If you have any doubts about this issue, please listen to Mr. Prager. This is the most important social and cultural issue of our time. The left wants to lie to you about marriage and it's purpose. We've seen their inept point posted below on this in response to this video. The left/gay marriage proponents will lie and misrepresent the issue. Please protect male/female marriage. It is the only logical and rational social arrangement. Gay marriage has no social purpose. Thanks.
@TheAnthony8650 If Prager is "stupid", then what does that make you? I would say a complete and utter moron. You can't even come close to Prager's intellect. He would destroy you in any debate...and particularly on this topic.
The Supreme Court may indeed rule in favor of "gay marriage". That will not, however, make it morally right. We've seen many instances of the SC being wrong on issues.
It is not about "equality", so stop lying again. It is about special rights that homosexuals want
@TheAnthony8650 I never give up. Marriage equality exists, but you can't understand this through your very thick skull. Everyone has the SAME RIGHTS. You want special rights for a very small percentage of our population. Rights that make no sense either biologically or socially. Have a nice day. Bigot.
The fact is that gays are not sterile (like many heterosexuals are). A further fact is that unwanted, unloved children are overwhelmingly dumped onto society by heterosexuals. Another fact: Child abuse and molestation is committed almost exclusively by biological parents of the victims.
The facts about gays and homosexuality is that there really isn't any problem...other than the ones YOU and your fellow homophobes are so desperately fabricating!
Is MARRIAGE better than lifelong promiscuity? What if heterosexuals chose NOT to marry, but to have many partners throughout life instead. Would that be good? WHY is it better for gays NOT to marry? Why is being single EVER better than being faithfully, happily married? EXPLAIN!
You can''t change it and you can't catch it. Do you perhaps have REAL problems to worry about, because the problem with being gay is that it's no problem.
Why is this man promoting anti-gay bias? For WHAT good?
@TheAnthony8650 Obviously society can attempt to re-define marriage if they want. That is what we are discussing...the merits for/against doing this. My statement was that "gays" want to re-define it to be accepted more for their lifestyle choice. No one can or should stop them for homosexual behavior. We can- as a society- not allow a re-definition of marriage because it is wrong for society to do so.
Can you think for yourself...or just take on the liberal mantra??
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "lifestyle choice." < Now you lose all creditability and none of your opinions or points matter.
It is now clear that your prejudice and bias is the basis of all your arguments, no matter how foolish or nonsensical or just flat out immoral they may be.
Everyone, even most religious lunatics, understand that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. PERIOD.
Attractions, behavior, and identity are the three components of being gay.
@TheAnthony8650 Are you "gay"? Just curious. There is not complete agreement in studies on homosexuals on whether one is born "gay" or becomes "gay" due to some social circumstances in one's early years.
Like I stated before, some are born with a horrific temper. That does not give that person a right to beat up or murder people when they get angry at them in the future. I feel bad for homosexuals, because this is a very difficult situation for them.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "I feel bad for homosexuals" < Liar. You want to destroy their lives.
Sometimes I have people ask me how can Islamic fundamentalist bring themselves to commit suicide murder. I respond: "the same way christian fundamentalist parents can throw their child out on the streets to die if that child comes out as gay or lesbian."
@TheAnthony8650 No...it is you who want to destroy their lives. But you are not wise enough to see this. You prefer that those who are "gay" live a life in a lie.
Ah yes, the victim mentality reigns supreme. It's always easier to be the victim than to own up to your own shortcomings. Nice.
@TheAnthony8650 "Gays" ARE equal. They want special rights in this case ("gay marriage")...but we've covered this ground before.
You are homosexual, right? You want to keep living life as a lie. How do I know this? Because you need society's stamp of approval in the form of "gay marriage" to feel like your life is justified. That is what it is all about. By the way, you are also a "religious person". You just don't know it.
@leftwingersareweak - For you to state that sexual orientation is not an inborn characteristic, you have disprove or show to be a coincidence all of the following:
1. Brain symmetry of gay and straight men
2. Brain structure of gay and straight men
3. Hand coordination percentages as related to sexual orientation
4. Scalp whorl percentages as related to sexual orientation
5. The presence of certain hormones n the womb and the effect on sexual orientation
@TheAnthony8650 No, you have to prove this to be the reason that people are born "gay". That is how it works Anthony. I don't have to disprove anything. You guys always want to shift the burden of proof to the skeptics. It doesn't work that way. You have the burden to prove this. Comprende?
@TheAnthony8650 Anthony, you are deflecting from the subject at hand. We are not discussing "evolution". You have no idea my position on this subject. You are purely speculating. You have lost this argument and are resorting to name-calling and false comments about my beliefs/views. You want to destroy yourself with lies about the homosexual lifestyle (you still won't confirm that you are "gay", why not?). I feel bad for you because life is going to be difficult at best.
@TheAnthony8650 "Evolution" and "creationism" have nothing to do with this topic.
You are a typical left-winger that resorts to stereotypes, branding, and cronyism.
I have seen from my reading that many have turned away from homosexuality and became heterosexuals. This leads me to believe that it is a choice...and "yes"...a lifestyle choice.
You do know that I support LGBT rights, and think marriage is good for society and beneficial to those that get married, and that I view everyone as equal and deserving the same rights under the law.
@TheAnthony8650 You are the bigot. You hate women and hate proven institutions that make society better and more stable.
Homosexuals have equality. They want special rights. That would be discrimination FOR them. It is wrong to discriminate because they already have the SAME RIGHTS.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You hate women" < Ummm...?? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Because I support the rights of gay and lesbians, suddenly I hate women?
Hmm...well, I can tell you this; I am not a jew, christian, or muslim or a member of any religion.
So I can't hate women since I would have no religious belief to do so.
Religious theocrats and fascists want the special right to oppress anyone they don't like.
@TheAnthony8650 But here is where you don't get it! Marriage is not there to protect those who are "in love". It is about protecting the children/offspring that result from that loving relationship. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, thus society gets no value from them being "married". Every compassionate and intelligent person should recognize this and protect marriage as a strictly male/female social arrangement.
@TheAnthony8650 Hey, why don't you throw in "which league won the Super Bowl during the year of the person's birth too"? Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
But for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. That does not mean that a person with homosexual proclivities should live out those inclinations. Like I said, some are born with horrible tempers. That does not give them license to act out their bad tempers on others.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "that does not mean that a person with homosexual proclivities should live" < See what I mean?
You will always hate gays because your ancient fairytale myths tell you to.
I bet you never actually met a gay person before. Now, you will state: "I have friends and family that are gay and I love them...blah, blah, blah" but your comments prove that to be a lie.
Once you meet and come to understand someone that is gay, you support them.
@TheAnthony8650 I like how you simply dismiss my claims to have gay family/friends because it is convenient for you and doesn't fit your hate-filled narrative.
Does support to you mean helping people to self-destruct? Interesting definition of "support". Do you give alcoholics more alcohol too?
@TheAnthony8650 The main point of gays becoming married is so they have legal rights the same as heterosexual (normal) people. Correct? Gays can obtain legal rights the same as heterosexual people via legal papers drawn up by an attorney. They don't need "marriage" to have the same rights in their relationship.
By the way, you stated (then deleted) a post that all those who have switched from homosexual to heterosexual committed suicide. That's absurd and a lie. And you know it.
@TheAnthony8650 The suicide rate is phenomenal? Do you have any "science" or statistics to back that up, or it is just throwing out a statement with no factual basis?
You are the bigot my friend. You have the hatred for others, not me. Are you still beating your best friend? You get my point.
Do you wish to carry on all day? I need to do some errands, so I'll be back later.
How come you won't answer my question about your sexual orientation?
You are a religious fundamentalist and fanatic that wished to destroy the lives of millions of innocent people.
Now, the majority of individuals seeking conversion today are, according to the American Psychological Association report, religious white males, and there is a 5% success rate and a 23% suicide rate tied to conversion therapy.
@TheAnthony8650 Being not able to marry somehow "destroys the lives of millions of 'innocent' people"? Are you kidding me? That is so absurd and idiotic. Let's say I am not allowed to marry legally. That would not in any way "destroy" my life. What a bunch of B.S. from you. You lose any small amount of credibility you may have had to this point. I would simply draw up legal papers with my attorney and live with the person I was committed to. Don't be such a fool.
@leftwingersareweak - Not being able to marry means a whole host of problems.
Legal, financial, economic rights, etc.
You go and read some the transcripts from the Prop 8 trials to see what kind of real harm that discrimination and bigotry does to millions of gay and lesbian families.
And the punchline is that the bigots are the same people who want to be respected as "kind and compassionate".
It is criminal how disgusting and immoral the religious can be.
@TheAnthony8650 Thanks for giving me power over you and all "gays" that I can somehow destroy your life. I must be a god to you. How absurd and weak. But it's always convenient to play the victim card, right?
"Gays" can get all the legal rights they need by drawing up the appropriate legal papers with their attorney. They should not be able to radically change the definition of an institution that has always been male/female as it should be logically.
@TheAnthony8650 By the way, the fact that people can and do escape homosexuality proves that it is not inherent at birth. You cite statistics with no cross reference...no way to verify. I can do that too.
You are the religious fundamentalist. You have no interest in listening to facts and you wish to encourage behavior that destroys millions of lives.
You won't even answer the question of whether you are "gay" either. Why not? Are you ashamed or embarrassed?
@leftwingersareweak - Only two out of the three components of sexual orientation can change.
Attraction, behavior, and identity are the three components.
A person can not have relationships and not identify as gay, but the attraction still persists and always will.
Every so-called "ex-gay" person admits that.
Of course, it is sad that men and women marry the opposite sex which they are in no way attracted to. It ruins their lives and the lives of their spouses.
@TheAnthony8650 You are lying again. There have been many instances of those who want to change from homosexual to heterosexual. No one said it would be easy...just like it is not easy to change any deeply-established habit. They can and do change and go on to live very successful and fulfilling lives. This proves that you are wrong about being stuck as a homosexual for life and have no choice in the matter.
@leftwingersareweak - "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." - Professor Steven Weinberg.
@G41MCombo The fact is that gays are not sterile (like many heterosexuals are). A further fact is that unwanted, unloved children are overwhelmingly dumped onto society by heterosexuals. Another fact: Child abuse and molestation is committed almost exclusively by biological parents of the victims.
The facts about gays and homosexuality is that there really isn't any problem...other than the ones YOU and your fellow homophobes are so desperately fabricating!
@thursdaysrecords Ah yes...the old and tired "homophobe" label. Some of you are really weak in arguing and debating techniques so you feel the need to call others' names. How convenient.
@TheAnthony8650 Like I said...I can use the same cheap tactics as you use. It really doesn't help, but if you wish to go there, I can sling mud just like you.
@leftwingersareweak - Are you done trying to justify your support for discrimination against gay and lesbian couples?
Or are you going to start with more of your cronyism, bigoted, nonsensical talking points that you got from right-wing websites and anti-gay campaign slogans?
@TheAnthony8650 Are you done trying to justify your support for logical and rational definitions of marriage that have proven to be very good for societies all over the world?
Or are you going to start with more of your cronyism, bigoted, nonsensical talking points that you got from left-wing websites and anti-straight campaign slogans?
See how that works? I can play the same absurd and idiotic game as you can.
Have a nice day. You are showing the weakness of your arguments on this topic.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: Are you done trying to justify your support for logical and rational definitions of marriage that have proven to be very good for societies all over the world?" < Yes, I support marriage.
In fact, I think marriage is so good for society that I think that committed gay and lesbians couples should be able to get get married too.
@TheAnthony8650 I'll quote something that I've already stated since we are going around in circles here. Please read it carefully as you have not attempted to address this...
marriage is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to marry. Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude...
@leftwingersareweak ...other kinds of unions (polygamy, polyandry, etc.), as the basis for defining marriage, which is now only a subjective feeling. "I love this person, or persons, therefore I am DUE the right to marry him, or her, or them." Why not? If the law of nature is set aside, then there really is no reason "why not" save the majority will.
@leftwingersareweak - Voting is a specific democratic and social institution which should be preserved as only for male citizens such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of women who feel they ought to be able to vote.
Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude children, animals, corporations, etc.
@leftwingersareweak - Segregation is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to assimilate the races. Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude mixing Asians, Hispanics, Africans, or Caucasians.
@TheAnthony8650 "Segregation" certainly exists naturally. No doubt. That is why we tend to see like groups live and co-mingle with like groups by race/ethnicity/etc.
Your analogy fails when it crosses into government policy, as there is no need to mandate, via law, segregation.
Again, it is convenient for your purposes to mix race and gay marriage issues as common in most respects. It is indigenous though...and Jesse Jackson has explicitly stated this.
You beliefs about gays and lesbians and discrimination against them fail.
I find it funny how ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married do polygamists suddenly have the right to get married, even though polygamy has been almost exclusively heterosexual.
I also find it funny that ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married does "a new kind of tyranny is unleashed."
@TheAnthony8650 "I find it funny how ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married do polygamists suddenly have the right to get married, even though polygamy has been almost exclusively heterosexual." I don't understand this statement. I am against both "gay marriage" and polygamous marriages. They are not healthy for societies. They are destructive to the basic social family structure that should include a male/female as head of the household. Women and men are unique, after all.
@leftwingersareweak - I can believe the stupidly and immorality of those (like you) who harbor so much hatred towards an entire group of people just because they are different that they will purposely try to destroy lives and inflict great harm to others.
Denying marriage to committed gay and lesbian couples harms them and their families. It does NO ONE any good to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry.
In fact, in states that have marriage equality, the divorce rates are lower.
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...the old "hate" defense. How convenient ...and how intellectually weak. I have gay friends and family. I have compassion for their sexual proclivities and the situation in which they find themselves. They will never be normal (by definition). Accepting marriage for "gays" harms society in general. It will not help those who are "gay". They have the same rights as everyone else...so don't claim that absurd concept. Show me your link, okay?
@leftwingersareweak - Ah yes...the old "I have gay friends and family" excuse. How convenient...and how intellectually weak and dishonest.
You're lying of course. I'm sure if you really did have friends or family that were LGBT, you wouldn't be calling them abnormal. No gay or lesbian would ever be friends or would consider as family a person with such malice.
Ah yes...the old "marriage equality will harm society in 'general' " excuse...how convenient, and baseless, and stupid really.
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...the old "I can't believe that this guy has family/friends who are gay because it doesn't fit into my hateful stereotype" excuse. How convenient and intellectually weak and wrong of you. And you know I'm lying because...? I don't care if you don't believe me. It doesn't change the truth. Of course "gay marriage" is bad for society. Name one single country or civilization that has thrived with significant "gay marriage" present. Just one please.
@TheAnthony8650 By definition, gays are abnormal. Do I need to post the definition of "normal" or "abnormal" for you? Please advise. I'll be happy to do so.
@TheAnthony8650 Uh...you need to look up the word "abnormal" pal. The dictionary is your friend...or so it should be. BY DEFINITION, "gays" are not normal. No civilization in the history of humankind has ever flourished with "gay marriage" as the norm. Those countries that have the traditional family structure along with a Judeo-Christian religious/cultural basis have.
@leftwingersareweak - When I look up the word "abnormal", I see "leftwingersareweak" listed as one of the definitions.
So the dictionary is not your friend.
No civilization in history has had marriage laws like we have today. Only about 40 years ago, race and ethnicity were completely removed as barriers to marriage, although racism still exists (recently such as a church in Kentucky).
Religion is immoral, nonsensical, primitive and a great source of evil.
@TheAnthony8650 That is the best you can do? Really? You make statements such as "no civilization in history..." without any backup to your claim. It is just empty words and not factual.
All people have a "religion". Yours is apparently based on "do as you feel" and is thus emotion-based. It is dangerous to society because it has no absolute standard. It is simply subject to the whims of what you "feel" is right. It is also powered by arrogance and lack of rational thought processes.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You make statements such as "no civilization in history..." without any backup to your claim. It is just empty words and not factual."
I was paraphrasing you, and yet you attack your own words...
You stated: "All people have a "religion"." < Not me or any other deist, agnostic, atheist, free-thinker, rationalist, or anti-theist.
Faith and reason are opposites. Religion is based on and supported by faith.
@TheAnthony8650 I think you are the one with malice and hate. I feel bad for those who are "gay". It is very difficult I'm sure to attempt to overcome this proclivity. You just don't want to believe me because it doesn't fit your narrative regarding how someone could be against "gay marriage" and not hate them.
@leftwingersareweak - "They (gays) have the same rights" > You state this because gays and lesbians can marry someone that they never would marry; thus eliminating the right.
That is just as pathetic as stating that “African-Americans have the same rights” prior to 1964 because "separate is equal."
THEN (Before 1918): "Women shouldn't vote because voting is important." NOW: "Gays shouldn't marry because marriage is important." Same thing; Discrimination. Wrong then and it's wrong now!
@TheAnthony8650 You can attempt to rationalize this all you want...but the fact remains that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS with regard to marriage (note the yelling on my part). Gays want special rights. That is, the right to have marriage status with someone of the same gender....a completely absurd and ridiculous and illogical proposition. Buy again, I'm not surprised at the lack of critical thinking skills from those who are products of American culture.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "everyone has the SAME RIGHTS with regard to marriage" < Wrong. If a man loves a woman he can marry her. But if another man loves a man, he can't marry him. That places the gay man at a disadvantage.
You stated: "Gays want special rights" < Since when is being able to get married a "special" right? It isn't.
The SCOTUS disagress with you; it is a fundamental right.
What you are doing is called "projecting." YOU want a special right to discriminate.
@TheAnthony8650 We aren't talking about "disadvantages". We are talking about "rights". Everyone is on equal ground with respect to the law now. To deny that means you can't think clearly and logically. Gays want special rights. Thus, they wish to change the definition of marriage. Got it? It's not about "being able to get married". It's about being able to call marriage to one of the same gender "marriage". Verstehen? POTUS has not supported "gay marriage"...yet.
@TheAnthony8650 You cleverly used the word "disadvantage". I am speaking of rights. You have all kinds of "advantages" over others in society. Perhaps due to looks, intelligence, etc. Don't cloud the issue. Gays have the exact same rights as others. They wish to have special rights...and also wish to have society give their stamp of approval for their chosen lifestyle. Even if they get that, they'll never feel like they are a normal part of society...because they aren't. Sorry.
@TheAnthony8650 "They (gays) have the same rights" > You state this because gays and lesbians can marry someone that they never would marry; thus eliminating the right. Uh...no it doesn't. THE RIGHT STILL EXISTS AND IT TREATS ALL THE SAME WAY. Thanks. Please think clearly and logically.
@TheAnthony8650 Aah yes..the old and tired "you hate gays" mantra. That is so weak, and you know it. But it's much easier to sling mud than to argue a topic on it's merits...or lack thereof. Are you still beating your wife or "significant other"?? You get the point.
There is no "right to marry" for gays. That is the point. Nor should there be. It is completely illogical and irrational to promote this concept.
@leftwingersareweak - There is no "right" for prisoners to marry. Nor should there be. It is completely illogical and irrational to promote this concept.
But...the SCOTUS ruled that there was in Turner v. Safely.
So no matter what your petty and prejudicial opinion may be, the facts are clear; marriage equality will be the law of the land soon and there is nothing you can do about it.
Polls show a clear and increasing majority of Americans support marriage equality.
@TheAnthony8650 What are you talking about with regard to prisoners? Change the subject much? No matter your arrogant and petty and prejudicial opinion may be, "gay marriage" is absurd, illogical, and irrational...and there is nothing you can do about that. See how that works?
By the way, polls and the field of psychiatry used to view "gays" as mentally ill too, so would that have been legitimate in your opinion? In other words, polling data is not relevant to this discussion.
@TheAnthony8650 I think you are clouding the issue. Prisoners who are male can certainly marry a female. I don't think it's a good idea, but again, it is about male/female relationships in marriage.
You missed the point about "old" polls and completely skipped my point about the field of psychiatry. You do know that in the U.S., the consensus and official position regarding being "gay" was that is was a mental disorder, do you not? The point is that you really want to rely on...
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "I don't think it's a good idea,(prisoner marriage)" < But the SCOTUS still ruled that way, just like they will rule in favor of marriage equality.
@TheAnthony8650 The point is (which I'm surprised you missed) that "science" could once again change their opinion on this and declare it a mental disorder. You scoff at the idea, but you have no guarantee that they wouldn't do this at some time in the future. Do you really wish to take that risk? By the way, did medicine and research "advance" in the 1930s when eugenics was being practiced on some?
@TheAnthony8650 So you enjoy attempting to minimize my opinions by suggesting I don't think for myself? How magnanimous of you. Anyway, that is convenient, but not real productive to this discussion.
I would challenge your assertion that "science" can know all and there is no "opinion". Is it not true that we can only experience this world through the lens of our five senses? Because of that, can we be sure that we are experiencing reality as it really is? If so, what independent source...
@leftwingersareweak ...can confirm this? Again, I would not be so eager to bank on "science" as that can backfire on all homosexuals in the future. You have no guarantee that it won't. In fact, the psychiatry profession had no study I'm aware of that caused them to change their position on homosexuality. It was once a "mental disorder", and then randomly was changed to not be a "mental disorder".
You really want to place your undying confidence in science? No comment on eugenics?
Gay people aren't automatically infertile, while many straight people are. Consider the millions of heterosexual Americans who remain childless by choice?
Please stop using EXCUSES to validate your unnatural dislike of gays and lesbians. You ENJOY mistreating and tormenting gays, demaning needless sacrifices of them, sacrifices that add nothing to society but hurt gay people for no other reason than YOU WANT TO.
Has anyone forced YOU to NOT marry the love of your life?
@thursdaysrecords No one is trying to "hurt" gays. The issue is the definition of marriage. It has always been defined in terms of a male/female relationship. Always. Why? Because males and females working together bring unique AND critical characteristics that are important in the raising of children...which is the most important basic social unit in society. Just because some can't have children does not negate this important fact that defines the ideal social unit.
@TheAnthony8650 Immoral and unethical you say? According to who and what standard? Please explain. I'll love to hear this one. It's not about "semantics". No one is excluding anyone from marriage. Everyone has the same right to marry. Again...gays wish to re-define that which has been already defined for eons (male/female). It is critical to society to keep it that way or it will crumble. Do you believe there should be Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts allowed as separate orgs?
@leftwingersareweak - "According to who and what standard?" < The standard of human decency and the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.
I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate someone telling you and your spouse (if you have one) what kind of relationship you could have.
“No one is excluding anyone from marriage.” < Denial. Just to keep you feeling good about yourself. Sorry, but you’re supposed to feel bad about your prejudice.
@TheAnthony8650 So who says that "human decency and the golden rule" should be followed? Why is that the standard? See where we are going now? Your call to some moral standard has no basis "just because". My spouse and I are married. She is female. I am male. You know, the way marriage is defined and the only way it makes any logical sense. And "yes", the law can tell me what kind of relationship I can have (i.e. I can't assault her, I can't imprison her, etc.).
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "So who says that "human decency and the golden rule" should be followed?" < Evolution. The "golden rule" is innate in most people...excluding sociopaths and psychopaths.
"way marriage is defined…makes any logical sense" < Not at all. There are three types of couples; two men, two women, and a man and a women. All three should be able to get married if they want.
"the law can tell me what" < Good for you. But I prefer laws that support equality.
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...."evolution" tells us that the "golden rule" is innate in "most" people. Since you believe is due to evolution, then that is, by definition, changing. Correct? So why should I or anyone else hold to that "rule"? There is only one couple that makes any sense logically, biologically, and evolutionary. That is...male/female. Do you believe that males and females are fundamentally different? Why not?
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "Ah yes....evolution" < Yes. I hope you have an understanding of what evolution is and how it works but I doubt it since you are a "right-winger."
You stated: "So why should I or anyone else hold to that "rule"?" < Again, because it is innate. If you understood evolution, you would realize that characteristics only change for ADAPTABILITY, so that is why we have good things like innate morality, as well as bad things like appendixes, and wisdom teeth.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: “Evolution and natural selection are contrary to the continuation of gay individuals.” < This statement shows how little you know about evolution and biology.
If different sexual orientations prevented the human species from surviving, there would either be no gay or lesbians, or the human species would have gone extinct. Neither is the case.
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, banning marriage equality doesn’t eliminate gays and lesbians from existing.
@TheAnthony8650 I think it shows you know very little about evolution. The presence of gays in society is contrary to evolutionary theory. But you knew that already.
@TheAnthony8650 Do you always go off on tangents? My statement that you know very little about evolution does not speak to whether I accept it or not.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "evolution does not speak to whether I accept it or not" < So you don't accept evolution?
I expected as much.
After all, most creationists state that they oppose evolution because it supports homosexuality, but then they immediately state that evolution doesn't support marriage equality (like you do). That is hypocrisy at its worst.
@TheAnthony8650 Please use some logic! You are prejudice toward having a normal and healthy society. Clearly. Why the hatred for the institution of marriage? Why the hatred for life? Why the bigotry toward male/female marriage? See how that works? The burden of proof is on YOU to proof that society is not severely harmed by changing the definition of marriage. Not me. YOU want the radical change. Now prove it isn't harmful to society. You can't, so here we are.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "Please use some logic" < In other words, you want me agree with your prejudice based opinion and to support discrimination towards gays and lesbians? Not going to happen.
"hatred for the institution of marriage" < I SUPPORT marriage and marriage equality.
"hatred for life" < You're the one trying to destroy the lives of millions of gay and lesbian Americans.
"proof that society is not severely harmed " < There is no harm. 6 states and DC prove it.
@TheAnthony8650 You hate the institution of marriage because you demand that it be radically changed. Marriage is already "equal"...everyone has the same rights. If the lack of "gay marriage" were "destroying the lives of millions of gay and lesbian Americans" then there would be no more G&L left. Just because six states have passed "gay marriage" does not "prove" that society is not going to be severely harmed.
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "you demand that it be radically changed." < Removing discriminatory resrictions isn't "radical." In fact, in this nation it happened before with other groups.
By allowing more people to marry isn't "radical"; it is simply being fair and just, as well as benefiting to society.
States that have marriage equality have a more just and equal society, lower divorce rates, lower STD rates, healthier citizens, more economic growth, and greater revenue growth.
@TheAnthony8650 It is indeed very radical...and for you to suggest otherwise is stunning. Every single person now has the same rights. That is a fact and cannot be disputed logically. Gays want special rights and wish to change an institution that has existing for eons as the best way in which to raise children in the ideal social environment. This must be protected. Changing marriage to any number of strange social arrangement will be very negative for society.
@TheAnthony8650 Yes...and if I stopped taking my cholesterol medication I would surely die of a heart attack tomorrow. Great logic there friend. Your prejudice against the only rational marriage relationship is stunning in it's arrogance. How can you be such a hater of traditional marriage? I know, because you are a leftist and wish to destroy all critical institutions in society so we can all be miserable like you.
You still have the burden of proof that "gay marriage" is not harmful.
@TheAnthony8650 No. You want the radical change in our society. Therefore, the burden is on you to produce proof that it will not harm society. I don't have this burden because I want to keep the status quo.
@TheAnthony8650 You really don't get it, do you? You want the radical change to an institution that has existed as defined in male/female terms in the U.S. since the beginning of our republic. That goes back almost 250 years, by the way. So you don't think that change is radical? Really? Come on, at least be truthful and grow up and use your brain cells. You want the radical change, so the burden is on you, not me.
@TheAnthony8650 Sometimes I feel like I'm debating with a 13 year old (and that is an insult to 13 year olds too).
Yes, really. Any of the "marriage issues" you list STILL were fundamentally male/female relationships. You know that, right? We are talking about marriage, not "relationships" as you attempt to slyly change the focus. In the U.S., I repeat, marriage has ALWAYS been male/female. You want to radically change that too. Nice.
@leftwingersareweak - If the government are giving out rights and benefits to couples under the title of "marriage" then it must be made equal to ALL couples.
Things like race, sexual orientation, sex, disability, or religion should ever be a factor.
@TheAnthony8650 Actually "no". You have yet to make the case for that. Government grants rights to operate a motor vehicle too. So by your logic (?), they should make no distinction based on age of applicant. In other words, all people, no matter what age, should be able to drive. That is discrimination, no? You can do better than that Anthony. Come on.
@leftwingersareweak - Nope. "discriminates" is a word that cannot be used with age under 18 or 21 in some cases since children just don't have the maturity to enter contracts or do certain things.
When it comes to adults, you cannot use any characteristic against them. Especially something as trivial as their sexual orientation.
@TheAnthony8650 You are making this too easy. There are many states with a drinking age higher than eighteen. One becomes an adult (legally) by age eighteen (I think seventeen in some states). Thus, the government discriminates against adults in this area.
Government allows any single male adult to marry a single female adult. This is FACT. Thus, the government does NOT discriminate with regard to marriage.
You: "There are many states with a drinking age higher than eighteen."
Yes, I know.
(1950's) Government allows any black person to ride the same bus with a white person, but just in the back. This is FACT. Thus, the government does NOT discriminate with regard to public accommodation. < Segregation and discriminaton.
@TheAnthony8650 Are you marking your own comments as "spam"? Ha.
Anyway, you have acknowledged your ridiculous point that government does discriminate against some people for various reason. Thanks for admitting that your point was invalid.
@leftwingersareweak - You can try and get rid of my comments. Mark them as "spam" all you want.
Go ahead.
You're just like all the anti-gay campaigns; trying to hide the sources of their bigotry.
NOM is currently in court in multiple state trying to hide their donors' identity and in Washington and California, anti-gay bigots tried to keep their identities a secret.
@TheAnthony8650 I didn't mark them as spam. I thought it was you. I have nothing to hide and will not hide from this ridiculous effort to legalize "gay" marriage. You want to destroy our society because you want to get the stamp of approval that you think comes with being married and gay.
@TheAnthony8650 I am not done. Your best argument is that my side will eventually "lose and there is nothing I can do about it". You have no cogent or logical retort to my main points. All you do is ignore them. And now we see that you resort to cheap name-calling because apparently your life is so miserable you feel the need to destroy society one institution at a time. Equality has happened. You just want to have special rights for a very small group in our society.
@TheAnthony8650 So who says anyone should live by the "golden rule"? Why is that the standard? Who says? You see you are on very thin ice when you make up rules as you go to fit your own narrative in life.
All adults males can marry any adult female (who is unmarried). This applies to everyone. Thus, all have the SAME RIGHTS. You and those who support "gay marriage" wish to have special rights for those who have chosen to be gay. Can you follow that logic? It's really pretty simple.
@TheAnthony8650 "Anyone that doesn't live by the golden rule is either a sociopath or a psychopath". So says you. That is just your opinion. It has no absolute basis...and thus can be discarded. See what I did there?
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "So says you. That is just your opinion." < No, that is a fact.
Again, SCIENCE is not religion. Every human being has an innate sense of morality unless their is something different in their brain that makes them a sociopath or a psychopath.
Most religious people can't see that since the religious do so much evil, it's hard for them to see the difference.
@TheAnthony8650 No, it is NOT a fact. It is your opinion and you have no proof otherwise. "Science" has become a religion for many on the left. That is a fact. So where does this "innate morality" originate? Why does it exist? Don't give me this crap on "evolution" to explain it either. That is total bunk and has not yet been demonstrated in scientific studies. By the way, how do you explain "evil"?
If you have any doubts about this issue, please listen to Mr. Prager. This is the most important social and cultural issue of our time. The left wants to lie to you about marriage and it's purpose. We've seen their inept point posted below on this in response to this video. The left/gay marriage proponents will lie and misrepresent the issue. Please protect male/female marriage. It is the only logical and rational social arrangement. Gay marriage has no social purpose. Thanks.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Prager is a stupid douche and every intelligent person knows this.
You do not know this, but again...every *intelligent* person does.
The SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality and you are powerless to stop that.
You have already lost so give it up, stupid bigot.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago 2
@TheAnthony8650 If Prager is "stupid", then what does that make you? I would say a complete and utter moron. You can't even come close to Prager's intellect. He would destroy you in any debate...and particularly on this topic.
The Supreme Court may indeed rule in favor of "gay marriage". That will not, however, make it morally right. We've seen many instances of the SC being wrong on issues.
It is not about "equality", so stop lying again. It is about special rights that homosexuals want
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You have already lost so give it up, stupid bigot.
Marriage equality will happen. Deal with it.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I never give up. Marriage equality exists, but you can't understand this through your very thick skull. Everyone has the SAME RIGHTS. You want special rights for a very small percentage of our population. Rights that make no sense either biologically or socially. Have a nice day. Bigot.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact is that gays are not sterile (like many heterosexuals are). A further fact is that unwanted, unloved children are overwhelmingly dumped onto society by heterosexuals. Another fact: Child abuse and molestation is committed almost exclusively by biological parents of the victims.
The facts about gays and homosexuality is that there really isn't any problem...other than the ones YOU and your fellow homophobes are so desperately fabricating!
thursdaysrecords1 2 months ago
Does this self-righteous asshole really think people are seeking his advice on ANYTHING?
thursdaysrecords1 2 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Well...you listened to him so I guess you answered your own question. LOL.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
Is MARRIAGE better than lifelong promiscuity? What if heterosexuals chose NOT to marry, but to have many partners throughout life instead. Would that be good? WHY is it better for gays NOT to marry? Why is being single EVER better than being faithfully, happily married? EXPLAIN!
You can''t change it and you can't catch it. Do you perhaps have REAL problems to worry about, because the problem with being gay is that it's no problem.
Why is this man promoting anti-gay bias? For WHAT good?
schlummieleinchen 5 months ago
@schlummieleinchen "Is MARRIAGE better than lifelong promiscuity?" False choice.
People can be "gay" all they want. That is not the issue. The issue is whether they can re-define marriage to fit the whims of society.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - If society wants to redefine something it can.
You obviously can't think for yourself.
Notice your rhetoric: "The scary "gays" are out to do this and to do that to us poor and innocent heterosexuals and our marriages...blah blah blah.."
Seriously? You are really pathetic.
Massachusetts has had marriage equality for years now....not a single thing changed. It still has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Obviously society can attempt to re-define marriage if they want. That is what we are discussing...the merits for/against doing this. My statement was that "gays" want to re-define it to be accepted more for their lifestyle choice. No one can or should stop them for homosexual behavior. We can- as a society- not allow a re-definition of marriage because it is wrong for society to do so.
Can you think for yourself...or just take on the liberal mantra??
Pathetic?....
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ...you seem to be getting angry.
As for Massachusetts, it's difficult to have a high divorce rate when less people are getting married. But that's another subject.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Religion is a lifestyle choice. Not sexual orientation.
To even suggest such a thing is same as saying that race or hand coordination is a choice.
MIR scans show that there are physical differences in certain parts of the brain between gay and straight men.
Not that you care. All you care about is prejudice and discrimination.
You are just another "ditto head" that can't think for yourself.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 MIR scans don't "prove" anything.
You are just another "ditto head" who can't think for yourself. See how that works?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "MIR scans don't "prove" anything." < Are you an idiot?
The scans clearly show the differences in the brain. That is evidence.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "lifestyle choice." < Now you lose all creditability and none of your opinions or points matter.
It is now clear that your prejudice and bias is the basis of all your arguments, no matter how foolish or nonsensical or just flat out immoral they may be.
Everyone, even most religious lunatics, understand that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. PERIOD.
Attractions, behavior, and identity are the three components of being gay.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Are you "gay"? Just curious. There is not complete agreement in studies on homosexuals on whether one is born "gay" or becomes "gay" due to some social circumstances in one's early years.
Like I stated before, some are born with a horrific temper. That does not give that person a right to beat up or murder people when they get angry at them in the future. I feel bad for homosexuals, because this is a very difficult situation for them.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "I feel bad for homosexuals" < Liar. You want to destroy their lives.
Sometimes I have people ask me how can Islamic fundamentalist bring themselves to commit suicide murder. I respond: "the same way christian fundamentalist parents can throw their child out on the streets to die if that child comes out as gay or lesbian."
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 No...it is you who want to destroy their lives. But you are not wise enough to see this. You prefer that those who are "gay" live a life in a lie.
Ah yes, the victim mentality reigns supreme. It's always easier to be the victim than to own up to your own shortcomings. Nice.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - I want LGBT people to be equal.
You stated: "live a life in a lie." < Religious people are the only ones living a lie since their beliefs are ALL lies.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 "Gays" ARE equal. They want special rights in this case ("gay marriage")...but we've covered this ground before.
You are homosexual, right? You want to keep living life as a lie. How do I know this? Because you need society's stamp of approval in the form of "gay marriage" to feel like your life is justified. That is what it is all about. By the way, you are also a "religious person". You just don't know it.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - For you to state that sexual orientation is not an inborn characteristic, you have disprove or show to be a coincidence all of the following:
1. Brain symmetry of gay and straight men
2. Brain structure of gay and straight men
3. Hand coordination percentages as related to sexual orientation
4. Scalp whorl percentages as related to sexual orientation
5. The presence of certain hormones n the womb and the effect on sexual orientation
Etc. I have more.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 No, you have to prove this to be the reason that people are born "gay". That is how it works Anthony. I don't have to disprove anything. You guys always want to shift the burden of proof to the skeptics. It doesn't work that way. You have the burden to prove this. Comprende?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - You don't accept evolution, even though ALL the evidence is in its favor.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution. None.
But you reject it because it doesn't agree with your fairytale.
Same here: your fairytale states that gay are "scary and evil" and so you hate them to conform to your false beliefs.
No amount of evidence, not matter how convincing, will ever make you think for yourself and go against your primitive desert myths.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Anthony, you are deflecting from the subject at hand. We are not discussing "evolution". You have no idea my position on this subject. You are purely speculating. You have lost this argument and are resorting to name-calling and false comments about my beliefs/views. You want to destroy yourself with lies about the homosexual lifestyle (you still won't confirm that you are "gay", why not?). I feel bad for you because life is going to be difficult at best.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - The mindset of creationists and people that oppose marriage equality is the same.
In fact, it is probably the same people.
Being gay is NOT a "lifestyle."
You don't even know what that word even means.
What is the "heterosexual lifestyle"??
Some people get married, some stay single, some stay celibate, etc.
Relationships depend on the individual.
You are a typical right-winger that resorts to stereotypes, branding, and cronyism.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 "Evolution" and "creationism" have nothing to do with this topic.
You are a typical left-winger that resorts to stereotypes, branding, and cronyism.
I have seen from my reading that many have turned away from homosexuality and became heterosexuals. This leads me to believe that it is a choice...and "yes"...a lifestyle choice.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - Your comments make no sense when you try and use my words against me.
You are the one that brought up evolution as if attempting to take refuge in biology could help your already nonexistent case.
Really?
Gays have become straight? Hmm...too bad they all ended up committing suicide a short time later.
But since you want gays dead anyway, I'm sure you don't care since the end result is the same.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You know nothing about me.
I intend to keep it that way.
You do know that I support LGBT rights, and think marriage is good for society and beneficial to those that get married, and that I view everyone as equal and deserving the same rights under the law.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Like I said, you are full of hate.
Traditional marriage is certainly good for society. Gay marriage is very bad for it.
You don't wish to answer my question as to whether or not you are homosexual? Are you embarrassed?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are a bigot. Do you how I know you are a bigot?
Here is what you stated: "X marriage is certainly good for society. X marriage is very bad for it."
See? You are singling out gays and lesbians due to prejudice and denying them equality on the basis of their sexual orientation.
That is discrimination and is wrong, harmful, immoral, and Un-American.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You are the bigot. You hate women and hate proven institutions that make society better and more stable.
Homosexuals have equality. They want special rights. That would be discrimination FOR them. It is wrong to discriminate because they already have the SAME RIGHTS.
PS Are you "gay"?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You hate women" < Ummm...?? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Because I support the rights of gay and lesbians, suddenly I hate women?
Hmm...well, I can tell you this; I am not a jew, christian, or muslim or a member of any religion.
So I can't hate women since I would have no religious belief to do so.
Religious theocrats and fascists want the special right to oppress anyone they don't like.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Gays and lesbians should be able to marry the person they love, regardless of sex or sexual orientation.
I proudly join every other compassionate and intelligent person in supporting marriage equality.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 But here is where you don't get it! Marriage is not there to protect those who are "in love". It is about protecting the children/offspring that result from that loving relationship. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, thus society gets no value from them being "married". Every compassionate and intelligent person should recognize this and protect marriage as a strictly male/female social arrangement.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Here some more:
6. The number of older brothers a man has as related to sexual orientation
7. Differences in the amygdala part of the brain
8. Identical twin studies showing a set percentage in relation to sexual orientation
I could go on, but you already have a lot of work ahead of you to refute all of that.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Hey, why don't you throw in "which league won the Super Bowl during the year of the person's birth too"? Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
But for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. That does not mean that a person with homosexual proclivities should live out those inclinations. Like I said, some are born with horrible tempers. That does not give them license to act out their bad tempers on others.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "that does not mean that a person with homosexual proclivities should live" < See what I mean?
You will always hate gays because your ancient fairytale myths tell you to.
I bet you never actually met a gay person before. Now, you will state: "I have friends and family that are gay and I love them...blah, blah, blah" but your comments prove that to be a lie.
Once you meet and come to understand someone that is gay, you support them.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I like how you simply dismiss my claims to have gay family/friends because it is convenient for you and doesn't fit your hate-filled narrative.
Does support to you mean helping people to self-destruct? Interesting definition of "support". Do you give alcoholics more alcohol too?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You may have gay family members, but I know that you dislike them and don't associate with them.
Your comments are proof.
If you state that you do associate with gays, I will believe that Mel Gibson likes to go to jewish synagogue.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You have no clue. You are merely stating that because it does not fit your hateful narrative.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Okay, I'll believe that you have family and friends that are gay...
If you tell me that you like gay people and support their right to be married and have their families recognized equally.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 The main point of gays becoming married is so they have legal rights the same as heterosexual (normal) people. Correct? Gays can obtain legal rights the same as heterosexual people via legal papers drawn up by an attorney. They don't need "marriage" to have the same rights in their relationship.
By the way, you stated (then deleted) a post that all those who have switched from homosexual to heterosexual committed suicide. That's absurd and a lie. And you know it.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are a bigot.
You: "legal rights the same as heterosexual (normal) people." < See. You prove me right.
You are not normal since you harbor hatred towards your fellow human beings.
You stated: "you stated (then deleted) a post " < Yes, I removed it to correct spelling and grammar and then I re-posted it.
But the suicide rate for phony "pray the gay away" clinics is phenomenal.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 The suicide rate is phenomenal? Do you have any "science" or statistics to back that up, or it is just throwing out a statement with no factual basis?
You are the bigot my friend. You have the hatred for others, not me. Are you still beating your best friend? You get my point.
Do you wish to carry on all day? I need to do some errands, so I'll be back later.
How come you won't answer my question about your sexual orientation?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are not my friend.
You are a religious fundamentalist and fanatic that wished to destroy the lives of millions of innocent people.
Now, the majority of individuals seeking conversion today are, according to the American Psychological Association report, religious white males, and there is a 5% success rate and a 23% suicide rate tied to conversion therapy.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Being not able to marry somehow "destroys the lives of millions of 'innocent' people"? Are you kidding me? That is so absurd and idiotic. Let's say I am not allowed to marry legally. That would not in any way "destroy" my life. What a bunch of B.S. from you. You lose any small amount of credibility you may have had to this point. I would simply draw up legal papers with my attorney and live with the person I was committed to. Don't be such a fool.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Not being able to marry means a whole host of problems.
Legal, financial, economic rights, etc.
You go and read some the transcripts from the Prop 8 trials to see what kind of real harm that discrimination and bigotry does to millions of gay and lesbian families.
And the punchline is that the bigots are the same people who want to be respected as "kind and compassionate".
It is criminal how disgusting and immoral the religious can be.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Thanks for giving me power over you and all "gays" that I can somehow destroy your life. I must be a god to you. How absurd and weak. But it's always convenient to play the victim card, right?
"Gays" can get all the legal rights they need by drawing up the appropriate legal papers with their attorney. They should not be able to radically change the definition of an institution that has always been male/female as it should be logically.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 By the way, the fact that people can and do escape homosexuality proves that it is not inherent at birth. You cite statistics with no cross reference...no way to verify. I can do that too.
You are the religious fundamentalist. You have no interest in listening to facts and you wish to encourage behavior that destroys millions of lives.
You won't even answer the question of whether you are "gay" either. Why not? Are you ashamed or embarrassed?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Only two out of the three components of sexual orientation can change.
Attraction, behavior, and identity are the three components.
A person can not have relationships and not identify as gay, but the attraction still persists and always will.
Every so-called "ex-gay" person admits that.
Of course, it is sad that men and women marry the opposite sex which they are in no way attracted to. It ruins their lives and the lives of their spouses.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago 2
@TheAnthony8650 You are lying again. There have been many instances of those who want to change from homosexual to heterosexual. No one said it would be easy...just like it is not easy to change any deeply-established habit. They can and do change and go on to live very successful and fulfilling lives. This proves that you are wrong about being stuck as a homosexual for life and have no choice in the matter.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." - Professor Steven Weinberg.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Congratulations! Random post of the day award. Keep up the Non Sequiturs.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "Random post" < I have no idea what you are referring to.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 The point is that you are getting off-topic.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@G41MCombo The fact is that gays are not sterile (like many heterosexuals are). A further fact is that unwanted, unloved children are overwhelmingly dumped onto society by heterosexuals. Another fact: Child abuse and molestation is committed almost exclusively by biological parents of the victims.
The facts about gays and homosexuality is that there really isn't any problem...other than the ones YOU and your fellow homophobes are so desperately fabricating!
thursdaysrecords 6 months ago
@thursdaysrecords Ah yes...the old and tired "homophobe" label. Some of you are really weak in arguing and debating techniques so you feel the need to call others' names. How convenient.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are homophobic. Your comments show that.
.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 And you hate women. See how that works? Two can play this game sir.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You state that I hate my mother, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, friends and co-workers??
Hmm...what was that you said about a "burden of proof" ?
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - I do not hate women.
How you got that idea is beyond me.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Like I said...I can use the same cheap tactics as you use. It really doesn't help, but if you wish to go there, I can sling mud just like you.
Oh...and I bet you hate small, furry animals too.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Are you done trying to justify your support for discrimination against gay and lesbian couples?
Or are you going to start with more of your cronyism, bigoted, nonsensical talking points that you got from right-wing websites and anti-gay campaign slogans?
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Are you done trying to justify your support for logical and rational definitions of marriage that have proven to be very good for societies all over the world?
Or are you going to start with more of your cronyism, bigoted, nonsensical talking points that you got from left-wing websites and anti-straight campaign slogans?
See how that works? I can play the same absurd and idiotic game as you can.
Have a nice day. You are showing the weakness of your arguments on this topic.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: Are you done trying to justify your support for logical and rational definitions of marriage that have proven to be very good for societies all over the world?" < Yes, I support marriage.
In fact, I think marriage is so good for society that I think that committed gay and lesbians couples should be able to get get married too.
I am pro-marriage and equality.
You are pro-discrimination and bigotry.
Simple as that.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I'll quote something that I've already stated since we are going around in circles here. Please read it carefully as you have not attempted to address this...
marriage is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to marry. Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude...
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ...other kinds of unions (polygamy, polyandry, etc.), as the basis for defining marriage, which is now only a subjective feeling. "I love this person, or persons, therefore I am DUE the right to marry him, or her, or them." Why not? If the law of nature is set aside, then there really is no reason "why not" save the majority will.
And a new kind of tyranny is unleashed.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - Voting is a specific democratic and social institution which should be preserved as only for male citizens such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of women who feel they ought to be able to vote.
Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude children, animals, corporations, etc.
And a new kind of tyranny is unleashed.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Segregation is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to assimilate the races. Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude mixing Asians, Hispanics, Africans, or Caucasians.
And a new kind of tyranny is unleashed.
Oooooh...so scary.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 "Segregation" certainly exists naturally. No doubt. That is why we tend to see like groups live and co-mingle with like groups by race/ethnicity/etc.
Your analogy fails when it crosses into government policy, as there is no need to mandate, via law, segregation.
Again, it is convenient for your purposes to mix race and gay marriage issues as common in most respects. It is indigenous though...and Jesse Jackson has explicitly stated this.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You: "Your analogy fails...."
You beliefs about gays and lesbians and discrimination against them fail.
I find it funny how ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married do polygamists suddenly have the right to get married, even though polygamy has been almost exclusively heterosexual.
I also find it funny that ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married does "a new kind of tyranny is unleashed."
It's just so outrageous and asinine.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAnthony8650 "I find it funny how ONLY if gays and lesbians can get married do polygamists suddenly have the right to get married, even though polygamy has been almost exclusively heterosexual." I don't understand this statement. I am against both "gay marriage" and polygamous marriages. They are not healthy for societies. They are destructive to the basic social family structure that should include a male/female as head of the household. Women and men are unique, after all.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
I can't believe the absurdity and lack of logical thought processes from those who wish to push for "gay marriage". It's absolutely stunning.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - I can believe the stupidly and immorality of those (like you) who harbor so much hatred towards an entire group of people just because they are different that they will purposely try to destroy lives and inflict great harm to others.
Denying marriage to committed gay and lesbian couples harms them and their families. It does NO ONE any good to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry.
In fact, in states that have marriage equality, the divorce rates are lower.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...the old "hate" defense. How convenient ...and how intellectually weak. I have gay friends and family. I have compassion for their sexual proclivities and the situation in which they find themselves. They will never be normal (by definition). Accepting marriage for "gays" harms society in general. It will not help those who are "gay". They have the same rights as everyone else...so don't claim that absurd concept. Show me your link, okay?
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Ah yes...the old "I have gay friends and family" excuse. How convenient...and how intellectually weak and dishonest.
You're lying of course. I'm sure if you really did have friends or family that were LGBT, you wouldn't be calling them abnormal. No gay or lesbian would ever be friends or would consider as family a person with such malice.
Ah yes...the old "marriage equality will harm society in 'general' " excuse...how convenient, and baseless, and stupid really.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...the old "I can't believe that this guy has family/friends who are gay because it doesn't fit into my hateful stereotype" excuse. How convenient and intellectually weak and wrong of you. And you know I'm lying because...? I don't care if you don't believe me. It doesn't change the truth. Of course "gay marriage" is bad for society. Name one single country or civilization that has thrived with significant "gay marriage" present. Just one please.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 By definition, gays are abnormal. Do I need to post the definition of "normal" or "abnormal" for you? Please advise. I'll be happy to do so.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Uh...you need to look up the word "abnormal" pal. The dictionary is your friend...or so it should be. BY DEFINITION, "gays" are not normal. No civilization in the history of humankind has ever flourished with "gay marriage" as the norm. Those countries that have the traditional family structure along with a Judeo-Christian religious/cultural basis have.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - When I look up the word "abnormal", I see "leftwingersareweak" listed as one of the definitions.
So the dictionary is not your friend.
No civilization in history has had marriage laws like we have today. Only about 40 years ago, race and ethnicity were completely removed as barriers to marriage, although racism still exists (recently such as a church in Kentucky).
Religion is immoral, nonsensical, primitive and a great source of evil.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 That is the best you can do? Really? You make statements such as "no civilization in history..." without any backup to your claim. It is just empty words and not factual.
All people have a "religion". Yours is apparently based on "do as you feel" and is thus emotion-based. It is dangerous to society because it has no absolute standard. It is simply subject to the whims of what you "feel" is right. It is also powered by arrogance and lack of rational thought processes.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You make statements such as "no civilization in history..." without any backup to your claim. It is just empty words and not factual."
I was paraphrasing you, and yet you attack your own words...
You stated: "All people have a "religion"." < Not me or any other deist, agnostic, atheist, free-thinker, rationalist, or anti-theist.
Faith and reason are opposites. Religion is based on and supported by faith.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I think you are the one with malice and hate. I feel bad for those who are "gay". It is very difficult I'm sure to attempt to overcome this proclivity. You just don't want to believe me because it doesn't fit your narrative regarding how someone could be against "gay marriage" and not hate them.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are getting angry and your comments are getting longer but are making less and less sense.
How old are you?
You need to calm down before you get a heart attack. Take your heart medication.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Not angry at all. But if it makes you feel better you can imagine that I'm angry. I am actually very slow to anger.
I am in good shape and workout/lift weights. How about you? Are you getting angry? LOL.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - "They (gays) have the same rights" > You state this because gays and lesbians can marry someone that they never would marry; thus eliminating the right.
That is just as pathetic as stating that “African-Americans have the same rights” prior to 1964 because "separate is equal."
THEN (Before 1918): "Women shouldn't vote because voting is important." NOW: "Gays shouldn't marry because marriage is important." Same thing; Discrimination. Wrong then and it's wrong now!
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You can attempt to rationalize this all you want...but the fact remains that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS with regard to marriage (note the yelling on my part). Gays want special rights. That is, the right to have marriage status with someone of the same gender....a completely absurd and ridiculous and illogical proposition. Buy again, I'm not surprised at the lack of critical thinking skills from those who are products of American culture.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "everyone has the SAME RIGHTS with regard to marriage" < Wrong. If a man loves a woman he can marry her. But if another man loves a man, he can't marry him. That places the gay man at a disadvantage.
You stated: "Gays want special rights" < Since when is being able to get married a "special" right? It isn't.
The SCOTUS disagress with you; it is a fundamental right.
What you are doing is called "projecting." YOU want a special right to discriminate.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 We aren't talking about "disadvantages". We are talking about "rights". Everyone is on equal ground with respect to the law now. To deny that means you can't think clearly and logically. Gays want special rights. Thus, they wish to change the definition of marriage. Got it? It's not about "being able to get married". It's about being able to call marriage to one of the same gender "marriage". Verstehen? POTUS has not supported "gay marriage"...yet.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You cleverly used the word "disadvantage". I am speaking of rights. You have all kinds of "advantages" over others in society. Perhaps due to looks, intelligence, etc. Don't cloud the issue. Gays have the exact same rights as others. They wish to have special rights...and also wish to have society give their stamp of approval for their chosen lifestyle. Even if they get that, they'll never feel like they are a normal part of society...because they aren't. Sorry.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 "They (gays) have the same rights" > You state this because gays and lesbians can marry someone that they never would marry; thus eliminating the right. Uh...no it doesn't. THE RIGHT STILL EXISTS AND IT TREATS ALL THE SAME WAY. Thanks. Please think clearly and logically.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Aah yes..the old and tired "you hate gays" mantra. That is so weak, and you know it. But it's much easier to sling mud than to argue a topic on it's merits...or lack thereof. Are you still beating your wife or "significant other"?? You get the point.
There is no "right to marry" for gays. That is the point. Nor should there be. It is completely illogical and irrational to promote this concept.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - There is no "right" for prisoners to marry. Nor should there be. It is completely illogical and irrational to promote this concept.
But...the SCOTUS ruled that there was in Turner v. Safely.
So no matter what your petty and prejudicial opinion may be, the facts are clear; marriage equality will be the law of the land soon and there is nothing you can do about it.
Polls show a clear and increasing majority of Americans support marriage equality.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 What are you talking about with regard to prisoners? Change the subject much? No matter your arrogant and petty and prejudicial opinion may be, "gay marriage" is absurd, illogical, and irrational...and there is nothing you can do about that. See how that works?
By the way, polls and the field of psychiatry used to view "gays" as mentally ill too, so would that have been legitimate in your opinion? In other words, polling data is not relevant to this discussion.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You asked: "What are you talking about with regard to prisoners?"
Some people, like you, seem to think that fundamental rights like marriage stop depending on a person's characteristics or status.
But if prisoners can still exercise their right be married, gay and lesbian individuals most certainly should be able to exercise it as well.
You stated: "polls and the field of psychiatry *used* to view" < Old and outdated polls are meaningless.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I think you are clouding the issue. Prisoners who are male can certainly marry a female. I don't think it's a good idea, but again, it is about male/female relationships in marriage.
You missed the point about "old" polls and completely skipped my point about the field of psychiatry. You do know that in the U.S., the consensus and official position regarding being "gay" was that is was a mental disorder, do you not? The point is that you really want to rely on...
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ...changing sentiments from either public opinion or the "scientific community"? Really? Seriously?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ...by the way, this position for the American Academy of Psychiatry existed up until just 40 years ago or so.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "I don't think it's a good idea,(prisoner marriage)" < But the SCOTUS still ruled that way, just like they will rule in favor of marriage equality.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "was a mental disorder" < 50 years ago, back in the 1960s.
Medicine and research advanced since then.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 The point is (which I'm surprised you missed) that "science" could once again change their opinion on this and declare it a mental disorder. You scoff at the idea, but you have no guarantee that they wouldn't do this at some time in the future. Do you really wish to take that risk? By the way, did medicine and research "advance" in the 1930s when eugenics was being practiced on some?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Science is not religion. There is no "opinion."
Scientific data that has been tested and peer reviewed proves that being gay or lesbian is a natural variant of human sexuality.
Again, you can't think for yourself and you quote garbage from radical right-wing hate grounds and websites.
Do you watch Fox News and listen Rush Limbaugh and think Rick Santorum is the greatest politician ever?
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 So you enjoy attempting to minimize my opinions by suggesting I don't think for myself? How magnanimous of you. Anyway, that is convenient, but not real productive to this discussion.
I would challenge your assertion that "science" can know all and there is no "opinion". Is it not true that we can only experience this world through the lens of our five senses? Because of that, can we be sure that we are experiencing reality as it really is? If so, what independent source...
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ...can confirm this? Again, I would not be so eager to bank on "science" as that can backfire on all homosexuals in the future. You have no guarantee that it won't. In fact, the psychiatry profession had no study I'm aware of that caused them to change their position on homosexuality. It was once a "mental disorder", and then randomly was changed to not be a "mental disorder".
You really want to place your undying confidence in science? No comment on eugenics?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@jakefree24 I was on your side as in republicans are nazis.
ashtongrist 10 months ago
Gay people aren't automatically infertile, while many straight people are. Consider the millions of heterosexual Americans who remain childless by choice?
Please stop using EXCUSES to validate your unnatural dislike of gays and lesbians. You ENJOY mistreating and tormenting gays, demaning needless sacrifices of them, sacrifices that add nothing to society but hurt gay people for no other reason than YOU WANT TO.
Has anyone forced YOU to NOT marry the love of your life?
thursdaysrecords 1 year ago
@thursdaysrecords No one is trying to "hurt" gays. The issue is the definition of marriage. It has always been defined in terms of a male/female relationship. Always. Why? Because males and females working together bring unique AND critical characteristics that are important in the raising of children...which is the most important basic social unit in society. Just because some can't have children does not negate this important fact that defines the ideal social unit.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "The issue is the definition of marriage." < Shows how immoral and unethical you are.
How dare you place semantics before the well being of individuals, couples, and families.
Arguing in favor of marriage is NOT an argument to exclude people from it.
Before 1918: "Voting is important to our democracy...so women can't vote."
Today: "Marriage is important to our society...so gays can't marry."
Same thing; discrimination. Wrong then and wrong now!
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Immoral and unethical you say? According to who and what standard? Please explain. I'll love to hear this one. It's not about "semantics". No one is excluding anyone from marriage. Everyone has the same right to marry. Again...gays wish to re-define that which has been already defined for eons (male/female). It is critical to society to keep it that way or it will crumble. Do you believe there should be Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts allowed as separate orgs?
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - "According to who and what standard?" < The standard of human decency and the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.
I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate someone telling you and your spouse (if you have one) what kind of relationship you could have.
“No one is excluding anyone from marriage.” < Denial. Just to keep you feeling good about yourself. Sorry, but you’re supposed to feel bad about your prejudice.
"society...will crumble" < Nonsense.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 So who says that "human decency and the golden rule" should be followed? Why is that the standard? See where we are going now? Your call to some moral standard has no basis "just because". My spouse and I are married. She is female. I am male. You know, the way marriage is defined and the only way it makes any logical sense. And "yes", the law can tell me what kind of relationship I can have (i.e. I can't assault her, I can't imprison her, etc.).
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "So who says that "human decency and the golden rule" should be followed?" < Evolution. The "golden rule" is innate in most people...excluding sociopaths and psychopaths.
"way marriage is defined…makes any logical sense" < Not at all. There are three types of couples; two men, two women, and a man and a women. All three should be able to get married if they want.
"the law can tell me what" < Good for you. But I prefer laws that support equality.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Ah yes...."evolution" tells us that the "golden rule" is innate in "most" people. Since you believe is due to evolution, then that is, by definition, changing. Correct? So why should I or anyone else hold to that "rule"? There is only one couple that makes any sense logically, biologically, and evolutionary. That is...male/female. Do you believe that males and females are fundamentally different? Why not?
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "Ah yes....evolution" < Yes. I hope you have an understanding of what evolution is and how it works but I doubt it since you are a "right-winger."
You stated: "So why should I or anyone else hold to that "rule"?" < Again, because it is innate. If you understood evolution, you would realize that characteristics only change for ADAPTABILITY, so that is why we have good things like innate morality, as well as bad things like appendixes, and wisdom teeth.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Evolution and natural selection are contrary to the continuation of gay individuals. It makes no sense.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: “Evolution and natural selection are contrary to the continuation of gay individuals.” < This statement shows how little you know about evolution and biology.
If different sexual orientations prevented the human species from surviving, there would either be no gay or lesbians, or the human species would have gone extinct. Neither is the case.
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, banning marriage equality doesn’t eliminate gays and lesbians from existing.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I think it shows you know very little about evolution. The presence of gays in society is contrary to evolutionary theory. But you knew that already.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You accept evolution? Shouldn't you still be believing in creationism?
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Do you always go off on tangents? My statement that you know very little about evolution does not speak to whether I accept it or not.
HTH>
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "evolution does not speak to whether I accept it or not" < So you don't accept evolution?
I expected as much.
After all, most creationists state that they oppose evolution because it supports homosexuality, but then they immediately state that evolution doesn't support marriage equality (like you do). That is hypocrisy at its worst.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Please use some logic! You are prejudice toward having a normal and healthy society. Clearly. Why the hatred for the institution of marriage? Why the hatred for life? Why the bigotry toward male/female marriage? See how that works? The burden of proof is on YOU to proof that society is not severely harmed by changing the definition of marriage. Not me. YOU want the radical change. Now prove it isn't harmful to society. You can't, so here we are.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "Please use some logic" < In other words, you want me agree with your prejudice based opinion and to support discrimination towards gays and lesbians? Not going to happen.
"hatred for the institution of marriage" < I SUPPORT marriage and marriage equality.
"hatred for life" < You're the one trying to destroy the lives of millions of gay and lesbian Americans.
"proof that society is not severely harmed " < There is no harm. 6 states and DC prove it.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You hate the institution of marriage because you demand that it be radically changed. Marriage is already "equal"...everyone has the same rights. If the lack of "gay marriage" were "destroying the lives of millions of gay and lesbian Americans" then there would be no more G&L left. Just because six states have passed "gay marriage" does not "prove" that society is not going to be severely harmed.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "you demand that it be radically changed." < Removing discriminatory resrictions isn't "radical." In fact, in this nation it happened before with other groups.
By allowing more people to marry isn't "radical"; it is simply being fair and just, as well as benefiting to society.
States that have marriage equality have a more just and equal society, lower divorce rates, lower STD rates, healthier citizens, more economic growth, and greater revenue growth.
TheAnthony8650 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 It is indeed very radical...and for you to suggest otherwise is stunning. Every single person now has the same rights. That is a fact and cannot be disputed logically. Gays want special rights and wish to change an institution that has existing for eons as the best way in which to raise children in the ideal social environment. This must be protected. Changing marriage to any number of strange social arrangement will be very negative for society.
leftwingersareweak 6 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Yes...and if I stopped taking my cholesterol medication I would surely die of a heart attack tomorrow. Great logic there friend. Your prejudice against the only rational marriage relationship is stunning in it's arrogance. How can you be such a hater of traditional marriage? I know, because you are a leftist and wish to destroy all critical institutions in society so we can all be miserable like you.
You still have the burden of proof that "gay marriage" is not harmful.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You still have the burden of proof that "gay marriage" is not harmful."
You still have a burden of proof that it is.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 No. You want the radical change in our society. Therefore, the burden is on you to produce proof that it will not harm society. I don't have this burden because I want to keep the status quo.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "You want the radical change" < More couples getting married is "radical change"?
Please, grow up and at least attempt to use your head.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You really don't get it, do you? You want the radical change to an institution that has existed as defined in male/female terms in the U.S. since the beginning of our republic. That goes back almost 250 years, by the way. So you don't think that change is radical? Really? Come on, at least be truthful and grow up and use your brain cells. You want the radical change, so the burden is on you, not me.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "defined in male/female terms in the U.S. since the beginning" < Really?
So I guess all the marriage issues dealing with slavery, polygamy, prisoner marriage, interracial marriage, etc, never had to be worked out?
Gay and lesbian couples and relationships have existed that entire time, although they all had to be secret due to religious persecution.
So recognizing what has always existed is not, in any way, "radical."
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Sometimes I feel like I'm debating with a 13 year old (and that is an insult to 13 year olds too).
Yes, really. Any of the "marriage issues" you list STILL were fundamentally male/female relationships. You know that, right? We are talking about marriage, not "relationships" as you attempt to slyly change the focus. In the U.S., I repeat, marriage has ALWAYS been male/female. You want to radically change that too. Nice.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - If the government are giving out rights and benefits to couples under the title of "marriage" then it must be made equal to ALL couples.
Things like race, sexual orientation, sex, disability, or religion should ever be a factor.
That is discrimination.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Actually "no". You have yet to make the case for that. Government grants rights to operate a motor vehicle too. So by your logic (?), they should make no distinction based on age of applicant. In other words, all people, no matter what age, should be able to drive. That is discrimination, no? You can do better than that Anthony. Come on.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Age is different.
People under 18 aren't mature enough to enter into a contract of any kind, let alone a marriage.
Now, in certain religions, little kids can marry adults, but again...that's religion for you.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 The point is that government "discriminates" all the time.
I can provide more examples if you'd like. I think your point is very weak.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - Nope. "discriminates" is a word that cannot be used with age under 18 or 21 in some cases since children just don't have the maturity to enter contracts or do certain things.
When it comes to adults, you cannot use any characteristic against them. Especially something as trivial as their sexual orientation.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 You are making this too easy. There are many states with a drinking age higher than eighteen. One becomes an adult (legally) by age eighteen (I think seventeen in some states). Thus, the government discriminates against adults in this area.
Government allows any single male adult to marry a single female adult. This is FACT. Thus, the government does NOT discriminate with regard to marriage.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leftwingersareweak - Please read my comments.
Me: "18 or 21 in some cases"
You: "There are many states with a drinking age higher than eighteen."
Yes, I know.
(1950's) Government allows any black person to ride the same bus with a white person, but just in the back. This is FACT. Thus, the government does NOT discriminate with regard to public accommodation. < Segregation and discriminaton.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Are you marking your own comments as "spam"? Ha.
Anyway, you have acknowledged your ridiculous point that government does discriminate against some people for various reason. Thanks for admitting that your point was invalid.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You can try and get rid of my comments. Mark them as "spam" all you want.
Go ahead.
You're just like all the anti-gay campaigns; trying to hide the sources of their bigotry.
NOM is currently in court in multiple state trying to hide their donors' identity and in Washington and California, anti-gay bigots tried to keep their identities a secret.
How disgraceful and shameful.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I didn't mark them as spam. I thought it was you. I have nothing to hide and will not hide from this ridiculous effort to legalize "gay" marriage. You want to destroy our society because you want to get the stamp of approval that you think comes with being married and gay.
How disgraceful and shameful of you.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You are done posting comments to me, remember?
You: "If you have any doubts about this issue...Thanks."
So I have no idea why you started posting more drivel to me again.
Your side will LOSE and there is nothing you can do about it.
Apparently, your life is so miserable that you feel the need to control the lives of others and force discrimination on them.
Sorry, but you won't get away with it, you scum.
Equality will happen. Deal with it.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 I am not done. Your best argument is that my side will eventually "lose and there is nothing I can do about it". You have no cogent or logical retort to my main points. All you do is ignore them. And now we see that you resort to cheap name-calling because apparently your life is so miserable you feel the need to destroy society one institution at a time. Equality has happened. You just want to have special rights for a very small group in our society.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
Comment removed
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You post comments to yourself. Ha.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 Are you "gay"? Please answer the question...or are you embarrassed?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 So who says anyone should live by the "golden rule"? Why is that the standard? Who says? You see you are on very thin ice when you make up rules as you go to fit your own narrative in life.
All adults males can marry any adult female (who is unmarried). This applies to everyone. Thus, all have the SAME RIGHTS. You and those who support "gay marriage" wish to have special rights for those who have chosen to be gay. Can you follow that logic? It's really pretty simple.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You asked: "So who says anyone should live by the "golden rule"?" < Nature.
Anyone that doesn't live by the golden rule is either a sociopath or a psychopath.
You stated: "Thus, all have the SAME RIGHTS." < You make a strong case for segregation.
You: Gays can still get married...just as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
Fifty years ago: Black people still have the same right to ride the bus...just as long as they sit in the back.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 "Anyone that doesn't live by the golden rule is either a sociopath or a psychopath". So says you. That is just your opinion. It has no absolute basis...and thus can be discarded. See what I did there?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak - You stated: "So says you. That is just your opinion." < No, that is a fact.
Again, SCIENCE is not religion. Every human being has an innate sense of morality unless their is something different in their brain that makes them a sociopath or a psychopath.
Most religious people can't see that since the religious do so much evil, it's hard for them to see the difference.
TheAnthony8650 2 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 No, it is NOT a fact. It is your opinion and you have no proof otherwise. "Science" has become a religion for many on the left. That is a fact. So where does this "innate morality" originate? Why does it exist? Don't give me this crap on "evolution" to explain it either. That is total bunk and has not yet been demonstrated in scientific studies. By the way, how do you explain "evil"?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago