuals. NONSENSE. Our sexual orientation is every bit as much a part of us as our gender and race.... You were somewhat lucid until now. I think you are showing your true colors now. DE-LU-SION-AL....
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, lots of people have "woken" up to the fact that they can no longer live a lie, and they have come out of the closet as gay people. I know MANY such people, and not a SINGLE one of them regrets their decision to be HONEST with themselves, their spouses, their children and the world about WHO they are. I have never met a religious person who changed from homosexual to heterosexual who was happy with this decision. If you know one, I'd like to meet them the next time I'm in Sydney...
lisztnut 2 years ago
I guess, by your definition, there is no such thing as heterosexual "identity" either, it is purely behaviour, right?
lisztnut 2 years ago
By the way, I know you are in Australia and it's the middle of the morning or day, but I it's VERY late here, and I have to teach at a university tonight. Thanks for at least being civil. Just wish you could get off your Jesus kick, because it's sad to see otherwise smart people fall for this delusion... Bye, bye. No worries! NO ON ONE!
lisztnut 2 years ago
I would NEVER treat you as anything less than a person, lisznut.
btw, you're right - I DON'T claim to be 'heterosexual'. Merely boring old 'male.'
But I think you're wrong about sex.
Good night then.
YES on 1. :-)
logofreetv 2 years ago
You never confirmed if you were in Australia....
Try homosex, and you will finally come to terms with the fact that you've wasted your life with a person of the opposite sex. Good night logo (or should I say "loco?")... NO ON ONE! And, marriage equality to Australia, too! I love you, my Aussie friends...
lisztnut 2 years ago
I've never heard of a happy person who denied their TRUE, INNATE sexual orientation in favor of some antiquated religious tomes. Those people are delusional, just like you. Are you really from Australia? I was just there in August. Had a great time.... But, only went to Sydney. Will definitely go back. It's very sad to me that there are bigoted Aussies, who still base their beliefs on an outdated book written thousands of years ago. Very sad....
lisztnut 2 years ago
No, their true innate nature is this - male or female. That is all. Marriage reflects this, and the majority know it. And 21st Century science backs me up.
logofreetv 2 years ago
And, 21st Century science, and my OWN experience, confirm that homosexual sex is SUPERIOR to straight sex. Your point is?
lisztnut 2 years ago
Can you name ONE way in which my LEGAL California same sex marriage impacts YOUR life? Just one.... VOTE NO ON ONE! End the hate NOW!
lisztnut 2 years ago
LOL Your posts are the ones full of projection, name-calling, hatred, intolerance, and you say 'end the hate'?
I'm sticking to biological facts here, that is all, you keep on going off on tangents and believing that Kinsey had anything worthwhile to say. I can only deduce now that you are OK with sexually molesting young children, are you?
If I was a wedding photographer I would be forced to cover your wedding over a real one. THAT IS FORCING. THAT IS HATE.
And you want to teach kids?
logofreetv 2 years ago
Comment removed
lisztnut 2 years ago
How's the weather in Sydney now? It was cool when I was there...
lisztnut 2 years ago
You need to look up the meaning of the word "innate." An innate characteristic is something like left handedness. Do you think people choose whether to be right or left handed? There has been extensive research into comparing sexual orientation and handedness, with surprising results. Scientists are zeroing in on where sexual orientation comes from, and it appears to be both genetic and possibly environmental, although less likely to be the latter...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Sorry, but you're about 6 years behind. The fact is that 2 pro-homosexual researchers realized that it would not matter even if there was a so-called 'gay-gene'. The reason? Effectively ALL behavior can attributed in some way to genetics, so NONE can be justified. Otherwise, we can't lock up even the most perverted or violent, do you understand?
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago
Do you understand that gay researchers are AGAINST finding the gay gene? There is a POWERFUL group that has an agenda to prevent this from being discovered. Know why? It's because they fear Nazi like extermination of unborn gay children. Don't believe me? Look it up. You are FAR behind in your beliefs, and accuse ME of being behind. You believe in an imaginary friend. How funny is that? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lisztnut 2 years ago
My point is that one way or the other it would prove NOTHING. The researchers I quoted actually wouldn't care. Gay-gene or not, it means nothing. So all your talk about an agenda means nothing too.
We are born male and female, and marriage simply reflects that. I just like repeating the biological facts!
Yes on 1.
logofreetv 2 years ago