The REALITY of Marriage Equality

a reply to: THEatsking

This made more sense. And yes, it is exaggeration.

The core of your argument is that being gay is no more a choice than being black, or being male, etc. I get that. And I have read about patient zero. I have seen the case studies of children who displayed a preference for the same gender with no outside influence or conditioning,. But I have also seen people who openly admit to choosing to be homosexual. That tells me that it is not as simple as being born that way. For some, it IS a choice. Of course, the argument immediately follows that they are not making a choice, they are just accepting who they are. That answer is held in a quick draw holster at the ready at all times.

Being born a certain way, with a certain disposition or inclination, does not in itself make that inclination right. I respect peoples right to be who they are. I do not respect people who attack me while disagreeing with my belief and not allowing me to be who I am. I am a person who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Who will attack me for that? Who will deny me my right to my opinion or my right to speak it?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Okay, let's assume that being gay is a choice.

What's wrong with it? Isn't the choice of sexual partners sort of a fundamental right?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I sense trepidation from the OP

I assure you it's quite the opposite of trepidation. I had to leave for longer than expected, and will be out again until later this evening (US Central Time).

Actually I see the marriage equality debate/discord as merely a subset of a much bigger paradigm. The overall clash is really about, one one side, those who are honest and humble enough to desire and pursue objective facts or REAL truth regardless of popularity or lack of, and on the other side, those who are beholden to or enslaved by mere unproved opinions, beliefs, rhetoric, doctrine, dogma, blind faith and the like. But that probably needs a whole other thread to properly illustrate.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

What's wrong with it? Isn't the choice of sexual partners sort of a fundamental right?

Just noting this. Move along, nothing to see here....

a reply to: Seamrog

You should consider yourself lucky that the government didn't forbid you to marry your wife. I wonder what you would have done if they had?

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Lightworth
To equate homosexuality (in and of itself) with REAL perversions and criminality like pedophilia and bestiality is just SICK and completely unsubstantiated.

What most people seem to ignore is the huge difference between gay women and gay men, lumping everyone into the same boat....

When a woman pleasures a woman it doesn't have to involve a waste disposal organ.

Eeeewwwww!

Forget religion, that came later, nature rules everything and going against it must be questioned.

And to those who say things like "well some animals do it so it must be natural"....there are messed up animals too.

always thought it funny that the people who say "THIS shouldnt go THERE" are still willing to "drop trow" for a little lip service, if you catch my drift. is that anymore natural? i mean, think of the stuff that comes out of that thing and you wanna put it in her mouth? most guys dont think twice about it. the double standards are lol.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Okay, let's assume that being gay is a choice.

What's wrong with it? Isn't the choice of sexual partners sort of a fundamental right?

part of the premise of theology is that we dont have fundamental rights. we have fundamental allowances. huge difference.

a reply to: Answer

If you think that I think this issue is worth revolution, you'd be mistaken.

If that event comes about, this issue would be small potatoes amongst the many that would lead to it.

In that post, I was referring to the ends of various civilizations, Greek, Roman, etc..

If, however, several states dig in their heels, so to speak, and outright refuse compliance with a Federal gov't, say, sending in troops to enforce the ruling? Then all bets are off.

In that scenario, this 'could' end up the straw that broke the camel's back. Not in and of itself.

Hope that clarifies.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Seamrog

You should consider yourself lucky that the government didn't forbid you to marry your wife. I wonder what you would have done if they had?

I know exactly what I would have done. We would have received the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in the Church in exactly the same fashion.

My rights don't come from the government.

They are God-given.

What a terrible outlook - you who look to the government as your god. You are so lost.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I missed that Vroom's exception was religious.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So I guess the name calling and such is ok with you then?

I spoke my mind and voiced my opinion and the same people who are supposedly all about tolerance and acceptance and equality nearly stroked out over it.

So I like a little hypocrisy with my coffee. At least I know where to find an ample supply.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Jeez...does anyone actually read the whole thread any more?

My original post was a statement of objection to being labeled a bigot and a homophobe because I don't openly accept homosexuality. I am not a bigot and I am certainly not afraid. Sorry, but in my opinion the grand design was not just a suggestion. There is a way the male and female genitalia are meant to work together and the result is procreation. That was not an accident, it was design. Every post since then has been in response to attacks nonsense and name calling.

Sorry, but I have my beliefs and they mean something to me. I don't change flavors just because something else is new or the soup of the day.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel


In regards to your statement about the anti-gay folks... apparently the only way you can rationalize a person who has a deeply held religious belief is to call them ignorant, immature, and mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

When their particular deeply-held religious belief is ignorant, immature, and mind-bogglingly ridiculous... yes. No rational person holds strongly to beliefs that are antiquated and hateful just because of religion.

There are parts of the Bible that advocate owning slaves, stoning women who are raped, and a plethora of other terrible ideas that are ignored by Christians. The problem is with religious people who pick and choose which hateful nonsense they want to believe.

If you're going to use "religious beliefs" to justify your bigotry, you'll have to embrace ALL of the religious beliefs in your holy book or your justification falls flat.

Were I to take your perspective and tactic I could call you exactly the same, except worse for being the first to resort to name-calling

Stop playing the victim. You're not going to get any sympathy.

But I am better than that. You see I am not bigoted and intolerant, like you.

That's laughable. You're not bigoted and intolerant unless we're talking about homosexuals, right?

I can accept other opinions and perspectives without lashing out at them or calling them names. Look at this thread, or any other you care to examine. You will see that I am not the first to throw stones. I don't run and I don't hide but I don't start it either. If you throw a stone at me expect me to pick it up and throw it back. Despite your warped assumptions you don't deserve better than that. You deserve exactly what you get and if what you get is people throwing stones at you perhaps you should stop blaming them and stop giving them stones to pick up and throw back. (I know that probably went over your head but I am willing to bet you can find someone to explain it to you)

You stated your opinion and when you were met with disagreement, you said you were going to leave the thread. All your nonsense about name calling and throwing stones is pointless blather meant to elicit sympathy for your bigotry.

I believe that sex should be between a man and a woman. I am sorry if that offends you. You have every right to be offended. But you do not have the right to attack me here or anywhere else for having a belief different from your own. Is that bigotry? It sure sounds like it. But it couldn't be. Not coming from you. Not YOU. No. It couldn't be. BIGOT!

I'm not offended at all. You're free to be as close-minded and bigoted as you want just as I'm free to point out the ridiculousness of your statements.

See, I can say whatever I want within the T&C in response to your statements... just as you're free to say whatever you want. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from disagreement.

As long as you make ridiculous statements, I will respond in kind. If that makes me a bigot, I wear the label proudly.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Gryphon66

Jeez...does anyone actually read the whole thread any more?

My original post was a statement of objection to being labeled a bigot and a homophobe because I don't openly accept homosexuality. I am not a bigot and I am certainly not afraid. Sorry, but in my opinion the grand design was not just a suggestion. There is a way the male and female genitalia are meant to work together and the result is procreation. That was not an accident, it was design. Every post since then has been in response to attacks nonsense and name calling.

Sorry, but I have my beliefs and they mean something to me. I don't change flavors just because something else is new or the soup of the day.

"I'm not a racist, I just don't think black people are as good as white people."

That's what you sound like. Whether you see it or not, you're a bigot.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Gryphon66

So I guess the name calling and such is ok with you then?

I spoke my mind and voiced my opinion and the same people who are supposedly all about tolerance and acceptance and equality nearly stroked out over it.

If you voiced a racist opinion, people who are all about tolerance and acceptance would treat you the same way.

The fact that you can't see the similarities shows how deluded you are.

Stating "difference of opinion" is not a valid excuse for intolerance.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Right, I get your "beliefs."

I haven't called you a bigot.

So, your problem with someone else's sexuality, when they are attracted to their own gender, is "not in the grand design."

What about a bisexual who marries a partner of the opposite sex and has children (and an open marriage)?

What about a homosexual who is celebate?

Are those "okay" according to your understanding of the grand design?

What about transsexuals who prefer the opposite of their "true sex"?

What about someone who considers themselves straight but occasionally fantasizes about someone of the same sex during "personal time"?

.... and, is your exception to all this, and your allusion to "the grand design" part of a religious belief, and if so, what religion?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You were saying earlier that you have a sacred right to your opinion ... well, it seems to be the opinion among some here that your opinion indicates bigotry.

You don't have to accept that, but, in the strictest sense of the word, you are expressing a generic intolerance for a category of people ... and that's pretty much the dictionary definition.

What does it matter to you, in the strength of your convictions, if others consider you a bigot?

God given rights my ass, its 2015 and people are still using religion as an excuse to behing a doush bag.

Its funny that for me that sounds like the same excuse isis is using to kill people, its there god given rights.

a reply to: Answer

try staying secular, then if religion offends you so much. many pro-gay activists use the "Jesus said love everyone" as an argument as well. The fact is Jesus said love everyone not 'bed' everyone.

Here's you next slippery slope/tolerate everything idiocy:

www.foxnews.com...

There is a limit to tolerance. Ours is narrower than yours.

Bottom line is why are you even posting on the subject? After all, you've already 'won'. haven't you?

On the other hand, perhaps you know very well this is just warming up. Never mind not 'over'.

I don't understand why those in favor of ... marriage discrimination, and apparently, a return to homosexuals being considered criminals ... are continually asking those on the other side in this argument why we're still talking?

Why are you still talking? Why is anyone talking about it?

What's your point? Why are you trying to shut down discussion?

Is logic and reason that uncomfortable to belief?