FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

[Blake]

Why must the sexual acts of individuals be the concern of the government? In what section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is sex mentioned at all? TJ seemed like a rather randy fellow himself, but even he didn't think it was that important.

Since when is it the purpose of the government to outlaw/discourage/whatever sin? There are many sins that are perfectly legal. Then there are sins such as banging a woman other than your wife, but somehow that should be without consequences. To the extent homosexuality represents a sin as sex outside of marriage, well, so does every other kind of sex. Shit, we can't even agree on what constitutes sin to begin with.

Before I forget, we have two groups of fundamentalist nuts known as political parties in these United States. One group focuses on the sins of individuals, the other on the sins of man. Neither wants to leave you alone. They actually represent two wings of the same progressive movement, over a century old now. Gone is the country in which at least a good portion of the population was free to do as they pleased so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to do as they pleased. Instead of extending that freedom to all, we end up with this dogshit to which most of you subscribe. Fuck you.

I don't recall homosexuality ever being illegal at the federal level.

[FromWayDowntown]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of homosexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

The generalizations of the Constitution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Constitution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights.

[Blake]

why is that relevant?

It's not really relevant to anything you've said.

Why is my asking someone else's opinion relevant to you?

[spursncowboys]

I've read in numerous places that our founding fathers wanted no part of religion in the Constitution.
I've also read that but I also read that it was more of denomination and not religion.

[Blake]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of homosexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.

[spursncowboys]

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.
There were many who wanted it illegal from the beginning. I think they worded it so it would one day become illegal.

[ploto]

Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out.

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.

[BacktoBasics]

Hi jack. Tough day at Tyson?

[spursncowboys]

The generalizations of the Constitution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Constitution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights.
re so people could practice any christian religious denomination they want- not forbiding people from practicing their religion. I could be wrong and maybe they thought ahead that muslims should be able to practice alongside christians. I personally believe they should but I just wonder if they had that forward thinking like that.

[jack sommerset]

I wonder if they ever thought slavery would be illegal.

They did the right thing there but damn that would be a great time to live in. I would have me a whole flock of slaves working, singing, cooking and bathing me. Only women. Actually I would like slaves in our current time period or maybe in the future! They don't have to be a certain color. I'm not racist.

[spursncowboys]

The generalizations of the Constitution -- beyond the relatively rigid structure and obligations of the government -- and particularly the Bill of Rights suggest (to me, at least) that the Framers of the Constitution weren't concerned with perpetuating any particular party, ideology, or morality.

What concerned them was protecting individual freedom and ensuring (in the broadest terms possible) that the government's ability to intrude upon those freedoms should be severely limited. Individual freedoms, above all else; protecting the political/social minority from the whims of any majority that might try to limit its rights. EDIT: I accidentally erased half my post and then hit submit. Don't feel like rewriting it.

[Phenomanul]

I'll at least attempt to show some support for my statement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/Who-Supports-Marijuana-Legalization.aspx

Approximately 1/3 of men and women under the age of 49 as of 2005 support its legalization. No doubt that figure is higher now. No doubt there are people out there that support it but are afraid to say anything.

I consider a third to be widespread.

I typically don't Google other people's assertions... my reply was meant as a question... not a snide one, hence my use of the word "interesting..."

My initial point stands however, were such measures ever brought before voting booths a third is not nearly enough to pass it. So obviously, there is enough anti-marijuana sentiment here to keep them from passing. Apparently in Holland and Sweden, the homosexual marriage/civil union laws passed without much fuss. There is less anti-gay sentiment in those two countries than what you tried to portray. That deals somewhat of a blow to your assumption that homosexual people are choosing not to marry out of 'fear' or 'ridicule' in that dataset.

[Winehole23]

...

[spursncowboys]

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.
Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

[jack sommerset]

EDIT: I accidentally erased half my post and then hit submit. Don't feel like rewriting it.

I don't blame you. Gets boring after awhile. I found this fucked up. Some gay dudes don't have anal sex at all. They just suck and jerk each other off. I really don't have an opinion on that. Thought it was weird. It certainly makes you a fag still.

[Phenomanul]

I agree with snackbar.......it's an irrelevant truth

even if a very small percent of homosexual marriages were to work, it still should be legal.

If divorce rates were to ever reach 70-80% for straight marriages, are you going to argue that marriage should be illegal altogether?


I'm not talking about whether they work or not... those were assumptions being made by the article.

I'm talking about their disposition to enter those agreements in the first place.

[FromWayDowntown]

re so people could practice any christian religious denomination they want- not forbiding people from practicing their religion. I could be wrong and maybe they thought ahead that muslims should be able to practice alongside christians. I personally believe they should but I just wonder if they had that forward thinking like that.

You seem to assume that the Constitution is rooted in some notion of Christianity being an orthodoxy that tolerates other religious viewpoints in the manner in which people exercise their religious beliefs. While it's true that the Free Exercise Clause was surely intended to assure that Muslims could practice their religion alongside Christians (or Druids or Santerians or Pagans or any devotees of any other religion), the very existence of the Establishment Clause suggests strongly that the Framers intended to protect AGAINST government becoming a wholly Christian endeavor (and certainly against government becoming exclusively Christian).

So, yes, they had that forward thinking like that -- if you consider the promotion of diversity (at least religious diversity) to be forward thinking.

[ploto]

Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

Neither- the government upholds certain individual rights.

[ChumpDumper]

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...? That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

[spursncowboys]

Neither- the government upholds certain individual rights.
Our elected officials do not uphold individual rights. They SHOULD uphold the constitution. Though they don't.

[admiralsnackbar]

Is that because the govt. knows what is best for the majority. Or because the govt. is the decider of what is good?
Slippery slope.

Not really. If for some reason a majority of the polity is found to be depriving a minority rights which they appear to be constitutionally entitled to, the government is often pushed into the role of defending said minority. While the ACLU is a non-profit, they advocate and try to expedite legislative action for groups who find themselves in this sort of position. I'd say it's less a slippery slope and more an eternally contentious one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Our elected officials do not uphold individual rights. They SHOULD uphold the constitution. Though they don't.

The Constitution protects individual rights from infringement by the government (through the acts of elected officials). One could argue that the you're absolutely right in suggesting that elected officials who infringe upon individual rights by their official actions do not uphold the Constitution.

Of course, the legal issue in the same-sex marriage debate is ENTIRELY about whether laws prohibiting same sex marriage infringe upon the rights of those individuals to marry without some compelling justification for the prohibition.

[Marcus Bryant]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of homosexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

I wonder if our Founding Fathers thought they'd be regarded one day as a bunch of Southern Baptist fundy prudes.

[Phenomanul]

Actually, that is not true. At times, it is the job of the government to insure the rights of the minority, even against the wishes of the majority.

When it concerns the denial of basic human rights... I agree. Hence the Bill of Rights.

The provisions afforded to marriages are closer to 'terms of contract'...

The IRS muddled it all up...

As I mentioned earlier I could care less whether or not homosexuals in this nation were granted all of the same provisions that are extended to heterosexual marriages. If you look closely however... most of them are monetary in nature, or have tax implications (even the healthcare ones, and beaurevement of leave, etc... they boil down to money). IMO the adoption of children for growth in that environment is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb - as not relating to the others. That and obviously the insistance that certain passages of the bible be stripped out and labeled as 'hate' speech.

[BacktoBasics]

I typically don't Google other people's assertions... my reply was meant as a question... not a snide one, hence my use of the word "interesting..."

My initial point stands however, were such measures ever brought before voting booths a third is not nearly enough to pass it. So obviously, there is enough anti-marijuana sentiment here to keep them from passing. Apparently in Holland and Sweden, the homosexual marriage/civil union laws passed without much fuss. There is less anti-gay sentiment in those two countries than what you tried to portray. That deals somewhat of a blow to your assumption that homosexual people are choosing not to marry out of 'fear' or 'ridicule' in that dataset.Just because an elected official put their vote forward doesn't mean we can assume that it truly represents everyone as a whole or majority. This has been proven time and time again. It doesn't protect jack and jack from being dealt a raw hand from their boss or their coworkers who are likely still bigots. I'm certain that even if gay marriage were allowed any where in the states that there would be thousands that still wouldn't come forward because of the potential repercussions from the work place...or even their personal lives.

If we legalized same sex marriages do you really think the discrimination would stop? How can you reasonably assume that it isn't prevalent in a place like Sweden....aren't they predominately Roman Catholic? Regardless of that...its still an odd assumption.

Ever since you posted your assumption of easy going for these people outside of the states I've been more than interested in the reality of that. I think if you take the time to look around those people are still fighting quite the war against discrimination. Their hate crimes, particularly gay ones aren't too far off percentage wise from where we're at here. Which supports my idea that their legal rights are just a small victory in the bigger picture for equality.

People. Many. Thousands if not millions still discriminated against blacks even when they were granted their freedoms. Same with women and their rights. It took decades of being "legal" before society as a whole begin to accept the fact that they should or would be on the same playing field. Many argue that its still not fair or equal.

On the other note. Marijuana is now legal in many more capacities than it once was. More and more states are pushing to either decriminalize it or make it legal altogether. So "the third" more or less is becoming a factor and/or the fat cats supposedly representing them.

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't recall homosexuality ever being illegal at the federal level.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' & prior related policies, to begin with.

[Phenomanul]

That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

:blah

ummm... chumpy... way to twist my argument (if you even followed it). That's not what I'm saying at all...

I've mentioned repeatedly that I have no qualms about granting homosexuals the same priviledges extended to heterosexual couples... (with the exception of the children issue)

Quota?

All of my references to the democratic system have been in defense of employing my right to influence the governing laws of the land. A right your side continually tries to lobby against. "You can't impose your morallity on others..." etc... etc... etc.... While I certainly don't do that, I have a right to vote whatever way suits my beliefs. Just as homosexuals have the right to vote whatever way suits them...

But go ahead and jump to conclusions... you always do, and get all snide, and chippy when called out for it.

[FromWayDowntown]

When it concerns the denial of basic human rights... I agree. Hence the Bill of Rights.

What are "basic human rights?" Where is the line of demarcation between something that is a basic human right and immune from governmental intrusion and something that is more akin to a privilege afforded by government?

What's become problematic to the position that marriage is not a "right," is a long history of according benefits (as previously discussed) to those who enjoy that relationship without making those benefits available to those do not and the subsequent understanding (a rather reasonable and understandable one, I think) that if government chooses to define the availability of benefits by status, the opportunity to avail oneself of the status becomes a right. That right -- like almost any other -- should be subject to infringement only when compelling justifications for limitation exist (i.e., the legal incapacity of a party to enter into that status (why minors cannot marry) or the deleterious effects that could follow to innocent third parties if the status is permitted (why there are compelling reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages)).

And what this thread has been about, really, is arguing whether there are compelling justifications to prohibit marriages of same-sex couples who would otherwise qualify for marriage.

If government chooses to offer benefits based on the choice to marry, it seems implausible to me that it can functionally prohibit qualifying couples from attaining that status based on nothing other than the gender of the individuals in that relationship. Government can get out of the business of making marriage a monetarily-beneficial relationship and that would, frankly, solve most of these problems. But if it chooses to confer benefits based on the existence of a marriage, I'm not sure it can engage in gender-based discrimination in determining who can attain that status.

[Blake]

I'm not talking about whether they work or not... those were assumptions being made by the article.

I'm talking about their disposition to enter those agreements in the first place.

why is their disposition to enter those agreements an issue?

[ChumpDumper]

:blah

ummm... chumpy... way to twist my argument (if you even followed it). That's not what I'm saying at all...

I've mentioned repeatedly that I have no qualms about granting homosexuals the same priviledges extended to heterosexual couples... (with the exception of the children issue)

Quota?

All of my references to the democratic system have been in defense of employing my right to influence the governing laws of the land. A right your side continually tries to lobby against. "You can't impose your morallity on others..." etc... etc... etc.... While I certainly don't do that, I have a right to vote whatever way suits my beliefs. Just as homosexuals have the right to vote whatever way suits them...

But go ahead and jump to conclusions... you always do, and get all snide, and chippy when called out for it.Your post had nothing to do with simply exercising your right as a voter -- you were giving a rationale why voters might deny those rights to homosexuals -- because most of them won't get married anyway.

It was a weak one.

Now you are being disingenuous about what you were posting. Simply voting the way you feel has nothing to do with any statistic, so there would be no reason to bring them up.

[Marcus Bryant]

Basic human right = dick in pussy other than your wife's.

End of civilization = homos.

How about the state leaves the marriage business?

[Blake]

That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

I'm would love to know what the quota is....

snc, care to take a shot at a quota?

[Blake]

IMO the adoption of children for growth in that environment is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb - as not relating to the others.

Why is this a concern to you?

[Blake]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' & prior related policies, to begin with.

"don't ask, don't tell" pertains to gays in the military.

You cannot be thrown in jail for telling someone you are gay.

[Phenomanul]

Just because an elected official put their vote forward doesn't mean we can assume that it truly represents everyone as a whole or majority. This has been proven time and time again. It doesn't protect jack and jack from being dealt a raw hand from their boss or their coworkers who are likely still bigots. I'm certain that even if gay marriage were allowed any where in the states that there would be thousands that still wouldn't come forward because of the potential repercussions from the work place...or even their personal lives.

If we legalized same sex marriages do you really think the discrimination would stop? How can you reasonably assume that it isn't prevalent in a place like Sweden....aren't they predominately Roman Catholic? Regardless of that...its still an odd assumption.

Ever since you posted your assumption of easy going for these people outside of the states I've been more than interested in the reality of that. I think if you take the time to look around those people are still fighting quite the war against discrimination. Their hate crimes, particularly gay ones aren't too far off percentage wise from where we're at here. Which supports my idea that their legal rights are just a small victory in the bigger picture for equality.

People. Many. Thousands if not millions still discriminated against blacks even when they were granted their freedoms. Same with women and their rights. It took decades of being "legal" before society as a whole begin to accept the fact that they should or would be on the same playing field. Many argue that its still not fair or equal.

On the other note. Marijuana is now legal in many more capacities than it once was. More and more states are pushing to either decriminalize it or make it legal altogether. So "the third" more or less is becoming a factor and/or the fat cats supposedly representing them.

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their homosexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married homosexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.

[Marcus Bryant]

"don't ask, don't tell" pertains to gays in the military.

You cannot be thrown in jail for telling someone you are gay.

Once upon a time you could and without recourse at the federal level that stood. Next.

[Blake]

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their homosexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married homosexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.

I'm trying to figure out why you keep bringing this up if you don't care about it.

The relatively low number of homosexuals running to the altar is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their homosexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married homosexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.A lot here to talk about just one simple aspect of your point I'll touch on. Being openly gay for a poll isn't the same as being openly gay at the work place or openly gay to everyone else. If I had a permit for medical marijuana in Cali I wouldn't tell my employer about it. Its not worth the risk. Perhaps if down the road it became the norm I wouldn't mind being so open about it. Time would tell. Laws against discrimination are certainly beneficial but what good are they when you've been fired for some trumped up load of crap and your rent is due in two weeks.

[Phenomanul]

Your post had nothing to do with simply exercising your right as a voter -- you were giving a rationale why voters might deny those rights to homosexuals -- because most of them won't get married anyway.

It was a weak one.

Now you are being disingenuous about what you were posting. Simply voting the way you feel has nothing to do with any statistic, so there would be no reason to bring them up.

I never made that claim.

Post my posts in the order leading up to the framework you are suggesting. I can almost guarantee that you are reading it through your usual "I must always win the argument" goggles.

If you are referring to my response to B2B... that had nothing to do with homosexual rights denial... and everything to do with addressing the alleged prevalence of anti-gay sentiment in countries that have in effect voted to grant homosexual marriages (and even adoption) there. If they voted to let those provisions pass through the legislation, they must not be as anti-gay as B2B originally suggested. It had nothing to do with quotas, or denying them anything here. ¿Comprende ahora?

Geeesh... way to build a strawman CD. Your accusation was neither here nor there. :lmao

[Blake]

Once upon a time you could and without recourse at the federal level that stood. Next.

state and local level laws.

I was just wondering why you were asking about sex in the Bill of Rights or Constitution when this thread really isn't about gay sex.

[Phenomanul]

I'm trying to figure out why you keep bringing this up if you don't care about it.

The relatively low number of homosexuals running to the altar is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

Just show me where I said they shouldn't get married. :wakeup

[Marcus Bryant]

state and local level laws.

Doesn't matter.




I was just wondering why you were asking about sex in the Bill of Rights or Constitution when this thread really isn't about gay sex.

Yet the topic is.

[Blake]

Just show me where I said they shouldn't get married. :wakeup

so you are indifferent yourself. you are simply justifying the OP's position.

Got it.

[Marcus Bryant]

So either the state penalizes sins (well, certain ones found unfavorable by a majority) or it insists on equality in everything to extremes. How about the state gets out of the matter altogether? Obviously American politics are being discussed, for liberty is not considered.

[Blake]

Yet the topic is.

no it's not, but I won't stop you from believing it is.

[Marcus Bryant]

no it's not, but I won't stop you from believing it is.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3923129&postcount=1


MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP


HEALTH RISKS

Duh.

[Phenomanul]

What are "basic human rights?" Where is the line of demarcation between something that is a basic human right and immune from governmental intrusion and something that is more akin to a privilege afforded by government?

What's become problematic to the position that marriage is not a "right," is a long history of according benefits (as previously discussed) to those who enjoy that relationship without making those benefits available to those do not and the subsequent understanding (a rather reasonable and understandable one, I think) that if government chooses to define the availability of benefits by status, the opportunity to avail oneself of the status becomes a right. That right -- like almost any other -- should be subject to infringement only when compelling justifications for limitation exist (i.e., the legal incapacity of a party to enter into that status (why minors cannot marry) or the deleterious effects that could follow to innocent third parties if the status is permitted (why there are compelling reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages)).

And what this thread has been about, really, is arguing whether there are compelling justifications to prohibit marriages of same-sex couples who would otherwise qualify for marriage.

If government chooses to offer benefits based on the choice to marry, it seems implausible to me that it can functionally prohibit qualifying couples from attaining that status based on nothing other than the gender of the individuals in that relationship. Government can get out of the business of making marriage a monetarily-beneficial relationship and that would, frankly, solve most of these problems. But if it chooses to confer benefits based on the existence of a marriage, I'm not sure it can engage in gender-based discrimination in determining who can attain that status.

I can agree with most of this... This might be a bit of a red-herring, but if most of Americans justified murder, that still wouldn't make it right. If the laws couldn't help you, and the government had all but abandoned its protection of that right, and the laws in effect sanctioned it, who would step up to voice their dissent?

The part I bolded in essence substantiates why my only qualm in this matter (the homosexual issue) arises on the issue of child rearing and development. Let homosexuals have every other benefit available out there. But on this issue... I don't believe we would ever get the right data pool to assess whether or not the detrimental effects to children posed in this environment are greater than normal (again, not that normal homes provide the perfect setting either)...

The only such pool that exists, exists in Sweden.... and not too many homosexual couples there have taken advantage of that provision either. Not that it matters though, people here don't find the Swedes to be of much relevance. :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, if it wasn't about sex, what exactly would form the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual? God. Damn.

[Phenomanul]

so you are indifferent yourself. you are simply justifying the OP's position.

Got it.

hmmm... not really... I've really only argued that:

1) The data set from Sweden and the Netherlands is relevant, even when most of the other data seemed skewed. My first post essentially backed B2B's observation on its incompatibility for cross-reference against policy making in the US...

2) Christians don't hate homosexuals (the actions of a few don't define our doctrine)

3) I can vote as I see fit...

4) Homosexuals are also granted the right to vote...

5) Homosexual promiscuity initially stood out... followed by the staggering disproportion of Dutch and Swede homosexuals electing not to get married.

6) And throughout I've mentioned that I'm fine with letting the government grant them all of the provisions extended to heterosexual marriages.

[FromWayDowntown]

The part I bolded in essence substantiates why my only qualm in this matter arises on the issue of child rearing and development. Let homosexuals have every other benefit out there. But on this issue... I don't believe we would ever get the right data pool to assess whether or not detrimental effects to children are posed in this environment beyond the normal (again, not that normal homes provide the perfect setting either)...

Certainly you're not suggesting that heterosexual marriages immunize their participants from being crappy, abusive, neglectful, or unavailable parents. I mean, I can't see a conclusive case that a child reared by a homosexual couple that must take affirmative steps to become parents of that child is in a manifestly worse circumstance than a child who is born to a heterosexual couple (married or not) that doesn't give a whit about being parents or the responsibilities it brings.

The language of mine that you bolded has everything to do with the genetic problems that are scientifically likely to occur in products of incest. For rather obvious reasons, that concern is inapplicable to same sex couples who wish to marry.

[Al Koholik]

Why are y'all still arguing? Just let the homos play hide the sausage in the pooper and be done with it. If they want to get married and then get divorced only to let the skank of the relationship take everything then who cares? I wish they didn't let straight people get married, then maybe I would still have my car!

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the "I'll vote as I see fit and if my side gains the most votes, it should be the law" argument lost in around 1865. It's quite clear that the vote of the majority won't (and shouldn't) always control, particularly where that vote results in arbitrary limitations on the rights of minority groups.

[Phenomanul]

Certainly you're not suggesting that heterosexual marriages immunize their participants from being crappy, abusive, neglectful, or unavailable parents. I mean, I can't see a conclusive case that a child reared by a homosexual couple that must take affirmative steps to become parents of that child is in a manifestly worse circumstance than a child who is born to a heterosexual couple (married or not) that doesn't give a whit about being parents or the responsibilities it brings.

The language of mine that you bolded has everything to do with the genetic problems that are scientifically likely to occur in products of incest. For rather obvious reasons, that concern is inapplicable to same sex couples who wish to marry.

I stated that much myself...

As for my reasons.... they would never be broadly accepted by the forum's liberals... pfffftttt... they would first have to believe that GOD existed in order to accept that He could be a unifying influence in the home; hence preventing their failure. Obviously not all heterosexual families fall in that category. And not all 'self-proclaimed Christian' families actually live by the Christian ideals either, which would make them just as susceptible to failure.... But that's another can of worms... :lol Homosexuals obviously couldn't fall in the first pool... hence the dilemma.

[Supergirl]

Here's a thought: The fact that so many posters are preoccupied with what people do in bed is precisely the root of homophobia and anti-gay marriage sentiment.

If you knew what your straight friends did in bed you might not want to support their marriages either? But so what if they're into bdsm, water sports, or swinging? It's their business, and no one asks them about it before they apply for a marriage license. Some gay men like anal sex but lots don't. Some lesbians use toys, some don't. Whatever. Get over it. It's no one's business what anyone else does in bed and this should not be the basis for what civil rights (read: rights awarded by the government) are handed out. If civil rights are being offered - including marriage rights - they should be offered regardless of what people do in bed and with whom.

[FromWayDowntown]

I stated that much myself...

As for my reasons.... they would never be broadly accepted by the forum's liberals... pfffftttt... they would first have to believe that GOD existed in order to accept that He could be a unifying influence in the home; hence preventing their failure. Obviously not all heterosexual families fall in that category. And not all 'self-proclaimed Christian' families actually live by the Christian ideals either, which would make them just as susceptible to failure.... But that's another can of worms... :lol Homosexuals obviously couldn't fall in the first pool... hence the dilemma.

Homosexuals cannot believe that God exists? Homosexuals cannot believe in God? Homosexuals cannot be Christians? Homosexuals cannot believe that God could be a unifying influence in the home?

[ChumpDumper]

Homosexuals cannot believe that God exists? Homosexuals cannot believe in God? Homosexuals cannot be Christians? Homosexuals cannot believe that God could be a unifying influence in the home?God is required for a home to not fail?

How would one codify this requirement to your satisfaction?

[FromWayDowntown]

God is required for a home to not fail?

How would one codify this requirement to your satisfaction?

I need no such satisfaction; to the extent that you're responding to me, I disagree with the initial premise.

I am, however, incredulous to Phenomanul's apparent notion that gays are categorically incapable of meeting that standard.

[ChumpDumper]

I need no such satisfaction; to the extent that you're responding to me, I disagree with the initial premise.

I am, however, incredulous to Phenomanul's apparent notion that gays are categorically incapable of meeting that standard.I was just piling on with your questions.

I find it hilarious that homosexuals need to prove all this while heterosexuals don't have to do squat.

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't really care about what people do in their homes. I used to, I mean, I used to think about what females did by themselves. A lot. Anyways.

Regardless of caring or not, I do care whether or not the state cares or not. And you should too. I'm not sure when Christianity became centered on other people's sins and not your own. Probably about the first time a politician was seeking to gain or retain office.

Anyways, why is it so exceedingly hard for some to separate religious beliefs from political beliefs? (And while this topic is sex and afflicts generally the right wing, there are plenty of vestiges of religious fundamentalism which inflict the left wing in its worldview, at least in the US).

[jack sommerset]

I can almost guarantee that you are reading it through your usual "I must always win the argument" goggles.

I don't think chumpy cares about winning the argument. Maybe, sometimes but not most.

[spursncowboys]

God is required for a home to not fail?


yes

[ploto]

The part I bolded in essence substantiates why my only qualm in this matter (the homosexual issue) arises on the issue of child rearing and development. Let homosexuals have every other benefit available out there.

I find this claim irrelevant because we all know that homosexuals can already raise children, even without a marriage. Plenty of gay women have given birth to their own children. Are you planing to stop this somehow?

[spursncowboys]

I find this claim irrelevant because we all know that homosexuals can already raise children, even without a marriage. Plenty of gay women have given birth to their own children. Are you planing to stop this somehow?

Right because homosexuality is a choice. It is a sexual act. there is no heritage homos come from or a culture.

[Phenomanul]

Homosexuals cannot believe that God exists?

Sure they can... BTW that comment was in reference to some of this forum's liberal members.


Homosexuals cannot believe in God?

Sure they can... even Satan believes in GOD; that doesn't mean that he adhere's to GOD's standards. Being sinless is not a requisite for belief in GOD. Anyone can believe in Him. For that matter, and something you obviously excluded from my previous response was that I also suggested that many self-proclaimed Christians don't "walk the talk."


Homosexuals cannot be Christians?

They would have to be convicted by the Holy Spirit that their sexual lifestyles are an abomination before GOD... Sure, no one is perfect or devoid of sin... we're all in need of GOD's forgiveness; the premise then would be whether or not a homosexual individual could live with that constant duality. Constantly having to reconcile GOD's statues with the deviant desires of their heart... it simply doesn't work. I personally know three homosexual individuals who have come to our church over the years.... one of them couldn't live with this dilemma, and left... the other two are happily married with partners of the opposite sex; they share their testimony of their past life by describing it as a life of sexual entrapment... always suggesting they had the choice...


Homosexuals cannot believe that God could be a unifying influence in the home?

Strawman based on the premise of the answer above.


But hey, I know these aren't the popular answers, in a world where people are afraid to state what they believe. Do I look down on gays? No... I have flaws of my own, and have never been in a position to judge my 'brother'. That doesn't mean I have to forcebly believe that something that goes against GOD's righteousness is 'normal'.

[Phenomanul]

I was just piling on with your questions.

I find it hilarious that homosexuals need to prove all this while heterosexuals don't have to do squat.

All people are accountable before GOD for their actions... we're also held accountable for our children... I didn't suggest otherwise... you simply glossed over the fact where I stated that heterosexual marriages were also far from perfect.... conveniently so, I would add...

[Phenomanul]

I find this claim irrelevant because we all know that homosexuals can already raise children, even without a marriage. Plenty of gay women have given birth to their own children. Are you planing to stop this somehow?

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two homosexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.

[ChumpDumper]

God is required for a home to not fail?


yes:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

All people are accountable before GOD for their actions... we're also held accountable for our children... I didn't suggest otherwise... you simply glossed over the fact where I stated that heterosexual marriages were also far from perfect.... conveniently so, I would add...So are you proposing a God test for them too before they get married?

Whatever hoops you want homosexuals to jump through, you need to apply them to heterosexuals too if you don't want to be labeled a hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

I have flaws of my own, and have never been in a position to judge my 'brother'.:lol

You sure are judging their fitness as parents.

[ploto]

But the opposite scenario with two homosexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto?

I know gay men who would be a much better father to my child than his/her heterosexual father is.


That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.
There are many heterosexual couples who live in disturbing environments.

[ploto]

Sure, no one is perfect or devoid of sin... we're all in need of GOD's forgiveness; the premise then would be whether or not a homosexual individual could live with that constant duality.
All Christians live with a duality everyday- at least those who are actually self-aware.

[Winehole23]

Rocking the Advent avatar. And this forum.

[spursncowboys]

So are you proposing a God test for them too before they get married?

Whatever hoops you want homosexuals to jump through, you need to apply them to heterosexuals too if you don't want to be labeled a hypocrite.
who is them? The test for marriage now is through god. To redefine it would make it a govt. process and not a religious practice.

[BacktoBasics]

who is them? The test for marriage now is through god.Am I understanding you correctly? Marriage is viable through "god".

[spursncowboys]

All Christians live with a duality everyday- at least those who are actually self-aware.
Sinning and living in sin are different.

[spursncowboys]

Am I understanding you correctly? Marriage is viable through "god".
If you are asking if it will exist physically, sure there will be a marriage certificate. Is that what you mean?

[Fabbs]

Should hetero roomates be allowed the same list of govt benefits the pro gays are pushing?

Just because they are not bopping each other they should be denied?

[spursncowboys]

Since homosexuality is just a sexual preference, it would make sense for couples who are brunettes to have marriage rights. Otherwise you would go against their rights to "marry". Since once you take away the religious aspects of what a marriage is, what is left?

[BacktoBasics]

Since homosexuality is just a sexual preference, it would make sense for couples who are brunettes to have marriage rights. Otherwise you would go against their rights to "marry". Since once you take away the religious aspects of what a marriage is, what is left?Religion doesn't or I guess shouldn't define marriage. Removing the religious aspects of marriage would actually partially restore what marriage was originally intended to be. A union between two people...not a union before god. You guys just inserted that god crap to make it your own.

[cherylsteele]

Since homosexuality is just a sexual preference, it would make sense for couples who are brunettes to have marriage rights. Otherwise you would go against their rights to "marry". Since once you take away the religious aspects of what a marriage is, what is left?
So Aetheists cannot go down the JoP and get married?
A couple doesn't have to get married in a church or other religious setting, it is their choice. You do not have to believe in God to be married. Marriage in the USA is a legality, giving those people rights to visitation, joint tax filing, etc, etc.

You bring up hair which is an absurd analogy, when people use aburd analogies, it usually shows that person is unable to back up their point of view.

[Phenomanul]

So are you proposing a God test for them too before they get married?

Whatever hoops you want homosexuals to jump through, you need to apply them to heterosexuals too if you don't want to be labeled a hypocrite.

I see "jump-to-conclusions" continues to be your favorite game.... :lol

Take someone else's comment and extrapolate it to an extreme.... you do this everytime.

Proposal of what? laughable really.

[ElNono]

Since homosexuality is just a sexual preference, it would make sense for couples who are brunettes to have marriage rights. Otherwise you would go against their rights to "marry". Since once you take away the religious aspects of what a marriage is, what is left?

You're left with what marriage was before your religion hijacked it. That, and a handful of rights granted by the government that are exclusively applied if you have a paper that says you're married.

[Phenomanul]

:lol

You sure are judging their fitness as parents.

The State... and apparently other people here are doing as much... Foster Home committees? Fitness for adoption checks... ring a bell?

Your very implication that I have judged their fitness is a judgement call in-and-of itself... as you certainly see homosexuals fit to be parents... you just haven't realized that you all are making the same type of judgement calls as well.

Everything is a case by case basis...

[Phenomanul]

All Christians live with a duality everyday- at least those who are actually self-aware.

I believe my statement implied that much. The difference is whether or not we are convicted to seek forgiveness... Someone who claims that their lifestyles are normal and not an abomination before the LORD will not also seek repentance for it. After all, why should they? They believe it to be 'normal' behavior. Don't be disingenuous with your suggestion that the two scenarios are the same.

[ChumpDumper]

I see "jump-to-conclusions" continues to be your favorite game.... :lol

Take someone else's comment and extrapolate it to an extreme.... you do this everytime.

Proposal of what? laughable really.it's not my problem you can't see the obvious consequences of what you post.


The State... and apparently other people here are doing as much... Foster Home committees? Fitness for adoption checks... ring a bell?

Your very implication that I have judged their fitness is a judgement call in-and-of itself... as you certainly see homosexuals fit to be parents... you just haven't realized that you all are making the same type of judgement calls as well.

Everything is a case by case basis...I'm not talking about adoption or foster parenting.

Nice straw man.

And even when you are talking about that, you did not claim to consider homosexual male couples on a case-by-case basis. You voiced your bigoted prejudice in that instance quite clearly.

[ploto]

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?
Now, why would one particular sin- that of homosexual practice- be any more wretching upon one's soul than all other sins of greed, lust, sloth, gluttony, envy, pride, and wrath. Do not people live in these sins every day?

[Marcus Bryant]

Now, why would one particular sin- that of homosexual practice- be any more wretching upon one's soul than all other sins of greed, lust, sloth, gluttony, envy, pride, and wrath. Do not people live in these sins every day?

Of course they do. But keep in mind that we are discussing politics and government, first. Is not anyone free to practice the Christian faith regardless of what is legal, what is Caesar's?

Christ died at the hands of tyranny of the state. Now some would have the state impose his teachings on others.

Nevermind their own failings, of course.

[Supergirl]

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two homosexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.

Why is it disturbing? Is it disturbing to have a single man raise a child? What if that single man has a couple close friends who help him babysit? What if he has a roommate who shares parenting responsibilities?

It's only disturbing because you're focused entirely too much on what people do in bed, and that has nothing to do with whether they make good parents.

[jack sommerset]

This might be a stretch to legalize gay marriage. Lawyers should look at cases regarding retards marrying each other. Both have mental issues . Again, I could careless if men marry men but if perhaps looking at the retards you could find a loop hole to put all this legal, do it!!! I hope our government can reconize every union. We just need to figure out away to do that

[Marcus Bryant]

Who wouldn't want to live in a country so free a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman?

[jack sommerset]

Who wouldn't want to live in a country so free a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman?

Not me!!!!!! Looks like alot of folks though.

[ChumpDumper]

Not me!!!!!!So you do care.

[jack sommerset]

So you do care.

Nope. Adding 2 cents.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. Adding 2 cents.2 cents of caring.

You don't care if two men marry but you don't want to live in a country where two men can marry.

[Phenomanul]

Why is it disturbing? Is it disturbing to have a single man raise a child?

If the child was his own or a relative's? No.

If the child was adopted simply because the man wanted to raise a child on his own, I'm sure the State would care... or at least investigate.

By that same corrollary, if the child was adopted because two homosexual men wanted to do something that they were never intended to do (nature never gave them a womb of their own)... obviously the State should care. And before people start posting red-herring tangents (like the topic of infertile mothers), infertility is not a broad affliction affecting all women... it is an unfortunate consequence of chance.



What if that single man has a couple close friends who help him babysit? What if he has a roommate who shares parenting responsibilities?

Babysitting = parenting? Ummm no... the responsibilities are not even close.


It's only disturbing because you're focused entirely too much on what people do in bed, and that has nothing to do with whether they make good parents.

I know that you may feel that a person's sexual predilections have no bearing on their psyche... Obviously, the government does care. Otherwise there wouldn't be any concerns over pedophilia or beastiality, or even someone's sexual offense history (exposers, violent sex, mutilators, or those who have raped women). Now before people start suggesting I'm equating homosexuals with those in that group; I'm simply explaining why your argument that the state shouldn't care what people do in bed is not completely sound...

Maybe you meant that people shouldn't care about what two consenting adults do in bed... that's probably a better arguement... Children are a third party in that scenario however... Obviously if a child reared under two homosexuals also became a homosexual why would society consider that a detriment? After all, if homosexuality was deemed as perfectly 'normal' behavior why would that child's sexual preference be deemed abnormal? That's the slippery slope no one seems to care about...

[jack sommerset]

2 cents of caring.

You don't care if two men marry but you don't want to live in a country where two men can marry.

Nope.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope.Yep. It's not the first time you totally contradicted yourself.

:lol at your denial of something you just posted.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you meant that people shouldn't care about what two consenting adults do in bed... that's probably a better arguement... Children are a third party in that scenario however... Obviously if a child reared under two homosexuals also became a homosexual why would society consider that a detriment? After all, if homosexuality was deemed as perfectly 'normal' behavior why would that child's sexual preference be deemed abnormal? That's the slippery slope no one seems to care about...you think the parents would give the child teh gay?

[ChumpDumper]

I could careless if men marry men


Who wouldn't want to live in a country so free a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman?


Not me!!!!!!

:rollin

[Phenomanul]

it's not my problem you can't see the obvious consequences of what you post.

So you admit to twisting people's comments, and putting words in their mouth..?? that's a start CD, that's a start... :wakeup


I'm not talking about adoption or foster parenting. Perhaps... I'm simply explaining that judgement calls are required under certain scenarios... Decisions the State already makes...


Nice straw man. You seem to think so only because it invalidates your accusation. The State already cares if heterosexual marriages pose a detriment to the development of their children. But you clearly implied that they have no say so in doing the same for homosexuals.


And even when you are talking about that, you did not claim to consider homosexual male couples on a case-by-case basis. You voiced your bigoted prejudice in that instance quite clearly. So now I'm supposed to convey my entire viewpoint every time I post something? That's why the thread exists... go back and read everything in the context of the flow instead of just singling out spot posts here or there... You did that yesterday as well...

[jack sommerset]

Yep. It's not the first time you totally contradicted yourself.

:lol at your denial of something you just posted.

Nope, I don't worry about the gays hooking up. Nor do I care about who wins the Cowboys vs Saints game but I will watch.

[ChumpDumper]

So you admit to twisting people's comments, and putting words in their mouth..?? that's a start CD, that's a start... :wakeupNo, I guess you are admitting to not understanding anything.


Perhaps... I'm simply explaining that judgement calls are required under certain scenarios... Decisions the State already makes...No one is asking for special consideration in those scenarios.


You seem to think so only because it invalidates your accusation. The State already cares if heterosexual marriages pose a detriment to the development of their children. But you clearly implied that they have no say so in doing the same for homosexuals.Again with the complete lack of understanding. Your inference here sucks, but that's expected by now.


So now I'm supposed to convey my entire viewpoint every time I post something? That's why the thread exists... go back and read everything in the context of the flow instead of just singling out spot posts here or there... You did that yesterday as well...Why? Your flow is quite obvious when you voiced your bigoted prejudice about a couple of homosexual men raising a child.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, I don't worry about the gays hooking up. Nor do I care about who wins the Cowboys vs Saints game but I will watch.Maybe I'm not getting the resulting double negative.

[Supergirl]

I know that you may feel that a person's sexual predilections have no bearing on their psyche... Obviously, the government does care. Otherwise there wouldn't be any concerns over pedophilia or beastiality, or even someone's sexual offense history (exposers, violent sex, mutilators, or those who have raped women). Now before people start suggesting I'm equating homosexuals with those in that group; I'm simply explaining why your argument that the state shouldn't care what people do in bed is not completely sound...

Maybe you meant that people shouldn't care about what two consenting adults do in bed... that's probably a better arguement... Children are a third party in that scenario however... Obviously if a child reared under two homosexuals also became a homosexual why would society consider that a detriment? After all, if homosexuality was deemed as perfectly 'normal' behavior why would that child's sexual preference be deemed abnormal? That's the slippery slope no one seems to care about...

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.

[jack sommerset]

Maybe I'm not getting the resulting double negative.

Perhaps. Good night.

[spursncowboys]

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.
So are you saying that there is not gene or DNA that makes someone gay?
What sexual predator argument are you talking about? How was it refuted? I honestly would like to know, if you have the link.
He may not post things that you agree with, but one thing it isn't is ignorant.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two homosexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.Please explain why you are so disturbed by this scenario.

Let's flesh this out so there is no misunderstanding.

[Phenomanul]

No, I guess you are admitting to not understanding anything.

No one is asking for special consideration in those scenarios.

Again with the complete lack of understanding. Your inference here sucks, but that's expected by now.

Why? Your flow is quite obvious when you voiced your bigoted prejudice about a couple of homosexual men raising a child.

No, I understand... I simply expressed my opinion... unless of course you feel that having one is wrong? That's the second time you accuse me of bigotry in this thread... Were that accusation valid, then maybe we should consider you a bigot against Christians?

Why should I forcibly believe that deviant, unnatural sexual behavior be considered normal...?? Are my beliefs not constitutionally protected? I'm not hurting them with my thoughts, am I?

On another note.... You really do hate getting called out don't you? Your arrogance is only dwarfed by your inability to ever concede anything. Apparently every post of yours is mirred with absolute truth... truth that should never questioned or opposed. It's no wonder you always meet dissent with condescension... but that's expected by now. :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.

Ignorance is defined by your inability to converse in a civilized manner... without the use of expletives...

And if you had actually read my post instead of glossing over it... you might have seen that I didn't compare them... I simply said that the State should care, this in response to your suggestion that they shouldn't care at all...

[ChumpDumper]

No, I understand... I simply expressed my opinion... unless of course you feel that having one is wrong? That's the second time you accuse me of bigotry in this thread... Were that accusation valid, then maybe we should consider you a bigot against Christians?I am strongly prejudiced against idiots.


Why should I forcibly believe that deviant, unnatural sexual behavior be considered normal...?? Are my beliefs not constitutionally protected? I'm not hurting them with my thoughts, am I?Is anyone forcing you to believe otherwise?

No.

Straw man.


On another note.... You really do hate getting called out don't you? Your arrogance is only dwarfed by your inability to ever concede anything. Apparently every post of yours is mirred with absolute truth... truth that should never questioned or opposed. It's no wonder you always meet dissent with condescension... but that's expected by now. :wakeupI just conceded I misread a post.

I have not misread any of yours.

Please explain why you find the raising of a child by a male homosexual couple so disturbing.

[Phenomanul]

Please explain why you are so disturbed by this scenario.

Let's flesh this out so there is no misunderstanding.

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.

(Now hurry... extrapolate that comment to some other outrageous, twisted, suggestion.)...

Now If you must... I have to make my leave to finalize tomorrow's Christmas Program... unless that offends you... It's church related... oooooohhhh :wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.That's it?

That's all?

You act as if men were never meant to raise children at all.

Now If you must... I have to make my leave to finalize tomorrow's Christmas Program... unless that offends you... It's church related... oooooohhhh :wakeupI have no objection at all.

Your bigotry amuses me.

[Phenomanul]

I am strongly prejudiced against idiots.

I didn't realize you hated yourself... It's OK man... :lol

But I guess you finally conceded that you are a bigot??? Got it... Unfortunately, I'm no idiot... so target your disdain elsewhere... just not at yourself dude.



Is anyone forcing you to believe otherwise?

No.

Straw man.

By now I've figured out that every argument you deem as a strawman is really an argument you can't argue against...



I just conceded I misread a post.

I have not misread any of yours.

Please explain why you find the raising of a child by a male homosexual couple so disturbing.

Read the thread...
Now I really must leave...

Peace.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't realize you hated yourself... It's OK man... :lol

But I guess you finally conceded that you are a bigot??? Got it... Unfortunately, I'm no idiot... so target your disdain elsewhere... just not at yourself dude. Sure you're an idiot...one that thinks he is smarter than he actually is-- as well as more bigoted.

Now you're flustered and want to play the victim of my alleged anti-Christian oppression. It's cute, but I am pretty far from being anti-Christian. It's just that many of the self-proclaimed Christians her like yourself are idiots and bigots and need to be treated as such.


By now I've figured out that every argument you deem as a strawman is really an argument you can't argue against...By now I've figured out pretty much every argument you have is a straw man argument.


Read the thread...
Now I really must leave... Already did. Your reasoning is terribly weak.

[ChumpDumper]

The problem I have with attitudes like those expressed above by the less tolerant Christians is that they completely and willfully deny that gay and lesbian couples are raising kids right now, regardless of how they came to be parents.

Why talk in the abstract about a gay couple's lack of a womb when kids have been and are being raised by them?

Let's start talking about what actually is instead of what we might like some theoretical religionland to be if we had our druthers.

[spursncowboys]

The problem I have with attitudes like those expressed above by the less tolerant Christians is that they completely and willfully deny that gay and lesbian couples are raising kids right now, regardless of how they came to be parents.

Why talk in the abstract about a gay couple's lack of a womb when kids have been and are being raised by them?

? who did that?

[ChumpDumper]

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.

[ploto]

Part of what annoys me in this conversation is that a number of homosexual couples have been willing to adopt chidlren that others would not. The stories abound of gay couples adopting children with AIDS, emotional and physical problems - kids that sat in foster care for years and still would be were it not for loving people willing to adopt them. Now, would one think it better for these kids to bounce from foster home to foster for the rest of their childhood rather than be adopted by some loving people.

I also have this question about my rights as a woman-- if I got pregnant and I wanted to let a gay couple I know adopt my child, shouldn't I be able to choose to do that? And what if I die- don't I have the right to choose the person or persons to whom I want to entrust my child in my will?

[Blake]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3923129&postcount=1





Duh.


FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Duh.

[Blake]

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two homosexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.

is it not possible at all for two homosexual males to raise a child to be a productive member of society?

if you had a vote, since you have made it quite clear that you don't really care if they get marriage rights or not, are you going to vote against it? or are you not going to vote at all?

[Blake]

If the child was his own or a relative's? No.

If the child was adopted simply because the man wanted to raise a child on his own, I'm sure the State would care... or at least investigate.

By that same corrollary, if the child was adopted because two homosexual men wanted to do something that they were never intended to do (nature never gave them a womb of their own)... obviously the State should care. And before people start posting red-herring tangents (like the topic of infertile mothers), infertility is not a broad affliction affecting all women... it is an unfortunate consequence of chance.



so are you okay with two lesbians raising kids?

[rjv]

Right because homosexuality is a choice. It is a sexual act. there is no heritage homos come from or a culture.


i see SnC is back to his "science" argument again.

[Blake]

i see SnC is back to his "science" argument again.

which is a relatively weak argument against marriage to begin with.

[rjv]

which is a relatively weak argument against marriage to begin with.


yes it is. as are is his "only marriages that can populate the earth should be sanctioned" rants.

[FromWayDowntown]

Part of what annoys me in this conversation is that a number of homosexual couples have been willing to adopt chidlren that others would not. The stories abound of gay couples adopting children with AIDS, emotional and physical problems - kids that sat in foster care for years and still would be were it not for loving people willing to adopt them. Now, would one think it better for these kids to bounce from foster home to foster for the rest of their childhood rather than be adopted by some loving people.

I also have this question about my rights as a woman-- if I got pregnant and I wanted to let a gay couple I know adopt my child, shouldn't I be able to choose to do that? And what if I die- don't I have the right to choose the person or persons to whom I want to entrust my child in my will?

I think, actually, that a compelling argument in favor of adoption by same sex couples is that they must, of necessity, seek out the opportunity to become parents and must, by governmental fiat, undergo substantial pre-screening just to become parents. A fundamentalist might view the situation as "unnatural," because it involves two men raising a child (or two women), but nobody finds it unnatural for a child to live with his mother and grandmother and no man around, or to live with his father and an uncle with no woman around. Even more crucially, though, we're absolutely certain that the child adopted by a same-sex couple will not be raised in a home where the child is considered a "mistake" or is merely the consequence of irresponsible acts that leave the parties resenting the child. Instead, by forcing those individuals to affirmatively seek out the opportunity to parent a child, society has a relative degree of assurance about the willingness to parent that isn't necessary true of the same-sex couples that gave the child up for adoption or will raise the child in an environment of indifference.

Even if you were absolutely convinced that there is no way in hell that a same-sex couple could ever loving raise a child who could become a well-adjusted and productive member of society, the ultimate point concerning marriage is that child-rearing is never a mandate for those who wish to marry. Heterosexual couples who might be shitty parents aren't obligated to reproduce -- and in at least some cases, they might not. But we don't condition their right to marry upon their willingness (or ability) to reproduce. There's a fundamental disconnect -- to me at least -- in saying that the denying right of one group to marry is predicated (from a social and non-religious standpoint) on their inability to reproduce if an ability to reproduce is not a condition imposed upon heterosexual couples.

Parenting is a really bad argument for opposing same-sex marriages.

[spursncowboys]

I don't rant. I decree.

[Winehole23]

I don't rant. I decree.Pharasee and the publican, m8.

ploto referenced it tacitly in a couple of other threads recently, I think. The repeated emphasis on humility plausibly points to a moral comment of some kind, though ploto did not vaunt one herself IMO.

[I. Hustle]

I am completely against the whole homo thing and think that two dudes together is disgusting. I am against the whole gay marriage crap but won't vote against it. Having said that, I think that children deserve everything available to them and even though I think it's gross... if two pillow biters have the means to take care of a child that would have otherwise gone without then so be it. Anyone that opens up their home to kids and takes care of them and treats them the way a child should be treated will get a certain amount of respect from me.

[Winehole23]

pillow biters?

[Winehole23]

I never heard that before.

[I. Hustle]

Well I'm glad I could teach you something new.

[Blake]

Well I'm glad I could teach you something new.

would you be against lesbian marriage?

[I. Hustle]

would you be against lesbian marriage?

Of course I would. My ex-wife is a lesbo.

[BacktoBasics]

would you be against lesbian marriage?Did you not know who the fuck you were talking to. :lmao

[Blake]

Of course I would. My ex-wife is a lesbo.

all you said was "two dudes together is disgusting".

Hardly a conclusion that you would of course include lesbians.

[Blake]

Did you not know who the fuck you were talking to. :lmao

eh. I havent read the quattro in a while so I may or may not have ever known he was anti-lesbian.

[I. Hustle]

all you said was "two dudes together is disgusting".

Hardly a conclusion that you would of course include lesbians.


Did you not know who the fuck you were talking to. :lmao

Exactly. I didn't think I needed to say anything about Carpetmunchingclamdivingbulldyke bitches.

[Blake]

Exactly. I didn't think I needed to say anything about Carpetmunchingclamdivingbulldyke bitches.

your ignorance is duly noted for future reference.

[I. Hustle]

your ignorance is duly noted for future reference.

Ignorance? I've been in the trenches and have truly been closer to a lesbian than any guy in ST. Where is the ignorance? That I don't agree with you? So anyone that doesn't agree with your beliefs is ignorant? To me that sounds ignorant.

[BacktoBasics]

your ignorance is duly noted for future reference.Dude was burned pretty bad. He's earned the right to slam the other team.

[Blake]

Ignorance? I've been in the trenches and have truly been closer to a lesbian than any guy in ST. Where is the ignorance? That I don't agree with you? So anyone that doesn't agree with your beliefs is ignorant? To me that sounds ignorant.

you getting burned by a lesbian sucks for you, but your ignorance comes from you lumping in all lesbians together as Carpetmunchingclamdivingbulldyke bitches.

That and you thinking that children being raised by two dudes would be as you put it, "gross".

[I. Hustle]

you getting burned by a lesbian sucks for you, but your ignorance comes from you lumping in all lesbians together as Carpetmunchingclamdivingbulldyke bitches.

That and you thinking that children being raised by two dudes would be as you put it, "gross".

I do think it's gross but you neglected to read the rest of what I posted and just threw in the parts you like.

Ok so if I take back the whole lumping lesbians together and just say that I believe homosexuality is wrong would you still say I am ignorant? Remember though before you call me a bible thumper or whatever I do not consider myself Christian.

[Blake]

I do think it's gross but you neglected to read the rest of what I posted and just threw in the parts you like.

Ok so if I take back the whole lumping lesbians together and just say that I believe homosexuality is wrong would you still say I am ignorant? Remember though before you call me a bible thumper or whatever I do not consider myself Christian.

why exactly do you think that homosexuality is wrong and gross?

[I. Hustle]

why exactly do you think that homosexuality is wrong and gross?

A man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. It's gross to me. Thankfully I don't ever have to see what goes on in the bedroom but I still have to see them out in public. Two women that I worked with would make out all crazy in their car in the parking lot because they "weren't ashamed" of who they were. I am not ashamed of being straight but I never made out all crazy in the parking lot at work to prove it.
I work with gay people and deal with them every day. I don't talk down to them or treat them differently but I still don't like talking to "guys" that try too hard to act feminine. I get it dude you're gay. You don't have to try and touch my arm and giggle and flame ou t just to prove it. The women that I work with don't even act like that.

Do I ever tell gay people that they are wrong? No. Do I have to agree with it? No. They don't have to agree with me either. I hate how people like you call others ignorant for not agreeing with you. Who says everyone has to agree? Why can't I feel as strongly about my opinion as you do yours?

[Winehole23]

Dude was burned pretty bad. He's earned the right to slam the other team.In what, the crybaby Olympics?

[I. Hustle]

In what, the crybaby Olympics?

That's right.

[Winehole23]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. :tu

[Blake]

A man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. It's gross to me. Thankfully I don't ever have to see what goes on in the bedroom but I still have to see them out in public. Two women that I worked with would make out all crazy in their car in the parking lot because they "weren't ashamed" of who they were. I am not ashamed of being straight but I never made out all crazy in the parking lot at work to prove it.
I work with gay people and deal with them every day. I don't talk down to them or treat them differently but I still don't like talking to "guys" that try too hard to act feminine. I get it dude you're gay. You don't have to try and touch my arm and giggle and flame ou t just to prove it. The women that I work with don't even act like that.

Do I ever tell gay people that they are wrong? No. Do I have to agree with it? No. They don't have to agree with me either. I hate how people like you call others ignorant for not agreeing with you. Who says everyone has to agree? Why can't I feel as strongly about my opinion as you do yours?

so everything that's gross to you is wrong?

[Sancha]

so everything that's gross to you is wrong?


As far as homosexuality goes it is wrong to me. But two chicks is always going to be gross.

[Marcus Bryant]

We do have a right to still express distaste, disgust, disfavor, etc.., no?

[I. Hustle]

We do have a right to still express distaste, disgust, disfavor, etc.., no?

No we don't. If we do then we are homophobes.

[Marcus Bryant]

Namecalling is ancient.

[Marcus Bryant]

At some point, the perfection of the average American will require curtailing their freedom of expression, to protect themselves from themselves.

[I. Hustle]

so everything that's gross to you is wrong?

Yes, and I have a right to my opinion. You can think homosexuality is ok and that is your right but then why don't I have a right to believe against it?


People who are so pro gay usually are completely against Christianity. There are plenty of Christians out there that don't shove their religion in people's faces and give gay people or non believers a hard time but because of the ones that do the rest get bashed. What's the difference?

[Marcus Bryant]

Why must what is legal conform to one's religious viewpoint?

[Marcus Bryant]

Anyways, continue finger pointing and yelling at each other instead of the bastards who own us. That's what they expect average Americans to do.

[I. Hustle]

Why must what is legal conform to one's religious viewpoint?

I was just making a comparison. My beliefs have nothing to do with religion. I just noticed how some of the post on here bashed Christianity as a whole but then would get upset with people for bashing homosexuals. I don't see a difference.

[Marcus Bryant]

True. Competing beliefs, or religions.

[Winehole23]

No we don't. If we do then we are homophobes.Bullshit. Yes, you do. You just want other people to sit still for it. You can dish it out, but you apparently can't take it coming from the other direction.

Other people can express distaste, disfavor, disgust, etc., about whatever you say, too.

[Winehole23]

I just noticed how some of the post[ers] on here bashed Christianity as a whole but then would get upset with people for bashing homosexuals. I don't see a difference.Good point.

The critics apparently have a blind spot: themselves.

[Blake]

We do have a right to still express distaste, disgust, disfavor, etc.., no?

Nobody is taking away Hustle's right to be ignorantly grossed out

[Blake]

No we don't. If we do then we are homophobes.

you're a homogross

[I. Hustle]

Bullshit. Yes, you do. You just want other people to sit still for it. You can dish it out, but you apparently can't take it coming from the other direction.

Other people can express distaste, disfavor, disgust, etc., about whatever you say, too.

I misunderstood the quote.

I do believe that i said people had a right to disagree with me. If you read further or read my entire posts you'll see that.

[I. Hustle]

Nobody is taking away Hustle's right to be ignorantly grossed out

And nobody is taking away your right to be ignorant in your beliefs.

[Marcus Bryant]

Give it time. Perhaps not an outright ban, but the government doesn't need much to harass you, even if you are fully within your rights.

[I. Hustle]

you're a homogross

Thank you for accepting that I am not a homophobe because that would mean that I am scared of gay people. I am grossed out by them so I guess that word you made up there fits better.

[I. Hustle]

Good point.

The critics apparently have a blind spot: themselves.

:toast

[Marcus Bryant]

We'd be an unmanageable people if we actually said and did what we wanted to do. Perhaps one of the greatest achievements of mankind is the development of the ability to convince others to mentally enslave themselves.

[Marcus Bryant]

The loss of freedom didn't come with whips and chains. It came with bribes and praise.

[Blake]

Yes, and I have a right to my opinion. You can think homosexuality is ok and that is your right but then why don't I have a right to believe against it?

You have a right to believe whatever the hell you want.

Your only argument so far why you think it's wrong is that "it's gross", which is not really a good argument against it.


People who are so pro gay usually are completely against Christianity. There are plenty of Christians out there that don't shove their religion in people's faces and give gay people or non believers a hard time but because of the ones that do the rest get bashed. What's the difference?

If I read you right, there's not much difference.

I'm guessing gays are against Christianity because they are always told they are living in sin.......but that's just a guess on my part.

Any gays that bash Christians for being Christians suck too.

[Winehole23]

If you read further or read my entire posts you'll see that.You did. I noticed. That's what seemed so incongruous to me about you seeming to be put off by an insult which had not really been leveled at you yet.

[Blake]

And nobody is taking away your right to be ignorant in your beliefs.

Great!

[I. Hustle]

You have a right to believe whatever the hell you want.

Your only argument so far why you think it's wrong is that "it's gross", which is not really a good argument against it.



If I read you right, there's not much difference.

I'm guessing gays are against Christianity because they are always told they are living in sin.......but that's just a guess on my part.

Any gays that bash Christians for being Christians suck too.


What obligation do I have to come up with an argument for believing the way I do. Personally I think a man is supposed to be with a woman and vice versa. Why do I have to come up with a "good argument" for you? Are you going to change your belief according to my "good argument"? I never tried to change the way you think or feel I just stated that I think it's wrong and gross.

I wasn't just saying that gay people bash Christians because there were plenty of straight people in here bashing them too.


I went to school with a Christian group that would hold their bible studies in the commons area and sit and hang out together and the GLBT group would yell at them and throw things at them and cuss them out while those Christian kids would sit there and shrug it off. Do you think those kids grew up with strong feelings against gay people?
That whole always being told you are wrong or "living in sin" thing swings both ways.

[I. Hustle]

You did. I noticed. That's what seemed so incongruous to me about you seeming to be put off by an insult which had not really been leveled at you yet.

Yeah I completely misunderstood his post.

[Winehole23]

At some point, the perfection of the average American will require curtailing their freedom of expression, to protect themselves from themselves.Or to protect others from the harmful effects of their speech.

The criminalization of hate speech, for example, seems to be incipient in the USA. They already have it in Europe, I'm pretty sure. It's a bad, bad idea.

[Blake]

What obligation do I have to come up with an argument for believing the way I do. Personally I think a man is supposed to be with a woman and vice versa. Why do I have to come up with a "good argument" for you? Are you going to change your belief according to my "good argument"? I never tried to change the way you think or feel I just stated that I think it's wrong and gross.

You don't have to do anything you don't want to. I'm not trying to change the you think or feel either.

You calling homosexuality wrong because it's "gross" is just ignorant. Brussel sprouts can be considered gross too.


I wasn't just saying that gay people bash Christians because there were plenty of straight people in here bashing them too.

I think everyone agrees that bashing a group of people is bad.


I went to school with a Christian group that would hold their bible studies in the commons area and sit and hang out together and the GLBT group would yell at them and throw things at them and cuss them out while those Christian kids would sit there and shrug it off. Do you think those kids grew up with strong feelings against gay people?
That whole always being told you are wrong or "living in sin" thing swings both ways.

that's bad.

you're still ignorant though.

[jack sommerset]

I'm thinking the gays should identify themselves on ST. Not to make fun of or to get a Spews watching orgy party going but for a mature political discussion. See if there is a connection between ass romping and global warming. Stuff like that. Stand up gays and be proud!

[Winehole23]

I'm thinking the gays should identify themselves on ST. Not to make fun of or to get a Spews watching orgy party going but for a mature political discussionLed by the eternally curious jack sommerset, no doubt. I look forward to it.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm thinking the gays should identify themselves on ST.And sew a scarlet G on their garments, no doubt.

[Winehole23]

Not to make fun of or to get a Spews watching orgy party going So far so good...


but for a mature political discussionDepends on what you mean by mature, I guess. You could mean the sort of explicit gay pornography foreshadowed in your disclaimer, or you could mean the usual meaning. Hard call.

Really, jack, how does that even work as a sentence? How can you start out with a *spews watching orgy party* and end with a plea for serious, grownup discussion?

Hilarious.

[rjv]

Led by the eternally curious jack sommerset, no doubt. I look forward to it.

:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Re-entering this thread has been rewarding. :lol

I'm glad we have someone like jack, so rigid in belief, yet open enough to engage in verbal intercourse with homosexuals. That's normally a hard thing to do. Hopefully he can get to the bottom of this gay thing once and for all.

[spursncowboys]

give it time. Perhaps not an outright ban, but the government doesn't need much to harass you, even if you are fully within your rights.

+1

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm thinking the gays should identify themselves on ST. Not to make fun of or to get a Spews watching orgy party going but for a mature political discussion. See if there is a connection between ass romping and global warming. Stuff like that. Stand up gays and be proud!

what if they 'choose' not to be gay for discussion purposes?

[Marcus Bryant]

Please, jack, don't think about pulling out of this discussion.

[spursncowboys]

It would be a good sociological discussion Jack but doubt anyone would even keep it in a serious light. It is much more easier to write little one liners. Or to discredit the messenger.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It would be a good sociological discussion Jack but doubt anyone would even keep it in a serious light. It is much more easier to write little one liners. Or to discredit the messenger.

Or you can just stick with an uninformed opionion.

[Marcus Bryant]

Would not a "conservative" be reticent to inquire as to one's sexual predilections? Or, would not one who ostensibly advocates limited government and individual freedom generally be disposed to not issue demands on others to lay bare their sexual history?

That is, the sovereignty of the individual implicit in the political philosophy would result in a certain respect for other individuals in daily life. Leave the classification, ranking, and sorting to the progressives.

[Marcus Bryant]

+1

Lest I forget that there are some who will harass others in private life. Such is the price of a free society.

[Marcus Bryant]

If "conservatives" were true to the ideology of their forebears, I think a large number of individuals who happen to be homosexual would have no problem voting conservative. Which is the point, most likely.

Of course, that's if political conservatism in the US is now anything other than socially conservative national socialism. Given that the real political choice in these United States today is between socially liberal national socialism and socially conservative national socialism, the social conservatives are cementing permanent minority status in the coming decade, regardless of the coming backlash next November.

[spursncowboys]

Lest I forget that there are some who will harass others in private life. Such is the price of a free society.

I don't know what you are talking about.

[jack sommerset]

It would be a good sociological discussion Jack but doubt anyone would even keep it in a serious light. It is much more easier to write little one liners. Or to discredit the messenger.

It sure would. So far we have noone being proud of being gay but we have plenty of people defending gays getting married. It would be nice to hear a few gays talk about this subject. I would not take someones troll serious.

Of course we will have people making fun of others including myself and of course people will be offended, crying like little pussies (B2B) but who gives a shit. They will get over it. I have been here for almost 2 years. I am not looking for any friends. I am looking for opinions. It would be nice to get an opinion from a queer especially since we have so many threads about them.

[Imposter]

I am looking for opinions. It would be nice to get an opinion from a queer especially since we have so many threads about them.

Is that your strategy for baiting one into a debate?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It sure would. So far we have noone being proud of being gay but we have plenty of people defending gays getting married. It would be nice to hear a few gays talk about this subject. I would not take someones troll serious.

Of course we will have people making fun of others including myself and of course people will be offended, crying like little pussies (B2B) but who gives a shit. They will get over it. I have been here for almost 2 years. I am not looking for any friends. I am looking for opinions. It would be nice to get an opinion from a queer especially since we have so many threads about them.

they would tell you being gay isn't a choice

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, we already have the closeted redneck opinion on homosexuals.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, we already have the closeted redneck opinion on homosexuals.

Actually it's the 'Christian' opinion.

[Marcus Bryant]

Much like actually living in liberty, very few want to actually follow the teachings of Christ.

[Winehole23]

It would be nice to hear a few gays talk about this subject.... It would be nice to get an opinion from a queer especially since we have so many threads about them.Wouldn't it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI)?

[I. Hustle]

Wouldn't it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI)?

I thought you were going to go with the George Michael song.

[rjv]

http://www.topnews.in/files/Boy-George-969.JPG

http://comeonelleen.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/geroge-michael.jpg

http://www.fitnesspioneers.com/images/richard-simmons.jpg

looks like some interested parties have taken up jack's invitation for some one on one "discourse". go to it jack!

[Winehole23]

I thought you were going to go with the George Michael song.Which one?

[Winehole23]

This one really rocks, but Queen is the backing band.

8c7x2JD_j-0

[I. Hustle]

Which one?

Faith

[Winehole23]

It occurs to me now that my erstwhile opinion of GM's singing ability may have been unduly colored by my social frustration in the pop culture moment. That girls got flushed listening to (insert your fave) sing rather than me talk, was very hard for me to forgive as a young man.

Not that George Michael was gay, but that all of the girls my age wanted to sleep with him, ruined him a little for me.

[I. Hustle]

I was never a fan but you can't take away that Faith was a good song.
GM and Elton John made songs that were good without having to shout that they were gay like Boy George. I'm on the fence with Freddie Mercury because he acted the same as Jagger and Steven Tyler but his music was better IMO.

[Winehole23]

I'm on the fence with Freddie Mercury because he acted the same as Jagger and Steven Tyler but his music was better IMO.Sure.

You'd think that'd give him the clear edge, but no, you're still on the fence. Life is complex.

[I. Hustle]

Sure.

You'd think that'd give him the clear edge, but no, you're still on the fence. Life is complex.

I don't like all the flamboyant feminine moving around but I don't like that about Jagger and Tyler either though and they are straight.

[Winehole23]

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Song_Remains_The_Same/led_zeppelin_s_the_song_remains_the_same_image.jpg

Are you sure we're both talking about rock and roll? Suddenly, I'm not.

[I. Hustle]

I can't see the pic.

[Winehole23]

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/84885373.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19346E4C5E9CA0732610D89871FB4D31208 E30A760B0D811297

[Winehole23]

I can't see the pic.That's odd. I can.

[Winehole23]

Robert Plant from The Song Remains the Same.

That blouse with the poofy cap sleeves, and the feminized, wristy gesturing?

There's also more sword-fighting and sword-kissing in the feudal fantasy sequences than you really need IMO, but they are English, so maybe I should cut them some slack for that.

[Winehole23]

Oh.

[rjv]

Robert Plant from The Song Remains the Same.

That blouse with the poofy cap sleeves, and the feminized, wristy gesturing?

There's also more sword kissing in the feudal fantasy sequences than you really need IMO, but they are English, so maybe I should cut them some slack for that.


and it was also the LSD driven 70's. and led zeppelin loved fantasy. (they were huge lord of the rings buffs).

[Winehole23]

For sure.

[Fabbs]

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
[/SIZE]
Wow those stats in the OP.
No change in 2017?

[Blake]

Wow those stats in the OP.
No change in 2017?


It must be important to you