PDA

View Full Version : ‘The Homosexuals’: Mike Wallace’s controversial 1967 CBS report



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Mister D
04-10-2012, 01:45 PM
:smiley_ROFLMAO:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AFSCPTZLxGs

"The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous," Wallace said in the piece. "He is not interested or capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his love life, consists of a series of one-chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits. And even on the streets of the city—the pick-up, the one night stand, these are characteristics of the homosexual relationship."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/homosexuals-mike-wallace-controversial-1967-cbs-report-gets-170733217.html

Alias
04-10-2012, 01:47 PM
That's pretty much how it is. Of course there are exceptions. I heard of an actor who had the same partner for 40 years until he died. That' isn't the normal homo relationship. Homos are not capable of long-term relationships just as are most people who are dysfunctional. Nothing new here.

Mister D
04-10-2012, 01:49 PM
Mind you, I'm just laughing at Wallace and how this was reported. Today we know better than to think that. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Mister D
04-10-2012, 01:51 PM
. "That is—God help us—what our understanding was of the homosexual lifestyle a mere 25 years ago," Wallace said in a 1996 interview.

What pray tell is homosexuality, Mikey? :laugh:

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Gents, in the summer of love, everyone who was young then - myself included - was promiscuous. Very dubious data sampling here - and the sheer number of homosexual couples applying for marriage certificates these days would see to belie the conclusion about "the average homosexual."

The truth may be out there, but Mike Wallace's report is very likely not it.

Why would anyone suppose that homosexuals besides being randy like heterosexuals are incapable of forming lasting and loving relationships?

Mainecoons
04-10-2012, 03:54 PM
I know plenty that have including two of our very best friends here. Wallace was foaming at the mouth there.

But obviously, according to the hack study that Dada put up, Wallace was a closet homosexual which is why he was a homophobe. So you should disregard his comments.

Mister D
04-10-2012, 03:55 PM
I find it quite plausible that male homosexuals are typically promiscuous. I would expect as much.

ramone
04-10-2012, 05:08 PM
Queers don't bother me as long as they keep their hands to themselves. I've been around quite a few when I was locked up and they always knew I didn't swing that way so the didn't even try. I may not agree with the life they lead, but it's not any of my business what they do unless it affects me personally. Until it does I could care less what they do.

Alias
04-10-2012, 08:28 PM
It's no big secret that homosexuality is dysfunctional behavior. The anus is not a sex organ.

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 08:43 PM
The anus is not a sex organ.Neither is your hand. Show of hands from the guys who disagree? :)

BTW, heterosexuals seem to like to it too. Are they dysfunctional?

Conley
04-10-2012, 09:04 PM
Neither is your hand. Show of hands from the guys who disagree? :)

BTW, heterosexuals seem to like to it too. Are they dysfunctional?

:roflmao:

roadmaster
04-10-2012, 10:12 PM
Neither is your hand. Show of hands from the guys who disagree? :)

BTW, heterosexuals seem to like to it too. Are they dysfunctional?

They may with their female partner but there is a high risk of germs, infections and causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall. It is also the leading spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases. You are putting them at risk of a colostomy bag which is a high risk or consigned to diapers for life.

You have to ask yourselves is it worth it? Think about others. I see this all the time, please think about this. It's no laughing matter.

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 04:28 AM
They may with their female partner but there is a high risk of germs, infections and causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall. It is also the leading spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases. You are putting them at risk of a colostomy bag which is a high risk or consigned to diapers for life.

You have to ask yourselves is it worth it? Think about others. I see this all the time, please think about this. It's no laughing matter.Talk of handjobs, anal sex and blow jobs as a sign of dysfunction in homosexuals, when the same sex acts are practiced by heterosexuals, that is the laughing matter.

And thank you for your concern about my sex life. My wife and I have "practiced" heterosexual sex for 28 years - but, then again, one never knows when one might fall prey to the homosexual agenda. Their brochures are very attractive.

wingrider
04-11-2012, 06:02 AM
Talk of handjobs, anal sex and blow jobs as a sign of dysfunction in homosexuals, when the same sex acts are practiced by heterosexuals, that is the laughing matter.

And thank you for your concern about my sex life. My wife and I have "practiced" heterosexual sex for 28 years - but, then again, one never knows when one might fall prey to the homosexual agenda. Their brochures are very attractive.

when are you gonna get it perfected? LOL

Dagny
04-11-2012, 06:11 AM
It's no big secret that homosexuality is dysfunctional behavior. The anus is not a sex organ.

Does your priest know that?

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 06:16 AM
when are you gonna get it perfected? LOL

We'll keep trying till we get it right :)

wingrider
04-11-2012, 06:39 AM
We'll keep trying till we get it right :)
thats the spirit never give up ..

Alias
04-11-2012, 09:12 AM
Neither is your hand. Show of hands from the guys who disagree? :)

BTW, heterosexuals seem to like to it too. Are they dysfunctional?

Masturbation is a "sexual act". Fellatio is a sexual act. Homos use the anus for sexual intercourse. I already know what you're gonna say next, so don't bother.

Conley
04-11-2012, 09:14 AM
So you have "sexual intercourse" with your hand? Kinda lonely, aren't you. Masturbation is a "sexual act". Fellatio is a sexual act. I guess I need to be more explicit.

I'm fairly certain he was referring to women who enjoy a man using his hands on them.

Alias
04-11-2012, 09:16 AM
Does your priest know that?

Does your son know you turn tricks while he's at school?

Mister D
04-11-2012, 09:17 AM
Talk of handjobs, anal sex and blow jobs as a sign of dysfunction in homosexuals, when the same sex acts are practiced by heterosexuals, that is the laughing matter.

And thank you for your concern about my sex life. My wife and I have "practiced" heterosexual sex for 28 years - but, then again, one never knows when one might fall prey to the homosexual agenda. Their brochures are very attractive.

If one refuses to consider the likelihood that homosexuality is some kind of psychological/sexual disorder one has already fallen victim to that agenda.

Conley
04-11-2012, 09:19 AM
Oh hang on, there's a lot that's been added to this thread. :laugh:

Alias
04-11-2012, 09:20 AM
I'm fairly certain he was referring to women who enjoy a man using his hands on them.

Women weren't mentioned, so I take everything literally. It's one of my talents or faults, whichever you choose and depending on where "you" are coming from. Since "you" are speaking to me, I will assume you and I war the only ones involved in this exchange. :laugh:

Conley
04-11-2012, 09:28 AM
Women weren't mentioned, so I take everything literally. It's one of my talents or faults, whichever you choose and depending on where "you" are coming from. Since "you" are speaking to me, I will assume you and I war the only ones involved in this exchange. :laugh:

I'm even more confused than before. I missed a few posts in this thread...maybe I will just go back to "World Affairs". :laugh:

Alias
04-11-2012, 09:31 AM
I'm even more confused than before. I missed a few posts in this thread...maybe I will just go back to "World Affairs". :laugh:

When homosexuality becomes the topic, a lot of people are confused, the homosexual most of all. :smiley:

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 04:17 PM
If one refuses to consider the likelihood that homosexuality is some kind of psychological/sexual disorder one has already fallen victim to that agenda.I can consider it, but the consensus of our medical, psychological and medico-psycho-social sciences tell us it is not.

What is the basis for concluding that homosexuality, which naturally appears in just about equal frequency in all primate species, is a disorder of any kind?

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:21 PM
I can consider it, but the consensus of our medical, psychological and medico-psycho-social sciences tell us it is not.

What is the basis for concluding that homosexuality, which naturally appears in just about equal frequency in all primate species, is a disorder of any kind?

The bible.

Mister D
04-11-2012, 04:32 PM
I can consider it, but the consensus of our medical, psychological and medico-psycho-social sciences tell us it is not.

What is the basis for concluding that homosexuality, which naturally appears in just about equal frequency in all primate species, is a disorder of any kind?

I had no idea there was anything approaching "consensus" regarding the origin of homosexuality. If they don't know what causes how can they say it's not a disorder or defect of some kind?

Actually, homosexuality appears very rarely in The Animal Kingdom if it appears at all. There is a difference between what is interpreted as homosexual behavior among animals by some researchers and the exclusive same sex attraction we see in humans. That is, analogies between human sexuality and animal behavior are a bit risky. On the other hand, I think homosexuality is perfectly natural but so is Downs Syndrome.

Mister D
04-11-2012, 04:33 PM
The bible.

Sorry, but we will have to dispel your straw man. Get another schtick, granny. :smiley:

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:36 PM
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom appears frequently. It isn't rare at all.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Mister D
04-11-2012, 04:40 PM
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom appears frequently. It isn't rare at all.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Behavior and sexual orientation are not the same thing, grandma. Few if any animals mate exclusively with the same sex.

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:42 PM
Some animals will mate exclusively with partners of the same sex.


Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Mister D
04-11-2012, 04:44 PM
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality

BTW, Levay is gay. :smiley:

Mister D
04-11-2012, 04:45 PM
Some animals will mate exclusively with partners of the same sex.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Yeah, I'm sure being cooped up in New York's Central Park Zoo creates excellent research conditions. :laugh:

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:46 PM
Gay finches mate for life.

http://io9.com/5830973/gay-finches-mate-for-life

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:48 PM
According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

roadmaster
04-11-2012, 04:50 PM
Talk of handjobs, anal sex and blow jobs as a sign of dysfunction in homosexuals, when the same sex acts are practiced by heterosexuals, that is the laughing matter.

And thank you for your concern about my sex life. My wife and I have "practiced" heterosexual sex for 28 years - but, then again, one never knows when one might fall prey to the homosexual agenda. Their brochures are very attractive.

I was only talking about anal sex. It is dangerous to men and women. The vagina is equipped to handle this. I think most women don't understand how dangerous it is to them. Your sex life is between you and your spouse.

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 04:54 PM
Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild

http://www.livescience.com/16138-gay-animals-bonobos-dolphins.html

Alias
04-11-2012, 05:08 PM
I love the part about people being "born gay". It's fascinating what people will accept just because a few people say it's so.

Dagny
04-11-2012, 05:17 PM
I love the part about people being "born gay". It's fascinating what people will accept just because a few people say it's so.
People are attracted to a specific type. They have no choice. Typically, we find that women are looking for their father's type, men for their mother's.

In your case, what breed was your mother? Long/short hair?

Color?

Dagny
04-11-2012, 05:17 PM
According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.Hopefully, not in majority numbers. They'd be extinct before long.

Conley
04-11-2012, 05:19 PM
They might swing both ways. AC/DC. :grin:

Dagny
04-11-2012, 05:19 PM
They might swing both ways. AC/DC. :grin:
Probably, from observing humans?

Conley
04-11-2012, 05:21 PM
Probably, from observing humans?

Any of these animals cooped up in zoos will probably mount anything that moves. Crappy life for them...

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 05:23 PM
Any of these animals cooped up in zoos will probably mount anything that moves. Crappy life for them...

Animals studied in the wild mate with same-sex partners, too. It isn't just a zoo thing.

Conley
04-11-2012, 05:24 PM
OK, but I wanted to bash zoos.

Dagny
04-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Animals studied in the wild mate with same-sex partners, too. It isn't just a zoo thing.

Because there's no judgemental pressure from their peers?

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 05:25 PM
OK, but I wanted to bash zoos.

Zoos suck. I'm right there with ya.

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 05:25 PM
Because there's no judgemental pressure from their peers?

None of them read the bible.

Mister D
04-11-2012, 05:41 PM
None of them read the bible.

I read the bible every day but that's irrelevant, old lady. :smiley:

Mister D
04-11-2012, 05:41 PM
Zoos suck. I'm right there with ya.

Which is why any conclusions based on the behavior of animals in them is doubly ridiculous.

Mister D
04-11-2012, 05:43 PM
According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

Uncertain and irrelevant as explained above.

dadakarma
04-11-2012, 05:47 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao:

Mister D
04-11-2012, 06:07 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao:

Two emoticons instead of one! Great comeback, Dada. :grin:

Mister D
04-11-2012, 06:12 PM
Animals studied in the wild mate with same-sex partners, too. It isn't just a zoo thing.

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_orientation), if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity"

Levay, Simon Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality.

:smiley:

Alias
04-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild

http://www.livescience.com/16138-gay-animals-bonobos-dolphins.html

So you're saying homosexuals are lower life forms than heterosexuals?

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 08:16 PM
I had no idea there was anything approaching "consensus" regarding the origin of homosexuality. If they don't know what causes how can they say it's not a disorder or defect of some kind? And yet consensus there is. Homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association. Not since 1986.

Shortly thereafter, The American Psychological Association (APA) endorsed the position of the American Psychiatric Association.

Regarding origin of a disorder: Ordinarily, generally one looks to source conditions which make people unhappy or maladaptive. In the case of homosexuality, my observation is that homosexuals are happy with their homosexuality and adaptive. It seems to me that only heterosexuals get out of sorts about it.


Actually, homosexuality appears very rarely in The Animal Kingdom if it appears at all.There is a great deal of literature out there to the contrary. See, Homosexual Behavior in Primates: A Review of (http://w)Evidence and Theory (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/fulltext.pdf),

And a more recent study which concludes, "It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," Physorg.com. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-11-17.


There is a difference between what is interpreted as homosexual behavior among animals by some researchers and the exclusive same sex attraction we see in humans. That is, analogies between human sexuality and animal behavior are a bit risky. On the other hand, I think homosexuality is perfectly natural but so is Downs Syndrome.Different from the impact of Downs Syndrome, there is no evidence that homosexuality has resulted in gay people being less intelligent than straight people.

Why do you think heterosexuals are so fixated on what homosexuals do?

Conley
04-11-2012, 08:25 PM
Why do you think heterosexuals are so fixated on what homosexuals do?

This is what baffles me. I can see the marriage argument in favor of tradition, but it seems to go much deeper and farther than just that issue.

Mister D
04-11-2012, 08:31 PM
And yet consensus there is. Homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association. Not since 1986.

Shortly thereafter, The American Psychological Association (APA) endorsed the position of the American Psychiatric Association.

Yet many researchers still consider homosexuality a disorder. Again, there is no consensus. Moreover, I believe that the political activity of gay advocates was involved in those decisions.


Regarding origin of a disorder: Ordinarily, generally one looks to source conditions which make me unhappy or maladaptive. In the case of homosexuality, my observation is that homosexuals are happy with their homosexuality and adaptive. It seems to me that only heterosexuals get out of sorts about it.

Homosexuals are happy with their homosexuality? Really? I heard it caused all kinds of emotional turmoil, depression, drug abuse and suicide. Now you can say that it's societal attitudes that cause the psychological distress but, be that as it may, homosexuals can hardly be said to be happy with their sexuality. Moreover, I suspect that deviants of all stripes (including pedophiles and zoosexuals) are happy with their sexuality and only feel shame because of societal attitudes toward intercourse with children and animals, for example. That gets us no where.


There is a great deal of literature out there to the contrary. See, Homosexual Behavior in Primates: A Review of (http://w)Evidence and Theory (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/fulltext.pdf),

Yes, there is a great deal of literature about what's interpreted as homosexual behavior but that's not the topic. Animal behavior and a human sexual orientation are not the same thing. Secondly, exclusive same sex mating is very rare in the Animal Kingdom.


And a more recent study which concludes, "It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," Physorg.com. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-11-17.

See above. It's interpreted behavior and, more importantly, it's moot. Exclusive same sex mating (i.e. a homosexual orientation) is very rare in the Animal Kingdom. Human homosexuals appear to be an oddity.


Different from the impact of Downs Syndrome, there is no evidence that homosexuality has resulted in gay people being less intelligent than straight people.

The impact may very well be different. So? I said that homosexuality was natural. So is Downs Syndrome.


Why do you think heterosexuals so fixated on what homosexuals do?

We're all closet gays of course who resent the openness of known homosexuals. :shocked: Seriously, I can only speak for myself. I don't like it when people pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 11:31 PM
Yet many researchers still consider homosexuality a disorder. Again, there is no consensus. Moreover, I believe that the political activity of gay advocates was involved in those decisions.Consensus and unanimity are not synonymous.



Homosexuals are happy with their homosexuality? Really? I heard it caused all kinds of emotional turmoil, depression, drug abuse and suicide.Hectoring, cruelty and outright sadism focused on anybody for any period of time - for any reason - will tend to depress even the most sane individual.



Now you can say that it's societal attitudes that cause the psychological distress but, be that as it may, homosexuals can hardly be said to be happy with their sexuality. Certainly, I can say it. They certainly can't be happy by denying and repressing what is natural for them.



Moreover, I suspect that deviants of all stripes (including pedophiles and zoosexuals) are happy with their sexuality and only feel shame because of societal attitudes toward intercourse with children and animals, for example. That gets us no where. There is greater evidence of serious social disorder in the lethal bullying you have spoken of, than there is of disorder in their victims.







Yes, there is a great deal of literature about what's interpreted as homosexual behavior but that's not the topic. Animal behavior and a human sexual orientation are not the same thing. Secondly, exclusive same sex mating is very rare in the Animal Kingdom. The topic is whether homosexuality is a disorder. Homosexuality is prevalent across the species and is far from rare in some, See Bonobos.


See above. It's interpreted behavior and, more importantly, it's moot. Exclusive same sex mating (i.e. a homosexual orientation) is very rare in the Animal Kingdom. Human homosexuals appear to be an oddity. Human are animals. See above.





The impact may very well be different. So? I said that homosexuality was natural. So is Downs Syndrome. All right. And downs syndrome people will be downs syndrome people even if all of the people who are uncomfortable in the presence of it mock, judge and shun them.


We're all closet gays of course who resent the openness of known homosexuals. Seriously, I can only speak for myself. I don't like it when people pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.My question is a serious one. I am live and let live. I don't understand people who are not. Come now, Mister D: What is your genuine answer to the question?

Mainecoons
04-12-2012, 06:32 AM
Live and let live includes not forcing your views about homosexuality on impressionable children and not redefining marriage. I'm for live and let live too and it is interesting to me that the older homosexuals we know (and quite a good sized group) don't think much of the leftist activism trying to cram same down the public's throat. None of these people are promiscuous in the slightest, these are all people in very long term relationships.

About half of them don't care whether or not they could have "domestic partnerships" and the rest would like them. I have no problem with them either quite frankly. The government's involvement here should be strictly limited to the legal side of the matter.

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 06:35 AM
You hate multiculturalism as well so I wouldn't expect anything different from you. The only thing you would find permissible would be basically education as we knew it in the 1950's and prayer in school. Ahhh...make that Christian prayer in school....only.

Mainecoons
04-12-2012, 06:37 AM
What a stupid statement. Nope, don't support prayer in schools either. Sorry.

You are a bitter idiot, a typical leftist that goes nasty when confronted with views that don't agree with yours. Get a life, you puke.

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 06:42 AM
I find your attitude pukey....forcing homosexuality on children? Get real...

Mainecoons
04-12-2012, 06:47 AM
Hey stupid, can you read?


forcing your views about homosexuality on impressionable children

I guess not.

You should seriously consider joining the American Nazi Party. Your views on testing the unborn and murdering them if they don't measure up would go well with that group.

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 07:11 AM
Hey stupid, can you read?



I guess not.

You should seriously consider joining the American Nazi Party. Your views on testing the unborn and murdering them if they don't measure up would go well with that group.
You should seriously consider educating yourself...stop reading the crap that promotes these idiotic beliefs...no one is forcing anything much less homosexuality on children...are you under the misguided belief that homosexuality is taught or maybe you think it's like a virus..do you think the reason teens have sex is because they have sex education? :rofl:

Mister D
04-12-2012, 07:47 AM
Consensus and unanimity are not synonymous.


There is no 'general or widespread agreement' either.


Hectoring, cruelty and outright sadism focused on anybody for any period of time - for any reason - will tend to depress even the most sane individual.


Which is why conclusions based on observations of animals kept in a zoo are a tad ridiculous but it's not hard fooling the intellectually lazy. I wonder how mahy people read headlines about "gay" finches and actually believe there is such a thing. Probably a lot.


Certainly, I can say it. They certainly can't be happy by denying and repressing what is natural for them.


Indeed, you can say whatever you want. I'm just saying the same logic applies to pedophiles and other deviants. They would not feel shame were it not for the social stigma attached to their attractions.


There is greater evidence of serious social disorder in the lethal bullying you have spoken of, than there is of disorder in their victims.


Millions of kids get bullied for a variety of reasons. A tiny % commit suicide.




The topic is whether homosexuality is a disorder. Homosexuality is prevalent across the species and is far from rare in some, See Bonobos.

A homosexual orientation is very rare if it exists at all in the Animal Kingdom. You seem unable to understand the difference between interpreted animal behavior and a human sexual orientation.


Human are animals. See above.


So cannibalism and infanticide are hunky dory? Hey, animals do it and we're animals. In any case, a homosexual orientation is rare if it exists at all outside our own species.



All right. And downs syndrome people will be downs syndrome people even if all of the people who are uncomfortable in the presence of it mock, judge and shun them.


OK.


My question is a serious one. I am live and let live. I don't understand people who are not. Come now, Mister D: What is your genuine answer to the question?

My answer was a serious one. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Live and let live does not entail believing that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle or that the mentally retarded are merely challenged.

Mister D
04-12-2012, 07:49 AM
Live and let live includes not forcing your views about homosexuality on impressionable children and not redefining marriage. I'm for live and let live too and it is interesting to me that the older homosexuals we know (and quite a good sized group) don't think much of the leftist activism trying to cram same down the public's throat. None of these people are promiscuous in the slightest, these are all people in very long term relationships.

About half of them don't care whether or not they could have "domestic partnerships" and the rest would like them. I have no problem with them either quite frankly. The government's involvement here should be strictly limited to the legal side of the matter.

Exactly.

Mister D
04-12-2012, 07:49 AM
You hate multiculturalism as well so I wouldn't expect anything different from you. The only thing you would find permissible would be basically education as we knew it in the 1950's and prayer in school. Ahhh...make that Christian prayer in school....only.

So your do your European idols. :laugh:

Mister D
04-12-2012, 07:51 AM
You should seriously consider educating yourself...stop reading the crap that promotes these idiotic beliefs...no one is forcing anything much less homosexuality on children...are you under the misguided belief that homosexuality is taught or maybe you think it's like a virus..do you think the reason teens have sex is because they have sex education? :rofl:

I love how you create a straw man and continue with it even after you're called on it. :laugh::rollseyes:

dadakarma
04-12-2012, 11:09 AM
ThinkProgress newsflash:

Marcus Bachmann Is Still Practicing Ex-Gay Therapy (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/12/463104/marcus-bachmann-is-still-practicing-ex-gay-therapy/) | A second undercover investigation conducted by a documentary filmmaker has discovered (http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/04/24224/) that Bachmann & Associates — the Christian counseling clinics owned by Marcus and Michele Bachmann — is still offering discredited ex-gay therapy to its gay and lesbian patients. This is the second (http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/07/17519/) expose to uncover reparative therapy in the Bachmann-owned business. According to the filmaker, the counselor “talked a lot about submitting to God, giving my life path over to him and letting him direct the way. She told me if I wanted to be happy I could ‘give my problems to the Lord and he could take them away.’” When confronted with the allegations last summer, Marcus Bachmann admitted that the clinics would perform reparative therapy upon request (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/15/270266/marcus-bachman-speaks-out-confirms-he-would-perform-ex-gay-therapy-upon-patients-request/).

:roflmao:

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 11:20 AM
They're too damned funny....what a joke.

Alias
04-12-2012, 11:24 AM
And yet consensus there is. Homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association. Not since 1986.

Shortly thereafter, The American Psychological Association (APA) endorsed the position of the American Psychiatric Association.

Regarding origin of a disorder: Ordinarily, generally one looks to source conditions which make people unhappy or maladaptive. In the case of homosexuality, my observation is that homosexuals are happy with their homosexuality and adaptive. It seems to me that only heterosexuals get out of sorts about it.

There is a great deal of literature out there to the contrary. See, Homosexual Behavior in Primates: A Review of (http://w)Evidence and Theory (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/fulltext.pdf),

And a more recent study which concludes, "It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," Physorg.com. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-11-17.

Different from the impact of Downs Syndrome, there is no evidence that homosexuality has resulted in gay people being less intelligent than straight people.

Why do you think heterosexuals are so fixated on what homosexuals do?

The APA folded to pressure. I don't think using the APA as an endorsement of homosexuality is a good idea. These idiots also claim that mental problems from having an abortion are irrelevant.

dsolo802
04-12-2012, 09:20 PM
The APA folded to pressure. I don't think using the APA as an endorsement of homosexuality is a good idea. These idiots also claim that mental problems from having an abortion are irrelevant.In America, these two organizations, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, are the generally acknowledged authorities on what is and is not a mental disorder. To be sure, there are pressures applied from every direction, including as I'm sure you are aware, from some of our more vocal religious authorities. If the existence of pressure is a reason to discount the general consensus of the scientific community, there is no consensus on anything, never has been and never will be. That for me is a terrible discount of science itself, and a conclusion I find difficult to take seriously.

dsolo802
04-12-2012, 09:53 PM
Live and let live includes not forcing your views about homosexuality on impressionable children and not redefining marriage.Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals should be forcing their views about sexuality on young school children. Reading, writing and Arithmetic.

"Redefining marriage" - has had zero impact on heterosexual marriage. If anything, maybe the public seeing homosexuals really into an institution that heterosexuals themselves have sullied with better than a 50% divorce rate, will reinvigorate marriage. Give homosexuals a chance. There is little likelihood they will be any worse at it than heterosexuals have proved to be.


I'm for live and let live too and it is interesting to me that the older homosexuals we know (and quite a good sized group) don't think much of the leftist activism trying to cram same down the public's throat.How is what two homosexuals getting married to each other, and what they make of their private lives with each other, any part of the public's business? Cramming homosexuality down the public's throat? The public is in danger of throwing its neck out craning to see what homosexuals are doing. What is the fascination??


None of these people are promiscuous in the slightest, these are all people in very long term relationships.Mister D's anecdotal evidence seems to be quite different from your own.


About half of them don't care whether or not they could have "domestic partnerships" and the rest would like them. I have no problem with them either quite frankly. The government's involvement here should be strictly limited to the legal side of the matter.Liberty is about the freedom to chose. Some homosexuals want to marry. Some do not. Same as the case with heterosexuals. Giving people equal opportunity in life is not a zero sum game.

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 11:01 PM
All they want is to have the same choices everyone else has...they want to be able to get married and have all the benefits of that which are enjoyed by everyone else, including adopting children. We certainly have a lot of children that need good homes. Homosexuals are good for communities, they have all the same positive attributes of everyone else and their population also has the same negatives...we don't judge heterosexuals in the same way. This entire argument against homosexuals is biblical in nature and shouldn't be part of the government and laws at all...they should be equal in every way.

The uproar is in the religious communities...not all of them but certain ones...and they want to make decisions for all of us because they think they're superior. They'll even damn you to hell if you don't believe in the same things, the same way they do. They call it a religion of love but they spend an awful lot of time hating. This is why their claims to 'christianity' are being questioned.

dsolo802
04-12-2012, 11:07 PM
What ever happened to Judge Yet Not??

keyser soze
04-12-2012, 11:27 PM
I've known few 'christians' that actually exercise that...they love to judge others. The big problem is that in my view they have very poor judgement.

wingrider
04-12-2012, 11:37 PM
In America, these two organizations, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, are the generally acknowledged authorities on what is and is not a mental disorder. To be sure, there are pressures applied from every direction, including as I'm sure you are aware, from some of our more vocal religious authorities. If the existence of pressure is a reason to discount the general consensus of the scientific community, there is no consensus on anything, never has been and never will be. That for me is a terrible discount of science itself, and a conclusion I find difficult to take seriously.

I winder what the APA think of this disorder?

According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults."

Source: Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' | NBC San Diego (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html#ixzz1rtMsMVg7)

wingrider
04-12-2012, 11:41 PM
All they want is to have the same choices everyone else has...they want to be able to get married and have all the benefits of that which are enjoyed by everyone else, including adopting children. We certainly have a lot of children that need good homes. Homosexuals are good for communities, they have all the same positive attributes of everyone else and their population also has the same negatives...we don't judge heterosexuals in the same way. This entire argument against homosexuals is biblical in nature and shouldn't be part of the government and laws at all...they should be equal in every way.

The uproar is in the religious communities...not all of them but certain ones...and they want to make decisions for all of us because they think they're superior. They'll even damn you to hell if you don't believe in the same things, the same way they do. They call it a religion of love but they spend an awful lot of time hating. This is why their claims to 'christianity' are being questioned.
I noticed you singled out Christianity, but failed to include Islam.. now that particular sect won't just tell you homosexuality is bad.. they will KILL you for it.. which is worse? words or physical action? you choose

Mainecoons
04-13-2012, 06:29 AM
Several comments Keyser:

1. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Get used to it. Call it domestic partnerships.

2. Since homosexuality has a psychological component, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt heterosexual children.

3. Homosexuals are good for communities? You mean like San Francisco? Where's your references for this statement?

4. Since liberals are telling us that Islam is just another religion, you might want to note wing's last point and check out what Sharia law has to say on the topic.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 07:11 AM
Several comments Keyser:

1. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Get used to it. Call it domestic partnerships.

2. Since homosexuality has a psychological component, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt heterosexual children.

3. Homosexuals are good for communities? You mean like San Francisco? Where's your references for this statement?

4. Since liberals are telling us that Islam is just another religion, you might want to note wing's last point and check out what Sharia law has to say on the topic.
And you might want to tell us why any religion should have a say in what other people do?

Mister D
04-13-2012, 07:49 AM
Mister D's anecdotal evidence seems to be quite different from your own.


What anecdotal evidence is that?


"Redefining marriage" - has had zero impact on heterosexual marriage.

Neither would marrying your dog or a 6 year old. Your point?

Mister D
04-13-2012, 07:50 AM
And you might want to tell us why any religion should have a say in what other people do?

Why? He hasn't suggested anything of the kind. You people love your straw men.

keyser soze
04-13-2012, 08:47 AM
And you might want to tell us why any religion should have a say in what other people do?
Exactly...

dsolo802
04-13-2012, 08:49 AM
What anecdotal evidence is that?re: promiscuity.




Neither would marrying your dog or a 6 year old.I see. So the basis for intruding into and interfering with what two consenting adult humans want to do - which you agree is not in any sane sense being "crammed down the public's throat" - equates with being a pedophile or a zooaphile. For you, This is about people interfering with individual liberty based upon moral teachings. Right?

keyser soze
04-13-2012, 09:04 AM
They're pervs dsolo....and hypocrites

Mister D
04-13-2012, 09:10 AM
re: promiscuity.



I see. So the basis for intruding into and interfering with what two consenting adult humans want to do - which you agree is not in any sane sense being "crammed down the public's throat" - equates with being a pedophile or a zooaphile. For you, This is about people interfering with individual liberty based upon moral teachings. Right?

I said I find it plausible that male homosexuals are typically promiscuous. I base that on the typical male sex drive not anecdotes. Teenage boys, for example, would be getting laid constantly if the girls wanted it as badly. :grin:

No, you don't see. Marriage is what it is. Gays seek to redefine marriage. This is about social acceptance not any imagined right to marry and no one is interfering with what "two consenting adults" want to do. Again, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Moreover, despite the parade of straw man arguments I doubt anyone here really gives a shit about what gays do with each other.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 09:11 AM
They're pervs dsolo....and hypocrites

Is it the hypocrisy you perceive in Christians that makes you hate them so? Not that this has anything to do with Christianity.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 09:11 AM
Exactly...

Exactly what? :huh:

Mainecoons
04-13-2012, 10:22 AM
And you might want to tell us why any religion should have a say in what other people do?

And you might want to go back and read what I posted which has nothing about religion in it. Try addressing the post, not your personal hatred of religion.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 10:34 AM
They're pervs dsolo....and hypocrites

Right-wing entitlement. Their beliefs, whether formed from religious dogma or some other warped version of 'how it oughta be', is the justification used by the likes of the two board bigots for sticking their ugly noses into the private lives of others.

Then they go to church and read their bibles. :roflmao:

Mister D
04-13-2012, 10:35 AM
Right-wing entitlement. Their beliefs, whether formed from religious dogma or some other warped version of 'how it oughta be', is the justification used by the likes of the two board bigots for sticking their ugly noses into the private lives of others.

Then they go to church and read their bibles. :roflmao:

You'll always have the gay finches, grandma. :laugh:

Alias
04-13-2012, 10:44 AM
In America, these two organizations, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, are the generally acknowledged authorities on what is and is not a mental disorder. To be sure, there are pressures applied from every direction, including as I'm sure you are aware, from some of our more vocal religious authorities. If the existence of pressure is a reason to discount the general consensus of the scientific community, there is no consensus on anything, never has been and never will be. That for me is a terrible discount of science itself, and a conclusion I find difficult to take seriously.

Concensus doesn't make it scientific fact, just as religious beliefs do not automatically default to wrong beliefs. It is what it is.

Alias
04-13-2012, 10:45 AM
Right-wing entitlement. Their beliefs, whether formed from religious dogma or some other warped version of 'how it oughta be', is the justification used by the likes of the two board bigots for sticking their ugly noses into the private lives of others.

Then they go to church and read their bibles. :roflmao:

Fascinating. I have no idea what you're referring to, but your rhetoric is fascinating.

roadmaster
04-13-2012, 01:14 PM
Strange why you call us bigots. Marriage to Christians is between a man and a woman period. Even though I think it is a sin to be homosexual but I am for them having a civil union with all the benefits that married people have. Why people should be free to make their own choices. I have a brother-in-law that is gay. His whole family on his side rejected him when he came out and they were not religious at all. Him and I had always been friends and yes I knew, he didn’t have to tell me. We are still best friends today. Over 15 years ago after his partner died of aids we invited him to stay with us for a couple of weeks because I knew he was hurting. The second Wed night he asked if he could go to Church with me, no I don’t push my religion. The Master spoke to his heart that night and he walked down the isle and was saved. His health became better, still has aids but is still doing great today. If you want to call me a bigot fine but my Master knows my heart and He is all that matters to me. I don’t follow man.

Alias
04-13-2012, 01:25 PM
What ever happened to Judge Yet Not??

The Greek word used there means "not to condemn". Only God can condemn. However, many scriptures do tell us to examine and judge the words and works of others to see if they are right or wrong. God never tells us to ignore evil or wrong doing.

Alias
04-13-2012, 01:31 PM
Strange why you call us bigots. Marriage to Christians is between a man and a woman period. Even though I think it is a sin to be homosexual but I am for them having a civil union with all the benefits that married people have. Why people should be free to make their own choices. I have a brother-in-law that is gay. His whole family on his side rejected him when he came out and they were not religious at all. Him and I had always been friends and yes I knew, he didn’t have to tell me. We are still best friends today. Over 15 years ago after his partner died of aids we invited him to stay with us for a couple of weeks because I knew he was hurting. The second Wed night he asked if he could go to Church with me, no I don’t push my religion. The Master spoke to his heart that night and he walked down the isle and was saved. His health became better, still has aids but is still doing great today. If you want to call me a bigot fine but my Master knows my heart and He is all that matters to me. I don’t follow man.

Jesus told us "If they hate me, they will hate you". The scripture is true. Take it as a trophy of your faith.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 01:44 PM
Strange why you call us bigots. Marriage to Christians is between a man and a woman period. Even though I think it is a sin to be homosexual but I am for them having a civil union with all the benefits that married people have. Why people should be free to make their own choices. I have a brother-in-law that is gay. His whole family on his side rejected him when he came out and they were not religious at all. Him and I had always been friends and yes I knew, he didn’t have to tell me. We are still best friends today. Over 15 years ago after his partner died of aids we invited him to stay with us for a couple of weeks because I knew he was hurting. The second Wed night he asked if he could go to Church with me, no I don’t push my religion. The Master spoke to his heart that night and he walked down the isle and was saved. His health became better, still has aids but is still doing great today. If you want to call me a bigot fine but my Master knows my heart and He is all that matters to me. I don’t follow man.

What business is it of yours whether they marry each other and how they define their union?

Mister D
04-13-2012, 01:54 PM
What business is it of yours whether they marry each other and how they define their union?

What business is it of her's if you marry an ox or one of your grandkids?

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 01:58 PM
^ Looky here - Mister D is trying to hit on me again. He can't stop from posting to me. How cute that I have my own personal troll! :roflmao:

roadmaster
04-13-2012, 01:59 PM
What business is it of yours whether they marry each other and how they define their union?

If you cannot tell me what was in the first proposition word or word then I have no use for you. Why ask a question without facts? They attacked the Church Buildings. I will wait for your response, if not this discussion is over. Word for Word!

Mister D
04-13-2012, 01:59 PM
^ Looky here - Mister D is trying to hit on me again. He can't stop from posting to me. How cute that I have my own personal troll! :roflmao:

I'm not into crusty old bigots, grandma. :smiley: So what business is it of her's if you marry an ox or one of your grandkids?

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:01 PM
If you cannot tell me what was in the first proposition word or word then I have no use for you. Why ask a question without facts? They attacked the Church Buildings. I will wait for your response, if not this discussion is over. Word for Word!

What the fuck are you talking about? You wrote you are 'for them having civil unions'. Who gives a shit what you want for others? No one needs for you to define the terms of their relationship. That's the point.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:03 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? You wrote you are 'for them having civil unions'. Who gives a shit what you want for others? No one needs for you to define the terms of their relationship. That's the point.

Wow you're real passionate about this issue, granny. :shocked:

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:04 PM
And you might want to go back and read what I posted which has nothing about religion in it. Try addressing the post, not your personal hatred of religion.Aside from the fact that I'm more religious than you, could you explain what you meant by this?

4. Since liberals are telling us that Islam is just another religion, you might want to note wing's last point and check out what Sharia law has to say on the topic.
Then, you may go read my post to you, and resubmit your homework.

roadmaster
04-13-2012, 02:06 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? You wrote you are 'for them having civil unions'. Who gives a shit what you want for others? No one needs for you to define the terms of their relationship. That's the point.

I knew you didn't know. babbling. No facts at all but you judge us. Discussion over.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:06 PM
I knew you didn't know. babbling. No facts at all but you judge us. Discussion over.

See ya! :)

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:07 PM
Strange why you call us bigots. Marriage to Christians is between a man and a woman period. Even though I think it is a sin to be homosexual but I am for them having a civil union with all the benefits that married people have. Why people should be free to make their own choices. I have a brother-in-law that is gay. His whole family on his side rejected him when he came out and they were not religious at all. Him and I had always been friends and yes I knew, he didn’t have to tell me. We are still best friends today. Over 15 years ago after his partner died of aids we invited him to stay with us for a couple of weeks because I knew he was hurting. The second Wed night he asked if he could go to Church with me, no I don’t push my religion. The Master spoke to his heart that night and he walked down the isle and was saved. His health became better, still has aids but is still doing great today. If you want to call me a bigot fine but my Master knows my heart and He is all that matters to me. I don’t follow man.
Touching...is he still gay, or did he pray that away?

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:08 PM
Touching...is he still gay, or did he pray that away?

:roflmao:....

roadmaster
04-13-2012, 02:12 PM
Touching...is he still gay, or did he pray that away?

What does that have to do with me. That's between him and the Master. I don't bring up the subject and just went fishing with him last week.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:13 PM
What does that have to do with me. That's between him and the Master. I don't bring up the subject and just went fishing with him last week.

Dagny likes to assume a lot about other people. :grin:

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:14 PM
What does that have to do with me. That's between him and the Master. I don't bring up the subject and just went fishing with him last week.

What do the relationships between two adults and how they define them have to do with you? Why do you think you have the right to determine the terms of anyone's relationship but your own?

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:15 PM
What does that have to do with me. That's between him and the Master. I don't bring up the subject and just went fishing with him last week.

You said he was saved. What does that mean? He isn't gay anymore? His aids went away?

Alias
04-13-2012, 02:17 PM
Touching...is he still gay, or did he pray that away?

Kinda blows away the theory that people are "born gay", doesn't it.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:18 PM
What do the relationships between two adults and how they define them have to do with you? Why do you think you have the right to determine the terms of anyone's relationship but your own?

They can define themselves however they want. Hey, if you and one of your grandkids want to call yourselves a married couple I couldn't care less. :smiley:

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:18 PM
You said he was saved. What does that mean? He isn't gay anymore? His aids went away?

It means he's saved.

Alias
04-13-2012, 02:18 PM
What do the relationships between two adults and how they define them have to do with you? Why do you think you have the right to determine the terms of anyone's relationship but your own?

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a man and a woman. YOU are the one determined to change definitions.

Alias
04-13-2012, 02:20 PM
You said he was saved. What does that mean? He isn't gay anymore? His aids went away?

It means he decided to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior because he recognizes he is in need of a Savior. We all need a Savior because we are all sinners.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:20 PM
Kinda blows away the theory that people are "born gay", doesn't it.

No. It illustrates the delusions that many hold fast.

Bachmann for one.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:21 PM
It means he decided to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior because he recognizes he is in need of a Savior. We all need a Savior because we are all sinners.

You are a sinner, because you judge others for no reason. Worry about your own house first, and the world will be a much better place.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:21 PM
No. It illustrates the delusions that many hold fast.

Bachmann for one.

And her self-loathing, latent homosexual husband Marcus. :)

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:25 PM
You are a sinner, because you judge others for no reason. Worry about your own house first, and the world will be a much better place.

Who has he judged?

roadmaster
04-13-2012, 02:26 PM
Kinda blows away the theory that people are "born gay", doesn't it.

He will tell you he wasn't born gay. In fact he was going to be married to a woman when he was younger that he loved dearly. They keep asking questions that I don't ask. It's not my place and I am not a talkative or nosy person. I love this man. He does talk about God and how much he loves Him. None of us are perfect. We just joke and talk, he is a good person and my children love their uncle unconditionally.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 02:28 PM
He will tell you he wasn't born gay. In fact he was going to be married to a woman when he was younger that he loved dearly. They keep asking questions that I don't ask. It's not my place and I am not a talkative or nosy person. I love this man. He does talk about God and how much he loves Him. None of us are perfect. We just joke and talk, he is a good person and my children love their uncle unconditionally.

Then why do you care how he defines his relationships? What business is it of yours if two adults want to call their union a marriage?

Mister D
04-13-2012, 02:29 PM
Then why do you care how he defines his relationships? What business is it of yours if two adults want to call their union a marriage?

They can call it whatever they want. she doesn't care. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

dsolo802
04-13-2012, 07:12 PM
I said I find it plausible that male homosexuals are typically promiscuous. I base that on the typical male sex drive not anecdotes. Teenage boys, for example, would be getting laid constantly if the girls wanted it as badly. :grin: If we are talking about the randiness of all males, then I would agree. I thought you were singling out homosexual males.


No, you don't see. Marriage is what it is. As I see it, marriage, spiritual union, is a state of being - as in, what God has joined together . . .. Man does not create marriage.

As far as man is concerned, his knowledge of things has always been imperfect - would have to be. The finite cannot conceive of the infinite - by definition. And so man used to think that marriage was between a man and multiple women, with as many additional consorts and concubines as he could manage on the side.

In Greece, marriage included room for lots of homosexual relationships for armies far away from home.

In recent times, marriage was between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and black woman - with miscegenation a sin before God. That has now gone the way of the Dodo.


Gays seek to redefine marriage. This is about social acceptance not any imagined right to marry and no one is interfering with what "two consenting adults" want to do. Again, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Moreover, despite the parade of straw man arguments I doubt anyone here really gives a shit about what gays do with each other.

According to our laws, marriage is a fundamental right - a matter of substantive due process, and therefore something which cannot be denied by any State. That is the nature of an inalienable right.

Government selectively acknowledging the fundamental rights of one group of people, but denying it to another is indeed a serious form of interference with consenting adults. It is a denial of equal protection under the law.

All of the talk of peeing and shitting, and of pedophilia and zooafilia, underscores just how much people here care about gay people.

Mister D
04-13-2012, 08:01 PM
Dsolo, there was no such thing as a homosexual marriage in ancient Greece. The concept of a gay marriage was nonsensical to...well just about everyone prior to this age of solipsism. Again, marriage is what it is. Gays seek to redefine that institution. Moreover, the decay of your culture and traditions makes you that much weaker in the face of all those who seek to rule over you but one step at a time...

There is no right to marriage but gays are free to marry members of the opposite sex as gays have done from time immemorial. Marriage is what it is and gays have understood that until very recently.

I won't speak for others but my "talk of pedophilia and zooafilia" was in response to a question I've been asked repeatedly (i.e. what business is it of mine what gays do?).

keyser soze
04-13-2012, 08:04 PM
If we are talking about the randiness of all males, then I would agree. I thought you were singling out homosexual males.

As I see it, marriage, spiritual union, is a state of being - as in, what God has joined together . . .. Man does not create marriage.

As far as man is concerned, his knowledge of things has always been imperfect - would have to be. The finite cannot conceive of the infinite - by definition. And so man used to think that marriage was between a man and multiple women, with as many additional consorts and concubines as he could manage on the side.

In Greece, marriage included room for lots of homosexual relationships for armies far away from home.

In recent times, marriage was between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and black woman - with miscegenation a sin before God. That has now gone the way of the Dodo.



According to our laws, marriage is a fundamental right - a matter of substantive due process, and therefore something which cannot be denied by any State. That is the nature of an inalienable right.

Government selectively acknowledging the fundamental rights of one group of people, but denying it to another is indeed a serious form of interference with consenting adults. It is a denial of equal protection under the law.

All of the talk of peeing and shitting, and of pedophilia and zooafilia, underscores just how much people here care about gay people.

Which is to say...not at all...the people you're talking to are perverted and repressed sexually...like horny 12 year olds with no hope of ever getting laid and hating anyone who does.

dsolo802
04-13-2012, 08:28 PM
Dsolo, there was no such thing as a homosexual marriage in ancient Greece. I didn't say there was - and yet side homosexual relationships were not only common but an accepted part of heterosexual marriage. That certainly is not part of the "mainstream" thinking about what a marriage is today.

What about the fact that marriage used to be between a White Man and a White woman. Or a Black man and a Black woman. But not a mixed marriage?

I also would be very much interested to know if you agree with me that marriage is not something that is man made? And about the incapacity of man to know the mind of God?


The concept of a gay marriage was nonsensical to...well just about everyone prior to this age of solipsism.It doesn't need to make sense to you or to me for it to be desirable or worthwhile. That is what makes individual liberty, individual liberty. If the desire to procreate was the sina qua non of marriage, then my wife and I should also have been debarred from the institution. We figured there are enough people already, and never sought to bring any more souls into the world.


Again, marriage is what it is. Gays seek to redefine that institution. How would it effect your marriage? or mine? It seems to me, the word "redefinition" in this context - besides being largely untrue - is wholly meaningless. Miscegenation laws, and slavery itself, were once based on truths that the majority of the people of the time took to be self-evident.


Moreover, the decay of your culture and traditions makes you that much weaker in the face of all those who seek to rule over you but one step at a time...Sexual attraction, and the deeper yearning for union with the ultimate, is not a tradition. If this world and our lives in it is his creation, how can it not be his way of drawing us close to him?

We are experiencing decay, and we are becoming weak as nation - but not because grown people pledge to live their lives together in love and fidelity. We are weak because we keep finding excuses for damning fellow humans and citizens. How can we be strong when we are so divided - and proud of it?


There is no right to marriage but gays are free to marry members of the opposite sex as gays have done from time immemorial.That freedom, is as meaningful as our freedom to marry other men - that is to say not meaningful at all.


Marriage is what it is and gays have understood that until very recently.

I won't speak for others but my "talk of pedophilia and zooafilia" was in response to a question I've been asked repeatedly (i.e. what business is it of mine what gays do?).If you feel that undeniable decay of our society makes it EVERYONE'S business, then i would like to know on what facts do you ground your conclusion?

Mister D
04-13-2012, 09:09 PM
I didn't say there was - and yet side homosexual relationships were not only common but an accepted part of heterosexual marriage. That certainly is not part of the "mainstream" thinking about what a marriage is today.

It wasn't called "heterosexual marriage". It was called marriage even in a society where gay relationships were socially acceptable. Again, marriage it is what is and has always been.


What about the fact that marriage used to be between a White Man and a White woman. Or a Black man and a Black woman. But not a mixed marriage?

Marriage is what it is and while I understand concerns about miscegenation one can legitimately argue that laws forbidding interracial marriages between a male and a female are unfair. When one attempts to cry foul in the case of same sex couples one is attempting to redefine an age old institution.


I also would be very much interested to know if you agree with me that marriage is not something that is man made? And about the incapacity of man to know the mind of God?

I'm not sure why religion keeps coming up? The proponents of gay marriage constantly resort to this straw man. My religious objections to gay marriages are moot.


It doesn't need to make sense to you or to me for it to be desirable or worthwhile. That is what makes individual liberty, individual liberty. If the desire to procreate was the sina qua non of marriage, then my wife and I should also have been debarred from the institution. We figured there are enough people already, and never sought to bring any more souls into the world.

If gays desire to call themselves a married couple that's fine with me. They can call themselves whatever they want. Insisting that the state recognize it is another matter. Marriage is what it is.


How would it effect your marriage? or mine? It seems to me, the word "redefinition" in this context - besides being largely untrue - is wholly meaningless. Miscegenation laws, and slavery itself, were once based on truths that the majority of the people of the time took to be self-evident.

How would dada's marriage to an ox or one of her grand kid's affect my marriage? It's a red herring. Marriage is what it is.


Sexual attraction, and the deeper yearning for union with the ultimate, is not a tradition. If this world and our lives in it is his creation, how can it not be his way of drawing us close to him?

Who said sexual attraction was a tradition?


We are experiencing decay, and we are becoming weak as nation - but not because grown people pledge to live their lives together in love and fidelity. We are weak because we keep finding excuses for damning fellow humans and citizens. How can we be strong when we are so divided - and proud of it?

We are weak because there is no longer any nation or American community to speak of. The decay of our traditions and culture has all but ensured that outcome. That our politicians are able to portray an inanity like homosexual marriage as a major step in civil rights illustrates our frivolity and self-absorption. Such a slide into solipsism is entirely unsurprising in a society predicated on individual liberty.


That freedom, is as meaningful as our freedom to marry other men - that is to say not meaningful at all.

That freedom exists regardless of how meaningful it may or may not be to a homosexual. Secondly, homosexuals have historically taken advantage of that freedom.


If you feel that undeniable decay of our society makes it EVERYONE'S business, then i would like to know on what facts do you ground your conclusion?

What business is it of mine if you marry your dog? Or your sister? How does that affect me? How does it affect me if dada marries one of her grand kids? What if she marries all of her grand kids? It's a red herring.

dsolo802
04-13-2012, 10:38 PM
It wasn't called "heterosexual marriage". It was called marriage even in a society where gay relationships were socially acceptable. Again, marriage it is what is and has always been. Two things: First, the point is that the marriage that bound a husband to his wife, and wife to the same marital bed shared with her husband and gay lovers, is hardly the marriage of today.

Secondly, the marriage that once was is not the marriage you suppose it was. Marriage - as in spiritual union - included marriage between two men.

According to historian John Boswell, the marriage of two male Saints who were martyred, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, demonstrates that even early Christendom did not hold to the marriage that is fashionable today. The notion that marriage can only exist between a man and woman - that is the redefinition.

The ceremony involved, Adelphopoiesis, literally meaning, "brother-making," was practiced by a variety of early Christian churches. It celebrated and recognized the spiritual union of two men.


Marriage is what it is and while I understand concerns about miscegenation one can legitimately argue that laws forbidding interracial marriages between a male and a female are unfair. When one attempts to cry foul in the case of same sex couples one is attempting to redefine an age old institution. Spiritual love, and union with God, has nothing to do with genitals. It is hard to conceive of a genuine and eternal love between two men, only because in this age the light of spirituality has grown exceedingly dim. It is almost extinguished altogether, focusing on the husk of bodily form.


I'm not sure why religion keeps coming up? It comes up when I discuss it because I am a religious man, and I know that marriage is not of the flesh.


The proponents of gay marriage constantly resort to this straw man. My religious objections to gay marriages are moot.There is no secular reason for denying the spiritual union of two human beings. I can only conclude all conflicts about it amount to religious differences.


If gays desire to call themselves a married couple that's fine with me. They can call themselves whatever they want. Insisting that the state recognize it is another matter. Marriage is what it is. You see, we disagree about what it is, and what it has always been.


How would dada's marriage to an ox or one of her grand kid's affect my marriage? Now, you are just being rude, and very, very nasty.


Who said sexual attraction was a tradition?I am also concerned about our Nation and our Society losing its strength and vitality. We just disagree about the cause. Tradition can bind the generations in life affirmative and celebratory ways, in which case it makes us stronger. Or, can keep us in bondage and ignorance, as was the case with our regard for institutions like slavery and misogyny. What matters is reverence for life, and greater life - unity, not division.


We are weak because there is no longer any nation or American community to speak of. The decay of our traditions and culture has all but ensured that outcome. That our politicians are able to portray an inanity like homosexual marriage as a major step in civil rights illustrates our frivolity and self-absorption. Such a slide into solipsism is entirely unsurprising in a society predicated on individual liberty. About these things, we just disagree.

I'll just add one other point to those I've made before. Every human is selfish. We all struggle to survive and thrive. Beyond the surviving part, the higher need is to thrive. A man who is not narrowly self-interested knows and can see, that each of us thrives most in a society where none of us are wanting.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 10:48 PM
Excellent post, Dsolo.

keyser soze
04-14-2012, 06:20 AM
Well said dsolo and Good Morning!

Mister D
04-14-2012, 10:17 AM
Two things: First, the point is that the marriage that bound a husband to his wife, and wife to the same marital bed shared with her husband and gay lovers, is hardly the marriage of today.

Secondly, the marriage that once was is not the marriage you suppose it was. Marriage - as in spiritual union - included marriage between two men.

Again, marriage is what it is and what it always has been. It is and has always been the union of male and female. In culture X, married people may have put on purple hats and marched in a parade while in culture Y they might have jumped on one leg at a winter solstice celebration but that's all moot.


According to historian John Boswell, the marriage of two male Saints who were martyred, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, demonstrates that even early Christendom did not hold to the marriage that is fashionable today. The notion that marriage can only exist between a man and woman - that is the redefinition.

The ceremony involved, Adelphopoiesis, literally meaning, "brother-making," was practiced by a variety of early Christian churches. It celebrated and recognized the spiritual union of two men.

Spiritual love, and union with God, has nothing to do with genitals. It is hard to conceive of a genuine and eternal love between two men, only because in this age the light of spirituality has grown exceedingly dim. It is almost extinguished altogether, focusing on the husk of bodily form.

As I'm sure you know, Boswell was on the fringe of scholarly opinion regarding Adelphopoiesis and much else. He was also a homosexual who died young of...drum roll please....AIDS. Yes, Adelphopoiesis does literally mean "brother-making" which should tell you something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#Criticism_of_Boswell


It comes up when I discuss it because I am a religious man, and I know that marriage is not of the flesh.

The bible mentions flesh in the context of marriage. The two become one and all that...Jesus also says that we are not married in the after life.


There is no secular reason for denying the spiritual union of two human beings. I can only conclude all conflicts about it amount to religious differences.

Dsolo, you can wine and dine your straw man all day. Don't expect me to be a third wheel. The institution of marriage is a cultural one and it is an anthropological constant across cultures and across ages. The burden is on you and other proponents of gay marriage. I see no compelling reason to cater to individuals with abnormal sexual appetites. Don't pee on my leg, sir.


You see, we disagree about what it is, and what it has always been.

We may but only one of us is right. :smiley:


Now, you are just being rude, and very, very nasty.

Then stop with the red herrings. Frankly, I think red herrings are rude and a dishonest method of argumentation.


About these things, we just disagree.

I'll just add one other point to those I've made before. Every human is selfish. We all struggle to survive and thrive. Beyond the surviving part, the higher need is to thrive. A man who is not narrowly self-interested knows and can see, that each of us thrives most in a society where none of us are wanting.

Yes, every human being is in part selfish which only compounds the error of anyone thinking anything beyond the most superficial "unity" is possible in a mess like the US.

Mister D
04-14-2012, 10:31 AM
Excellent post, Dsolo.


Well said dsolo and Good Morning!

http://blogs.tatumisd.org/tmsnews/files/2012/03/cheerleader.jpg

Do you two have anything to add? :laugh:

Mister D
04-14-2012, 10:32 AM
Won't be around much today but I will check in tomorrow if you don;t hear from me today.

dadakarma
04-14-2012, 11:26 AM
This is what I love most about forums like this one.

Adelphopoiesis - Fascinating piece of history. I never knew about this.

It lays to waste the contention that marriage has *always* been between a man and a woman only.

Take note, haters. :grin:

dsolo802
04-14-2012, 02:05 PM
Again, marriage is what it is and what it always has been. It is and has always been the union of male and female. In culture X, married people may have put on purple hats and marched in a parade while in culture Y they might have jumped on one leg at a winter solstice celebration but that's all moot.



As I'm sure you know, Boswell was on the fringe of scholarly opinion regarding Adelphopoiesis and much else. He was also a homosexual who died young of...drum roll please....AIDS. Yes, Adelphopoiesis does literally mean "brother-making" which should tell you something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#Criticism_of_Boswell



The bible mentions flesh in the context of marriage. The two become one and all that...Jesus also says that we are not married in the after life.



Dsolo, you can wine and dine your straw man all day. Don't expect me to be a third wheel. The institution of marriage is a cultural one and it is an anthropological constant across cultures and across ages. The burden is on you and other proponents of gay marriage. I see no compelling reason to cater to individuals with abnormal sexual appetites. Don't pee on my leg, sir.



We may but only one of us is right. :smiley:



Then stop with the red herrings. Frankly, I think red herrings are rude and a dishonest method of argumentation.



Yes, every human being is in part selfish which only compounds the error of anyone thinking anything beyond the most superficial "unity" is possible in a mess like the US.The historical facts which prove your point are good, and those that undercut it - moot? Too much.

And if we are to eliminate this kind of "bias", only bi-sexual judges can preside over gay rights cases, hermaphrodite judges in cases where sexual harassment is alleged, with mulattoes held in reserve for cases of racial discrimination. If you look - I will not hold my breath - you will find Boswell is not the only scholar and religious authority to have spoken of the religious ceremony.

The words associated with the marriage ceremony are also there for discovery.

In any case, a clash of religious views, arbitrary discount of historical fact, your continued personal nastiness sadly proves just one thing: further efforts to explore this point are futile.

dadakarma
04-14-2012, 02:10 PM
And if we are to eliminate this kind of "bias", only bi-sexual judges can preside over gay rights cases, hermaphrodite judges in cases where sexual harassment is alleged, with mulattoes held in reserve for cases of racial discrimination. If you look - I will not hold my breath - you will find Boswell is not the only scholar and religious authority to have spoken of the religious ceremony.

The words associated with the marriage ceremony are also there for discovery.

In any case, a clash of religious views, arbitrary discount of historical fact, your continued personal nastiness sadly proves just one thing: further efforts to explore this point are futile.

Thank God! (pun fully intended)

:grin:

ramone
04-14-2012, 02:25 PM
your continued personal nastiness sadly proves just one thing: further efforts to explore this point are futile.

Guess the honeymoon is over now, isn't it?

dsolo802
04-14-2012, 02:42 PM
Guess the honeymoon is over now, isn't it?No Ramone. That is not what this means. At some point you realize there are disagreements which can't be overcome. The choices are to repeat oneself, engage in name calling, or to simply disagree. I chose option number 3.

Intelligent people disagree all the time. In fact, in a certain sense, the greater the intelligence, the greater the possibility for finding differences. Of course, it could also be said, that the greater the intelligence, the greater is the possibility that common ground can be found too. Both things are true.

In any case, I will certainly be having further conversations with Mister D. I enjoy our chats and learn from them.

About my reference to nastiness: I don't think it is appropriate even to jokingly accuse people of incest or bestiality. I didn't appreciate that.

Alias
04-14-2012, 02:52 PM
You are a sinner, because you judge others for no reason. Worry about your own house first, and the world will be a much better place.

We are all sinners, dear. I don't condemn anyone, but I do judge what is right and what is wrong and so do you. We just differ on what that is because we're both human beings and have that right. Get over it.

dadakarma
04-14-2012, 03:44 PM
In any case, I will certainly be having further conversations with Mister D. I enjoy our chats and learn from them.

About my reference to nastiness: I don't think it is appropriate even to jokingly accuse people of incest or bestiality. I didn't appreciate that.

He whined to you about rudeness. :roflmao:

dsolo802
04-14-2012, 04:48 PM
He whined to you about rudeness. Repeatedly sharing how revolted one is by the sexual orientation of others is not an argument.

dadakarma
04-14-2012, 04:57 PM
Repeatedly sharing how revolted one is by the sexual orientation of others is not an argument.

Acceptance of the right of gays to love whom they choose is "catering" to those with "abnormal sexual appetites" - yes, his gas was noxious, but I'm glad you brought the lysol of decency and REASON. :)

dsolo802
04-14-2012, 10:25 PM
Well, just as John Gotti did, you can sin all you want, and be absolved on Sunday.

I, on the other hand, make better choices during the week.

"He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday"

Ian Anderson.We don't quote the great sage Ian Anderson enough.

I would like to use a quote from Ian to explain our current "economic" policies:

"The wise man break wind and is gone."

Potentially self endangering words, coming from someone who is on and off the site as much as I am.

Peter1469
04-14-2012, 11:05 PM
We don't quote the great sage Ian Anderson enough.

I would like to use a quote from Ian to explain our current "economic" policies:

"The wise man break wind and is gone."

Potentially self endangering words, coming from someone who is on and off the site as much as I am.

I would be interested in your take on that phrase.

I could guess it means passing a sensible but unpopular law to control spending and then leaving public service ....

dsolo802
04-14-2012, 11:45 PM
I would be interested in your take on that phrase. Generally speaking, I was mainly referring to the "getting mine now" attitude, that allows a man to be on the take with the knowledge that no one will truly discover what he has done, until he has left public service and cannot be punished for his actions.


I could guess it means passing a sensible but unpopular law to control spending and then leaving public service ....If it was truly sensible, I wouldn't liken it to leaving people with something foul.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 12:21 AM
Generally speaking, I was mainly referring to the "getting mine now" attitude, that allows a man to be on the take with the knowledge that no one will truly discover what he has done, until he has left public service and cannot be punished for his actions.

If it was truly sensible, I wouldn't liken it to leaving people with something foul.
I was thinking the other direction. Passing a good law that will help people in the long run, but a law that people don't like in the short run.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 07:48 AM
The historical facts which prove your point are good, and those that undercut it - moot? Too much.

And if we are to eliminate this kind of "bias", only bi-sexual judges can preside over gay rights cases, hermaphrodite judges in cases where sexual harassment is alleged, with mulattoes held in reserve for cases of racial discrimination. If you look - I will not hold my breath - you will find Boswell is not the only scholar and religious authority to have spoken of the religious ceremony.

The words associated with the marriage ceremony are also there for discovery.

In any case, a clash of religious views, arbitrary discount of historical fact, your continued personal nastiness sadly proves just one thing: further efforts to explore this point are futile.

You have not pointed out any "historical facts". You fall back on queer studies and a fringe interpretation of Adelphopoiesis. We both know you have never heard of either Boswell or Adelphopoiesis until now. You're grasping at straws, sir. Yes, it's just too much when someone frantically searches the Internet for anything that will support his position. :smiley:

Simply noting that Boswell's interpretation of Adelphopoiesis is on the scholarly fringe was enough to cast doubt on his opinions. I'll grant that there was no need to mention how self-serving his interpretation was but I thought you should know. I'm not sure if Boswell is the only queer studies guru to have spoken of Adelphopoiesis as a same sex marriage but, then again, queer studies isn't my thing.

Clash of religious views? What are you talking about? Secondly, I simply pointed out where Boswell stands within the scholarly world on this subject and you call that "arbitrary discount of historical fact"? Seriously? Last, my personal nastiness? Hey, if disagreement upsets you then let your cheerleaders console you.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 07:50 AM
This is what I love most about forums like this one.

Adelphopoiesis - Fascinating piece of history. I never knew about this.

It lays to waste the contention that marriage has *always* been between a man and a woman only.

Take note, haters. :grin:

Dada, you would believe just about anything you were told as long as it jives with your prejudices. :grin: You married, dada?

Mister D
04-16-2012, 07:55 AM
No Ramone. That is not what this means. At some point you realize there are disagreements which can't be overcome. The choices are to repeat oneself, engage in name calling, or to simply disagree. I chose option number 3.

Intelligent people disagree all the time. In fact, in a certain sense, the greater the intelligence, the greater the possibility for finding differences. Of course, it could also be said, that the greater the intelligence, the greater is the possibility that common ground can be found too. Both things are true.

In any case, I will certainly be having further conversations with Mister D. I enjoy our chats and learn from them.

About my reference to nastiness: I don't think it is appropriate even to jokingly accuse people of incest or bestiality. I didn't appreciate that.

You and others continue utilize a red herring (i.e. the question of what business is it of mine if gays want to marry). I asked what business is it of mine if dada marries one of her grandkids or an ox? That's not an accusation. It was just a question to demonstrate for you how red herrings do not help the discussion along. :smiley:

Mister D
04-16-2012, 07:58 AM
Acceptance of the right of gays to love whom they choose is "catering" to those with "abnormal sexual appetites" - yes, his gas was noxious, but I'm glad you brought the lysol of decency and REASON. :)

No one cares who gays love, dada. Could someone wipe grandma's chin and pat her on the head? :smiley:

dsolo802
04-16-2012, 10:33 AM
You and others continue utilize a red herring (i.e. the question of what business is it of mine if gays want to marry). I asked what business is it of mine if dada marries one of her grandkids or an ox? That's not an accusation. It was just a question to demonstrate for you how red herrings do not help the discussion along. :smiley:It's just a good old fashion personal insult, Mister D.

You are correct that it is none of our business. That is why civil rights are recognized in the Constitution: To prevent them from being denied or abridged by those in power.

dsolo802
04-16-2012, 10:34 AM
No one cares who gays love, dada. That is not true, Mister D. There are millions of people world round who care about injustice.

Alias
04-16-2012, 10:35 AM
That is not true, Mister D. There are millions of people world round who care about injustice.

Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman. Do you believe Jesus was guilty of "injustice"?

Mister D
04-16-2012, 10:38 AM
It's just a good old fashion personal insult, Mister D.

You are correct that it is none of our business. That is why civil rights are recognized in the Constitution: To prevent them from being denied or abridged by those in power.

Bologna. You just insist on seeing it as an insult because I called you on your red herring and you simply cannot do without red herrings and straw man arguments.

So it's none of my business if dada marries a horse or one of her grandkids. Her "civil rights" are recognized in the Constitution. Understood. :laugh:

Mister D
04-16-2012, 10:40 AM
That is not true, Mister D. There are millions of people world round who care about injustice.

No one cares who gays love, Dsolo. Have you stooped now to defending the straw man argumets of other members?

Mister D
04-16-2012, 10:41 AM
Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman. Do you believe Jesus was guilty of "injustice"?

Do you think Jesus supported gay marriages, Dsolo?

dsolo802
04-16-2012, 08:19 PM
Do you think Jesus supported gay marriages, Dsolo?Jesus was about helping people see the the Kingdom of God. His ministry was not concerned at all with prohibitions against wearing of garments of mixed threads, or like trifles. His life was about abundant life.

Toward that end, "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged" was one of the most revolutionary things, if not the most revolutionary thing, he had to say. Perhaps the only thing he said that was more radical to the Jewish mind than this, was for each of us to love even those that would despitefully use us. Don't judge? Don't smite your enemies? LOVE them!!!??? Really radical stuff.

The Jewish people had "love your neighbor," and Jesus himself heavily endorsed it, but no one in the history of the Jews, or any other culture or tradition to my knowledge, has ever said to love those who despitefully use you.

Despite all the caterwauling I hear about the "homosexual agenda", and the grave threat it poses to heterosexual marriage, I see no evidence of that at all. Not even a scintilla of a hint. When two adults - two men, two women, or a man and woman - profess undying love for each other that can only serve to bring more light into this world. We need it.

The homosexual agenda is to live and love as heterosexuals do, nothing more, and nothing less. In my view, to love them - to love everyone - as we love ourselves is exactly what Jesus said we ought do. That is a veritable spiritual equal protection clause.

Hating those who have not offended, and relegating them to the status of the least of us, that is something I cannot conceive Jesus would have ever stood for.

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:20 PM
It's just a good old fashion personal insult, Mister D.

You are correct that it is none of our business. That is why civil rights are recognized in the Constitution: To prevent them from being denied or abridged by those in power.

Homos have every right I have as an American citizen.

dadakarma
04-16-2012, 08:22 PM
Homos have every right I have as an American citizen.

No they don't.

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:22 PM
Jesus was about helping people see the the Kingdom of God. His ministry was not concerned at all with prohibitions against wearing of garments of mixed threads, or like trifles. His life was about abundant life.

Toward that end, "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged" was one of the most revolutionary things, if not the most revolutionary thing, he had to say. Perhaps the only thing he said that was more radical to the Jewish mind than this, was for each of us to love even those that would despitefully use us. Don't judge? Don't smite your enemies? LOVE them!!!??? Really radical stuff.

The Jewish people had "love your neighbor," and Jesus himself heavily endorsed it, but no one in the history of the Jews, or any other culture or tradition to my knowledge, has ever said to love those who despitefully use you.

Despite all the caterwauling I hear about the "homosexual agenda", and the grave threat it poses to heterosexual marriage, I see no evidence of that at all. Not even a scintilla of a hint. When two adults - two men, two women, or a man and woman - profess undying love for each other that can only serve to bring more light into this world. We need it.

The homosexual agenda is to live and love as heterosexuals do, nothing more, and nothing less. In my view, to love them - to love everyone - as we love ourselves is exactly what Jesus said we ought do. That is a veritable spiritual equal protection clause.

Hating those who have not offended, and relegating them to the status of the least of us, that is something I cannot conceive Jesus would have ever stood for.

There is much confusion over "judge ye not, lest ye be judged". The greek is "condemn" translated as "judge". Jesus said to "Judge them by their fruit". What do you think he meant by that?

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:23 PM
No they don't.

Then tell all of us what right I have that homos don't have.

dadakarma
04-16-2012, 08:24 PM
Then tell all of us what right I have that homos don't have.

The right to marry whom you love.

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:25 PM
The right to marry whom you love.

I love my dog, but I can't marry my dog and neither can homos.

dsolo802
04-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Homos have every right I have as an American citizen.The right to marry is one of the rights protected under the Constitution. I would agree with you they have that right too.

dadakarma
04-16-2012, 08:27 PM
I love my dog, but I can't marry my dog and neither can homos.

Homosexuals do not. We're talking about two consenting adults. Not bestiality. That you conflate homosexuality and bestiality explains why you're not capable of having a meaningful discussion about this.

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:30 PM
The right to marry is one of the rights protected under the Constitution. I would agree with you they have that right too.

You said earlier about "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged". The word there in the Greek means "condemn". No one can condemn another person, yet we are told by Jesus to "Judge them by their fruit". Different word there in the Greek, meaning to weigh actions and deeds. Judging is something we do all the day every day. We make decisions (judgments) all the time. Homosexuality is a sin. Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman.

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:31 PM
Homosexuals do not. We're talking about two consenting adults. Not bestiality. That you conflate homosexuality and bestiality explains why you're not capable of having a meaningful discussion about this.

Okay. How about a brother and sister who decide to get married. They love each other and they consent. Okay?

dadakarma
04-16-2012, 08:34 PM
Okay. How about a brother and sister who decide to get married. They love each other and they consent. Okay?

That's incest. Are you familiar with why that's not appropriate? Are you too dumb to understand why both incest and bestiality aren't conflated with homosexuality?

Alias
04-16-2012, 08:35 PM
That's incest. Are you familiar with why that's not appropriate? Are you too dumb to understand why both incest and bestiality aren't conflated with homosexuality?

Then you really should say what you mean instead of "The right to marry whom you love." Dumb ass.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 08:45 PM
Jesus was about helping people see the the Kingdom of God. His ministry was not concerned at all with prohibitions against wearing of garments of mixed threads, or like trifles. His life was about abundant life.

Toward that end, "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged" was one of the most revolutionary things, if not the most revolutionary thing, he had to say. Perhaps the only thing he said that was more radical to the Jewish mind than this, was for each of us to love even those that would despitefully use us. Don't judge? Don't smite your enemies? LOVE them!!!??? Really radical stuff.

The Jewish people had "love your neighbor," and Jesus himself heavily endorsed it, but no one in the history of the Jews, or any other culture or tradition to my knowledge, has ever said to love those who despitefully use you.

Despite all the caterwauling I hear about the "homosexual agenda", and the grave threat it poses to heterosexual marriage, I see no evidence of that at all. Not even a scintilla of a hint. When two adults - two men, two women, or a man and woman - profess undying love for each other that can only serve to bring more light into this world. We need it.

The homosexual agenda is to live and love as heterosexuals do, nothing more, and nothing less. In my view, to love them - to love everyone - as we love ourselves is exactly what Jesus said we ought do. That is a veritable spiritual equal protection clause.

Hating those who have not offended, and relegating them to the status of the least of us, that is something I cannot conceive Jesus would have ever stood for.

No one has judged, hated etc. Your straw men are dismissed.

I'll rephrase it for you: do you think Jesus would have supported gay marriages? If so, what do you base that on?

Mister D
04-16-2012, 08:48 PM
That's incest. Are you familiar with why that's not appropriate? Are you too dumb to understand why both incest and bestiality aren't conflated with homosexuality?

No one conflated those things. A question was asked and no one seems to have an answer for me. What business is it of mine if you marry an ox or one of your grand kids? How will it affect me? How will that affect marriage as an institution? Why should I care who you choose to love?

Mister D
04-16-2012, 08:50 PM
No they don't.

Yes, they do. You can marry any time you please but marriage is what it is.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 08:51 PM
Homosexuals do not. We're talking about two consenting adults. Not bestiality. That you conflate homosexuality and bestiality explains why you're not capable of having a meaningful discussion about this.

You married, dada? :grin:

dsolo802
04-16-2012, 08:55 PM
No one has judged, hated etc. Your straw men are dismissed.

I'll rephrase it for you: do you think Jesus would have supported gay marriages? If so, what do you base that on?And your dismissal is dismissed - and my message stands.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 08:56 PM
And your dismissal is dismissed - and my message stands.

For what though? :huh: :laugh: You're having an argument with yourself.

dadakarma
04-16-2012, 09:04 PM
Then you really should say what you mean instead of "The right to marry whom you love." Dumb ass.

Yeah, I guess I should've clarified that homosexuals don't want to marry their siblings or their pets, since some here are too stupid to realize the idiocy of that. My bad.

Mister D
04-16-2012, 09:07 PM
Yeah, I guess I should've clarified that homosexuals don't want to marry their siblings or their pets, since some here are too stupid to realize the idiocy of that. My bad.

What business is it of mine if they do? That's who they choose to love. What business is it of mine? How will it affect marriage? How will it affect me? Why should I care?

You married, dada? :grin:

Alias
04-16-2012, 09:32 PM
Yeah, I guess I should've clarified that homosexuals don't want to marry their siblings or their pets, since some here are too stupid to realize the idiocy of that. My bad.

Take some basic law classes so you learn how to communicate legal issues.

wingrider
04-16-2012, 11:42 PM
someone on here i think it was dada said that the right to marry was in the Constitution.. Where, what amendment would that be..?

also about gay siblings getting married what about it about it, ? the only thing that stops sibling marriage is the fear of having morons for children, and scientifically that is only 3 percent higher than non related couples. so it that is the only reason against incest then it is a moot point. if 2 gay brothers or sisters decide to get together and there is no chance of offspring,, who are you to say NO. how does that affect your life anyway..are you going to be the one that answers for their lifestyle.. No so stfu worry about your own life and stop trying to make others conform to your standards, and this goes for everyone , religious, non religious, doesn't matter.. MYOB and STFU

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 12:06 AM
You're having an argument with yourself.I dismiss this argument too.

It is a silly game.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 12:49 AM
someone on here i think it was dada said that the right to marry was in the Constitution.. Where, what amendment would that be..?Under the 10th Amendment, the rights of the federal government are enumerated, the powers held in reserve by the People are not. See, Loving v. Virginia (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law on substantive due process and equal protection grounds, the Court found marriage to be, "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'.)


also about gay siblings getting married what about it about it, ? the only thing that stops sibling marriage is the fear of having morons for children, and scientifically that is only 3 percent higher than non related couples. so it that is the only reason against incest then it is a moot point.Fundamental liberties are not absolute. Not all speech is protected, not all religious practices are permitted. I'm perfectly willing to listen to your argument why incest should be illegal. Once it is decided that the State has compelling reason for making incest illegal, it would be illegal for heterosexual and homosexual marriage alike. Do note, the denial of the fundamental right to marry in cases of incest for EVERYONE is the exception that proves the rule.


if 2 gay brothers or sisters decide to get together and there is no chance of offspring, who are you to say NO.If incest is illegal, under the Equal Protection Clause it is illegal for all.


how does that affect your life anyway..are you going to be the one that answers for their lifestyle..Where any fundamental liberty is concerned no State can deny it, at least that is, in the absence of a legitimate and compelling interest to overbalance it. If the State can't sustain its burden, the fundamental liberty stands. When the state can't sustain its burden, that means it's none of our business.


No so stfu worry about your own life and stop trying to make others conform to your standards, You've got it ass backwards. You are arguing for the right of government to punish one group of people because they don't live up to personal standards held dear by another class - all without a compelling reason for so doing.

STFU and MYOB adds nothing to your argument. It is weakness trying to be strong.

wingrider
04-17-2012, 01:23 AM
you totally misread my post .. figures

spunkloaf
04-17-2012, 02:29 AM
You said earlier about "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged". The word there in the Greek means "condemn". No one can condemn another person, yet we are told by Jesus to "Judge them by their fruit". Different word there in the Greek, meaning to weigh actions and deeds. Judging is something we do all the day every day. We make decisions (judgments) all the time. Homosexuality is a sin. Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman.

You must be some kind of fucking genius. Please continue to encourage the government to legislate my morality. I need to be saved from my sins, and you're exactly the kind of person who will help deliver us.

God bless you, and your divine wisdom. I am truly not worthy as thou art.

spunkloaf
04-17-2012, 02:35 AM
Take some basic law classes so you learn how to communicate legal issues.

I have a better idea. Quit playing dumb and acting arrogant, and communication won't be your problem anymore. :smiley:

spunkloaf
04-17-2012, 03:29 AM
Yeah, gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. Absolutely. Know what else? An innocent man has the same right to call prison his home as a criminal does. Too bad if the free man doesn't want to call it home, the opportunity still exists the same for innocents just like it does for criminals. In fact fuck homes, let's just build prison cells everywhere. Us people need to be brought under control. Enough with this "freedom" nonsense. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that we have the right to live freely where we please, so let's conduct ourselves more constitutionally and help define that better by assigning ourselves to prison cells.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:38 AM
I dismiss this argument too.

It is a silly game.

It's not an argument. It's a statement and an accurate one at that. Hey, if you can't defend your positions that's fine with me. Justkeep in mind that when you resort to straw men I'm going to call you on it.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 11:10 AM
It's not an argument. It's a statement and an accurate one at that. Hey, if you can't defend your positions that's fine with me. Justkeep in mind that when you resort to straw men I'm going to call you on it.If you dismiss out-of-hand the historical data that shatters with your thesis, ignore the fact that you cannot articulate any rational reason much less a compelling reason to deny to a class of adult humans the fundamental liberty to marry, and re-engineer the definition of the words "argument" and "statement of fact" to mean what you say they mean - sure, we agree 100%.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 11:12 AM
If you dismiss out-of-hand the historical data that shatters with your thesis, ignore the fact that you cannot articulate any rational reason much less a compelling reason to deny to a class of adult humans the fundamental liberty to marry, and re-engineer the definition of the words "argument" and "statement of fact" to mean what you say they mean - sure, we agree 100%.

I've already educated you on Boswell. You can respond to that post when you have time. :smiley:

Again, the burden is on YOU and marriage is what it is Boswell's nonsense notwithstanding. Homosexuals can marry at any time just like they have throughout history.

Alias
04-17-2012, 11:16 AM
Under the 10th Amendment, the rights of the federal government are enumerated, the powers held in reserve by the People are not. See, Loving v. Virginia (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law on substantive due process and equal protection grounds, the Court found marriage to be, "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'.)

Fundamental liberties are not absolute. Not all speech is protected, not all religious practices are permitted. I'm perfectly willing to listen to your argument why incest should be illegal. Once it is decided that the State has compelling reason for making incest illegal, it would be illegal for heterosexual and homosexual marriage alike. Do note, the denial of the fundamental right to marry in cases of incest for EVERYONE is the exception that proves the rule.

If incest is illegal, under the Equal Protection Clause it is illegal for all.

Where any fundamental liberty is concerned no State can deny it, at least that is, in the absence of a legitimate and compelling interest to overbalance it. If the State can't sustain its burden, the fundamental liberty stands. When the state can't sustain its burden, that means it's none of our business.

You've got it ass backwards. You are arguing for the right of government to punish one group of people because they don't live up to personal standards held dear by another class - all without a compelling reason for so doing.

STFU and MYOB adds nothing to your argument. It is weakness trying to be strong.

You say a special group of people are being "punished". I say sexual perverts do not earn special rights.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 11:27 AM
I've already educated you on Boswell.Sorry, no. Your response doesn't respond.

It's inconvenient to you that there were actual Christian ceremonies, acknowledging the formal bonds of men with other men, with the words of the ceremonies preserved for all time, and numerous historical accounts of these rites being administered. These facts are not subject to good faith dispute, and they haven't been.

The most that can be fairly stated from the historical data gathered by acknowledged and accomplished historians, including Boswell, is that there were ceremonies acknowledging the bond between a man and woman, and between a man and man, and a woman and woman. True, there was no sanction for homosexuality as such, but, as I have stated, the bond of love is not about genitals.


You can respond to that post when you have time. :smiley:I will respond when you make an argument based on facts.


Again, the burden is on YOU and marriage is what it is Boswell's nonsense notwithstanding.No sir. The burden is on any State government that would deny the fundamental right of marriage to any group of adults. The burden requires a compelling showing. So far, you've not made any showing, much less a compelling one.


Homosexuals can marry at any time just like they have throughout history.Funny.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 11:33 AM
Sorry, no. Your response doesn't respond.

It's inconvenient to you that there were actual Christian ceremonies, acknowledging the formal bonds of men with other men, with the words of the ceremonies preserved for all time, and numerous historical accounts of these rites being administered. These facts are not subject to good faith dispute, and they haven't been.

The most that can be fairly stated from the historical data gathered by acknowledged and accomplished historians, including Boswell, is that there were ceremonies acknowledging the bond between a man and woman, and between a man and man, and a woman and woman. True, there was no sanction for homosexuality as such, but, as I have stated, the bond of love is not about genitals.

I will respond when you make an argument based on facts.

No sir. The burden is on any State government that would deny the fundamental right of marriage to homosexuals. The burden requires a compelling showing. So far, you've not made any showing, much less a compelling one.

Funny.

:laugh: So you now understand that this Orthodox rite had nothing to do with buggery and was not a same sex marriage or in fact a marriage at all. Good. I'm glad that's behind us. Behind...:undecided: :shocked:

Again, you can make an argument for gay marriage or not. It matters not to me but the burden remains on you. Marriage is what it is and what it always has been. I see no compelling reason to accomodate individuals with abnormal sexual appetites.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 11:36 AM
Perhaps Dsolo is used to his sentimental foolishness being taken seriously?

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 01:36 PM
:laugh: So you now understand that this Orthodox rite had nothing to do with buggery and was not a same sex marriage or in fact a marriage at all.No, now you understand what I've been saying all along: Marriage is about the spiritual bond between two human beings. The sine qua non of marriage, contrary to what folks fixated on genitals and sex will tell you, has nothing to do with genitals and where they may be placed and where not.


Good. I'm glad that's behind us. Behind...:undecided: :shocked: As can be seen from your last paragraph, the celebration has begun a little too early.


Again, you can make an argument for gay marriage or not. It matters not to me but the burden remains on you. Marriage is what it is and what it always has been.See above.


I see no compelling reason to accomodate individuals with abnormal sexual appetites.Liberty is about the right to choose, not what you choose. The marital right is the right to have ones spiritual bond and devotion to it acknowledged.

Those who would confer that acknowledgement on some, and deny it to others have the very heaviest of burdens. I'm very sorry Mister D, the burden is not on me at all.

The right to be sexual as one pleases in this country has long since been settled. Only the grumbling of some about that issue remains. Today, the question is about official acknowledgement of the spiritual bond.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 01:51 PM
No, now you understand what I've been saying all along: Marriage is about the spiritual bond between two human beings. The sine qua non of marriage, contrary to what folks fixated on genitals and sex will tell you, has nothing to do with genitals and where they may be placed and where not.

As can be seen from your last paragraph, the celebration has begun a little too early.

See above.

Liberty is about the right to choose, not what you choose. The marital right is the right to have ones spiritual bond and devotion to it acknowledged.

Those who would confer that acknowledgement on some, and deny it to others have the very heaviest of burdens. I'm very sorry Mister D, the burden is not on me at all.

The right to be sexual as one pleases in this country has long since been settled. Only the grumbling of some about that issue remains. Today, the question is about official acknowledgement of the spiritual bond.

Again, marriage is what it is. This is true across religions, cultures and epochs. People will tell you that not because they are fixated on genitals but because it's demonstrably true.

Again, gays are not denied the right to participate in the ancient institution of marriage but it is what it is. There is no compelling reason to redefine marriage (or at least you haven't offered one) or for accomodating individuals with aberrant tastes.

Alias
04-17-2012, 01:52 PM
No, now you understand what I've been saying all along: Marriage is about the spiritual bond between two human beings. The sine qua non of marriage, contrary to what folks fixated on genitals and sex will tell you, has nothing to do with genitals and where they may be placed and where not.

As can be seen from your last paragraph, the celebration has begun a little too early.

See above.

Liberty is about the right to choose, not what you choose. The marital right is the right to have ones spiritual bond and devotion to it acknowledged.

Those who would confer that acknowledgement on some, and deny it to others have the very heaviest of burdens. I'm very sorry Mister D, the burden is not on me at all.

The right to be sexual as one pleases in this country has long since been settled. Only the grumbling of some about that issue remains. Today, the question is about official acknowledgement of the spiritual bond.

No one is denying anyone the right to be sexual with what or whoever they please. Marriage has a definition and has always had a definition. The problem as I see it is in definition of marriage. You can't make a car with ford parts and call it a Rolls Royce. You can call it that, but you would be wrong.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 03:25 PM
No one is denying anyone the right to be sexual with what or whoever they please.Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.


Marriage has a definition and has always had a definition.Once it's clear that sin qua non of marriage from time immemorial is about spiritual communion, and not the lusting of either heterosexual or homosexual adults, the "problem" disappears.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 03:27 PM
Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.

Once it's clear that sin qua non of marriage from time immemorial is about spiritual communion, and not the lusting of either heterosexual or homosexual adults, the "problem" disappears.

I'm sorry if your marriage is based on lust but please speak for yourself and your wife.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 03:48 PM
Again, marriage is what it is. This is true across religions, cultures and epochs. People will tell you that not because they are fixated on genitals but because it's demonstrably true.

Again, gays are not denied the right to participate in the ancient institution of marriage but it is what it is. There is no compelling reason to redefine marriage (or at least you haven't offered one) or for accomodating individuals with aberrant tastes.Saying it is what it is, gets us nowhere when the point is we don't agree what it is.

You've got it dead wrong on who has the burden.

dadakarma
04-17-2012, 04:07 PM
Saying it is what it is, gets us nowhere when the point is we don't agree what it is.

You've got it dead wrong on who has the burden.

Well, Dsolo - I hope it's clear to you now (it certainly is to me) that 'nowhere' is where you wind up when attempting to discuss matters of tolerance with haters.

Twenty-one pages worth of your noble attempts to enlighten the terminally dim, casting pearls before swine.

For all its futility with the haters, you presented some fascinating points to ponder for the rest of us who do find this issue worthy of more than knee-jerk arrogance and for that I thank you. :)

gophangover
04-17-2012, 04:23 PM
Did Mike Wallace ever to a story on tri-sexuals?
There's heterosexuals...homosexuals...bisexuals...A sexuals...and Larry Flint is a tri-sexual, he tried sex with a chicken once.

Alias
04-17-2012, 04:25 PM
Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.

Once it's clear that sin qua non of marriage from time immemorial is about spiritual communion, and not the lusting of either heterosexual or homosexual adults, the "problem" disappears.

How can you say it's "irrelevant" when marriage has been defined as a man and a woman in every civilized culture? That's called "Denial" with a capital D.

Alias
04-17-2012, 04:27 PM
Saying it is what it is, gets us nowhere when the point is we don't agree what it is.

You've got it dead wrong on who has the burden.


So marriage to you is simply "lust". In my opinion, you don't understand the concept of marriage.

Alias
04-17-2012, 04:28 PM
Did Mike Wallace ever to a story on tri-sexuals?
There's heterosexuals...homosexuals...bisexuals...A sexuals...and Larry Flint is a tri-sexual, he tried sex with a chicken once.

I remember my first sexual experience. I was scared to death. The room was dark and I was all alone.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 05:20 PM
Saying it is what it is, gets us nowhere when the point is we don't agree what it is.

You've got it dead wrong on who has the burden.

You can claim that marriage is anything you want but the facts support my position, not yours. Now you can take the spinster's advice and stomp off is hissy or you can learn to make more honest and less emotional arguments.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 05:21 PM
So marriage to you is simply "lust". In my opinion, you don't understand the concept of marriage.

I have no idea why he's stooping to such a level.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 05:22 PM
Well, Dsolo - I hope it's clear to you now (it certainly is to me) that 'nowhere' is where you wind up when attempting to discuss matters of tolerance with haters.

Twenty-one pages worth of your noble attempts to enlighten the terminally dim, casting pearls before swine.

For all its futility with the haters, you presented some fascinating points to ponder for the rest of us who do find this issue worthy of more than knee-jerk arrogance and for that I thank you. :)

You married, dada?

Alias
04-17-2012, 05:23 PM
I have no idea why he's stooping to such a level.

Desperate.

Alias
04-17-2012, 05:24 PM
Well, Dsolo - I hope it's clear to you now (it certainly is to me) that 'nowhere' is where you wind up when attempting to discuss matters of tolerance with haters.

Twenty-one pages worth of your noble attempts to enlighten the terminally dim, casting pearls before swine.

For all its futility with the haters, you presented some fascinating points to ponder for the rest of us who do find this issue worthy of more than knee-jerk arrogance and for that I thank you. :)

Oh yeah. Every person who ever lived and believed marriage is a man and a woman is a "hater". Dumb ass.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 06:03 PM
I'm sorry if your marriage is based on lust but please speak for yourself and your wife.My point sir, is that marriage is not based on lust, making the sexual orientation part of your equation irrelevant.

Also, again, I encourage one and all to be leaders: Please resist the urge to make discussion about already difficult issues about the personal lives of the people here. Encourage others over whom you have some sway to do the same.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 06:11 PM
Well, Dsolo - I hope it's clear to you now (it certainly is to me) that 'nowhere' is where you wind up when attempting to discuss matters of tolerance with haters.

Twenty-one pages worth of your noble attempts to enlighten the terminally dim, casting pearls before swine.

For all its futility with the haters, you presented some fascinating points to ponder for the rest of us who do find this issue worthy of more than knee-jerk arrogance and for that I thank you. :)Thank you for the kind words, Dada. The "issue" has been turned upside down and inside out to such an extent, it is almost not possible to know up from down any longer.

dadakarma
04-17-2012, 06:14 PM
Oh yeah. Every person who ever lived and believed marriage is a man and a woman is a "hater". Dumb ass.

No, just the ones who insist on determining for others what a marriage should be.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 06:16 PM
My point sir, is that marriage is not based on lust, making the sexual orientation part of your equation irrelevant.

Also, again, I encourage one and all to be leaders: Please resist the urge to make discussion about already difficult issues about the personal lives of the people here. Encourage others over whom you have some sway to do the same.

No one said it was based on lust, Dsolo. No one. You're beating the stuffing out of a straw man and pretending you are addressing the contentions of other members. Secondly, gay marriage isn't a difficult issue as far as I'm concerned. It's inane. If a certain member wants to poison the well of discussion by referring to "haters" and "intolerance" please discuss this with her. I have no influence.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 06:17 PM
No, just the ones who insist on determining for others what a marriage should be.

History, culture, and tradition determined (note tense) what a marriage is.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 06:18 PM
Thank you for the kind words, Dada. The "issue" has been turned upside down and inside out to such an extent, it is almost not possible to know up from down any longer.

I see angry attacks rather than "kind words". You're not helping, Dsolo.

Alias
04-17-2012, 06:20 PM
No, just the ones who insist on determining for others what a marriage should be.

Civilized society the world over has seen marriage as a man and a woman for thousands of years. That doesn't make then a "hater". Knock off the dumb ass crap.

dadakarma
04-17-2012, 06:22 PM
Civilized society the world over has seen marriage as a man and a woman for thousands of years. That doesn't make then a "hater". Knock off the dumb ass crap.

I'll post my opinion as I please. You have options if the words on your screen hurt you so.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 06:23 PM
I'll post my opinion as I please. You have options if the words on your screen hurt you so.

Yet you bristle when someone posts their opinion of you. Are you for real? :rollseyes:

Alias
04-17-2012, 06:35 PM
I'll post my opinion as I please. You have options if the words on your screen hurt you so.

Stop calling people haters who disagree with you. That's sick.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 06:37 PM
Stop calling people haters who disagree with you. That's sick.

Yes, it is sick and it poisons the well. How can a discussion possibly be had when someone has an attitude like her's? You disagree with me!? You're evil!

Alias
04-17-2012, 06:39 PM
Yes, it is sick and it poisons the well. How can a discussion possibly be had when someone has an attitude like her's? You disagree with me!? You're evil!

That's all they have. That's why everyone is a bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, hater, and a big poopy pants unless you go along with the tribe. Piss on her and all the miscreant big govt dweebs she rode in with. I've never seen such hateful losers.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:03 PM
I'm sorry if your marriage is based on lust but please speak for yourself and your wife.
No one said it was based on lust, Dsolo. No one.
Since I've never said that marriage is based on lust, what are you talking about?

And if you now agree with me it is not about lust, what possible difference could it make whether we are talking about spiritual communion between heterosexuals or homosexuals?

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:16 PM
Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.

Once it's clear that sin qua non of marriage from time immemorial is about spiritual communion, and not the lusting of either heterosexual or homosexual adults, the "problem" disappears.

Yes, you did. No one suggested anything of the kind. It's a straw man.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:18 PM
Since I've never said that marriage is based on lust, what are you talking about?

And if you now agree with me it is not about lust, what possible difference could it make whether we are talking about spiritual communion between heterosexuals or homosexuals?

Again, marriage is what it is. This is true across cultures, religions, and epochs.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:30 PM
Again, marriage is what it is. This is true across cultures, religions, and epochs.No, it is not.

And the burden of showing otherwise, the heaviest burden possible, is on he would deny a fundamental liberty to a group of people.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:34 PM
No, it is not.

And the burden of showing otherwise, the heaviest burden possible, is on he would deny a fundamental liberty to a group of people.

You are free to make the argument that marriage is not as I've described it. We've dealt with Boswell. I'll wait.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:36 PM
my position:


Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.

Do you agree with that statement or not?

Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.


Once it's clear that sin qua non of marriage from time immemorial is about spiritual communion, and not the lusting of either heterosexual or homosexual adults, the "problem" disappears.If sexuality, and the urge to satisfy it are not what "it is", you are arguing a distinction that renders the question whether the adults are heterosexual, homosexual, or omni-sexual moot.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:37 PM
Moreover, the right to marriage is enjoyed by homosexuals.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:39 PM
my position:



Do you agree with that statement or not?

Genitalia and sexuality - irrelevant.

If sexuality, and the urge to satisfy it are not what "it is", you are arguing a distinction that renders the question whether the adults are heterosexual, homosexual, or omni-sexual moot.

Dsolo, this really isn't complicated. Marriage is what it is and much of humanity has satisfied their "urge" outside of this institution. Really, you're just being silly now.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:42 PM
Dsolo, this really isn't complicated. Marriage is what it is and much of humanity has satisfied their "urge" outside of this institution. Really, you're just being silly now.Is sexuality irrelevant to your argument about what marriage is - or not? Simple question.

wingrider
04-17-2012, 07:47 PM
Is sexuality irrelevant to your argument about what marriage is - or not? Simple question. after being married for 42 years I can tell you that sexuality is only a small part of what being married is. there are a host of things that go into a marriage.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:49 PM
Is sexuality irrelevant to your argument about what marriage is - or not? Simple question.

:laugh: Dude, it's a union of male and female. This really isn't complicated. If you disagree I'll wait for your counter argument.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:49 PM
after being married for 42 years I can tell you that sexuality is only a small part of what being married is. there are a host of things that go into a marriage.

I'm not even sure what he means by sexuality? Biological sex? Orientation?

wingrider
04-17-2012, 07:51 PM
I'm not even sure what he means by sexuality? Biological sex? Orientation?
it is possible someday he might clarify his point .. but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:52 PM
it is possible someday he might clarify his point .. but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath

It just amazes me how people can be so passionate about something so ridiculous.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:52 PM
after being married for 42 years I can tell you that sexuality is only a small part of what being married is. there are a host of things that go into a marriage.If you can have a marriage without the sexual dimension, which is my point, that means sexual orientation cannot even arguably be a disqualifying factor.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 07:55 PM
If you can have a marriage without the sexual dimension, which is my point, that means sexual orientation cannot even arguably be a disqualifying factor.

Many men and women have married over the years for a variety of reasons without ever having had sex with each other. Again, it is what it is. Old gay Joe Smith can "marry" lesbian Juanita to bring her into the country but Joe can't do the same for Pablo. :grin:

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 07:59 PM
:laugh: Dude, it's a union of male and female. This really isn't complicated. If you disagree I'll wait for your counter argument.So its between a man and a woman, but its not about sexual attraction.

Both of these things can only be true if you are talking about male and female principle - yin and yang - which has nothing to do with external sex organs. Every man and every woman has within both male and female principles. That polarity can be as active between adults of the same sex, as any between a man and a woman.

So you have a chance to say whether in your mind "it" is about sexual organs - or not.

wingrider
04-17-2012, 08:01 PM
If you can have a marriage without the sexual dimension, which is my point, that means sexual orientation cannot even arguably be a disqualifying factor. well first you are going to have to get the supreme court to see it your way, and that is going to be a tough sell, marriage is between a man and a women, but you can still have a civil union,,

Peter1469
04-17-2012, 08:01 PM
Why does government have any interest whatsoever in marriage?

dadakarma
04-17-2012, 08:02 PM
Why does government have any interest whatsoever in marriage?

Because many of its puppets and patrons are bible thumpers.

Mister D
04-17-2012, 08:03 PM
So its between a man and a woman, but its not about sexual attraction.

Both of these things can only be true if you are talking about male and female principle - yin and yang - which has nothing to do with external sex organs. Every man and every woman has within both male and female principles. That polarity can be as active between adults of the same sex, as any between a man and a woman.

So you have a chance to say whether in your mind "it" is about sexual organs - or not.

:laugh: It's between a man and a woman. Period. Understand now? It's not complicated, sir.

Now he's talking about male and female "principles". :rollseyes:

Peter1469
04-17-2012, 08:04 PM
Because many of its puppets and patrons are bible thumpers.

So get government out of it altogether. Problem solved.

dadakarma
04-17-2012, 08:05 PM
So get government out of it altogether. Problem solved.

Sounds good to me.

dsolo802
04-17-2012, 08:06 PM
It just amazes me how people can be so passionate about something so ridiculous.How coarse and hard do you have to become before the denial of anyone's fundamental civil liberties becomes a laughing matter?

When you can't find passion inside for fundamental individual liberties, it's time to do a humanity check.

Conley
04-17-2012, 08:07 PM
So get government out of it altogether. Problem solved.

Agreed.

wingrider
04-17-2012, 08:07 PM
here is the thing 100 percent of divorces is caused by marriage. so to reduce the divorce rate, disallow marriage, let people revert back to the animal kingdom and act accordingly, there ...problem solved.