To those that think gay marriage is wrong...Moving video

No disrespect but I hear your comments but I cant imagine having intercourse with another man. Love him for who he is but thats it.

I guess all things are possible between men and women but to each there own not what I call love. Love is a best Friend who will do anything for you but not that extreme.

Originally posted by Stealfreedom
I'll say what nobody will and be banned I assume. Best friends don't have to be sexually active they just are the best friends anyone could have. Sexual intercourse with men isn't necessary if you care for another.

Just saying why do you need that?

Maybe they like it.

reply to post by poweref


So many things wrong here....

Are gays the only people on the planet who can't procreate? Do we ban impotent and sterile heterosexuals from having relationships or getting marriage licenses?

All gays have mental health problems???? You mean like bi-polar or schizophrenia? Are you serious? I don't even know how to address this, other than "prove it".

Now you are equating sexual orientation with smoking? What?? Your sexual orientation is at the very core of who you are. You don't choose who you are attracted to, although you can choose your sexual activity. Buy why should gays stop having sex with other consenting gays? Just because some people think it's "yucky"?

You could be on to something but unless its girl on girl on guy forget it

Second line,,,,,

Originally posted by Stealfreedom
No disrespect but I hear your comments but I cant imagine having intercourse with another man. Love him for who he is but thats it.

That's because your sexual orientation is heterosexual, not homosexual. A homosexual man cannot imagine having intercourse with a woman. One of my closest friends is a homosexual. He loves me dearly, but the idea of having sex with me really grosses him out.

reply to post by kaylaluv


You cant procreate what are you saying?

Adopt?

Originally posted by Stealfreedom
No disrespect but I hear your comments but I cant imagine having intercourse with another man. Love him for who he is but thats it.

I guess all things are possible between men and women but to each there own not what I call love. Love is a best Friend who will do anything for you but not that extreme.

I think you are confusing love with sexual attraction. You probably can't imagine having sex with another man because you are not sexually attracted to men. I don't think gay men are just like "best friends" who decide to start having sex. They are more than likely sexually attracted to each other first, which leads to them becoming close and having sex together (not necessarily in that order, just like heterosexuals).

Sexual arousal is a biological function. Nobody can choose what kind of person they are sexually attracted to. This goes for homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, even pedophiles. What one does as a result of those feelings may be a conscious choice, but their existence is out of that individual's hands.

Very interesting point of view but I still don't get it. Dogs do it, cats do it, hell I think chipmunks do it I cant says its not natural or not warranted.

Guess I cant see past what I believe could be nature at will. I don't mean any disrespect.

the video was not moving to me at least on a level of a movement.

he was in a relationship with the guy, not the guys family.

neither of them made a will

the mother takes the body and transports it back for burial

and isn't it kind of suspicious about how the guy just "fell off the building?"

it is fishy smelling to me anyway.

reply to post by Stealfreedom


dogs cats cattle are
usually not considered as smart as us humans, at
least in the part of America where I live.

If we have a bull that only wants to hump other bulls, we put him in the corralls
and
feed him corn for a month and then kill him and eat him..

He is worthless.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Stealfreedom

 

dogs cats cattle are
usually not considered as smart as us humans, at
least in the part of America where I live.

If we have a bull that only wants to hump other bulls, we put him in the corralls
and
feed him corn for a month and then kill him and eat him..

He is worthless.

Actually he is not worthless, he is the end product of your breeding programme based on the assumption you are breeding beef cattle and not dairy cattle.

I grew up on a dairy farm and believe you me, lesbian behaviour among cows during mating season is part of the norm. I have almost fallen over laughing watching the bull have to beat off other cows who are all keen for a bit of faux humping with the cow on heat.

I've seen our castrated goat trying to hump dogs of any gender, and I've seen bulls try to jump one another. The only thing that all of this taught me is that animals have no conscience when it comes to sex. They just pretty much well do what they want

reply to post by Stealfreedom

 

dogs cats cattle are
usually not considered as smart as us humans, at
least in the part of America where I live.

I've seen our castrated goat trying to hump dogs of any gender, and I've seen bulls try to jump one another. The only thing that all of this taught me is that animals have no conscience when it comes to sex. They just pretty much well do what they want

kind of reminds me of a gay pride parade, what you are describing, how about you?

reply to post by slugger9787

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Stealfreedom

 

If we have a bull that only wants to hump other bulls, we put him in the corralls
and
feed him corn for a month and then kill him and eat him..

He is worthless.

He's not that "worthless" if he is feeding you and keeping you surviving. That is what you are breeding them for anyway I assume.

Imagine if you would have said:

"the straight bulls are worthless, just use them to produce children and eat them"

Well, that was probably going to happen anyway...


Besides, even if YOU considered his "worth" to be whether or not he is producing offspring, that has nothing to do with reality that is just YOUR preference. To him, his life is worthy and I am sure the life he lived had meaning for him. It is only worthless in your eyes because he is living his life being him instead of doing what YOU want him to do.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Oh yes, remember the blacks? How dare they demand rights! They should have been more courteous to white racists.

Logic fail x 9001.

blacks are not equal to gays and marriage is not a right but a social institution like military formed to strengthen society,AND like military, marriage requires certain qualifications TO JOIN.
Liberals have no idea what logic is, and i am an agnostic FYI.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by poweref

 

So many things wrong here....

Are gays the only people on the planet who can't procreate? Do we ban impotent and sterile heterosexuals from having relationships or getting marriage licenses?

All gays have mental health problems???? You mean like bi-polar or schizophrenia? Are you serious? I don't even know how to address this, other than "prove it".

Now you are equating sexual orientation with smoking? What?? Your sexual orientation is at the very core of who you are. You don't choose who you are attracted to, although you can choose your sexual activity. Buy why should gays stop having sex with other consenting gays? Just because some people think it's "yucky"?

exceptions prove the rule which is only heterosexual couples can reproduce.
FYI, the purpose of reproduction is to form a family with natural diversity i.e. in which a person of both sexes is present. Even if many hetero couples can't reproduce, they can still adopt and the end result would be the same, a hetero family.
But no homo couple can reproduce naturally and even if they adopt, the resultant family formed would consist of persons of same sex, hence it would be less diverse naturally. Furthermore, except IVF lesbians, homos depend upon heteros for family formation via adoption.
so, average hetero relationship triumphs average homo relationship in terms of biological diversity, independence and value to any society, therefore it is only rational that a sane society puts het. rel. over homo.

Originally posted by therationalist
exceptions prove the rule which is only heterosexual couples can reproduce.
FYI, the purpose of reproduction is to form a family with natural diversity i.e. in which a person of both sexes is present. Even if many hetero couples can't reproduce, they can still adopt and the end result would be the same, a hetero family.
But no homo couple can reproduce naturally and even if they adopt, the resultant family formed would consist of persons of same sex, hence it would be less diverse naturally. Furthermore, except IVF lesbians, homos depend upon heteros for family formation via adoption.
so, average hetero relationship triumphs average homo relationship in terms of biological diversity, independence and value to any society, therefore it is only rational that a sane society puts het. rel. over homo.

Het over homo huh. Is this the new sane rationaility?

The issue of children and gay couples is not the topic of this thread and therefore I will not delve into it too deeply.

However, the pretense that marriage should only be reserved for couples that can produce children has already been thrashed out and the general conclusion we come to is that then precludes heterosexual infertile, old (post menopausal women) and those who are happy to be empty nesters in addition to gay people.

Yes, heterosexual relationships are where the children traditionally come from. This is a good thing and gay people don't want to and couldn't if they tried to stop this. I have said several times that gay children come from straight households. It's a plain fact. It doesn't matter what one's social status is, whether one grew up in a 'good' or 'bad' family, the statistics are blind. Roughly 10% of all children born grow up to be gay.

That 10% is simply asking for the right to marry and have the same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship does. This will not affect the heterosexual family unit one bit. How could it - straight people are going to keep doing their thing and breeding with or without the presence of gay people.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by therationalist
exceptions prove the rule which is only heterosexual couples can reproduce.
FYI, the purpose of reproduction is to form a family with natural diversity i.e. in which a person of both sexes is present. Even if many hetero couples can't reproduce, they can still adopt and the end result would be the same, a hetero family.
But no homo couple can reproduce naturally and even if they adopt, the resultant family formed would consist of persons of same sex, hence it would be less diverse naturally. Furthermore, except IVF lesbians, homos depend upon heteros for family formation via adoption.
so, average hetero relationship triumphs average homo relationship in terms of biological diversity, independence and value to any society, therefore it is only rational that a sane society puts het. rel. over homo.

Het over homo huh. Is this the new sane rationaility?

The issue of children and gay couples is not the topic of this thread and therefore I will not delve into it too deeply.

However, the pretense that marriage should only be reserved for couples that can produce children has already been thrashed out and the general conclusion we come to is that then precludes heterosexual infertile, old (post menopausal women) and those who are happy to be empty nesters in addition to gay people.

Yes, heterosexual relationships are where the children traditionally come from. This is a good thing and gay people don't want to and couldn't if they tried to stop this. I have said several times that gay children come from straight households. It's a plain fact. It doesn't matter what one's social status is, whether one grew up in a 'good' or 'bad' family, the statistics are blind. Roughly 10% of all children born grow up to be gay.

That 10% is simply asking for the right to marry and have the same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship does. This will not affect the heterosexual family unit one bit. How could it - straight people are going to keep doing their thing and breeding with or without the presence of gay people.

reply to post by therationalist


Actually you didn't have to reply. It would've been clear to everyone what your position on the subject was just by reading your signature...
EQUALITY is the religion of morons...

So - you don't believe in equality? Not all humans are equal? Should I even ask if you think black and white people are equal?

Do you expect people to respect your opinion with that mindset? Congratulations on the fact that no-one has ever discriminated against you. You must be exceptionally average. Sorry to hear.

someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

You say

so, average hetero relationship triumphs average homo relationship in terms of biological diversity, independence and value to any society, therefore it is only rational that a sane society puts het. rel. over homo.

And you come to this conclusion because "heterosexual couples can reproduce"? Because obviously, that is all the human race is all about? It's only "natural"? So what exactly is natural? Natural as defined per your little box shaped by the environment you're in?

Should we look at other animals to see what is natural and what is not? Praying mantises and spiders eat their partners after sex. What about mammals? Polygynous mating structures are estimated to occur in up to 90% of mammal species. So, in order to achieve maximum "bio diversity" you'll need several sex partners. Makes for the perfect "heterosexual family", doesn't it. What about seasonality? Some animal males are loners until the females go into heat; they join the pack; impregnate a few females and then disappear into the sunset...

What's that you say? Humans aren't animals, and we shouldn't be comparing human behavior to animal behavior. You are quite right. We shouldn't. So let's look at "heterosexual families"... in different cultures. Again we have monogamy, polygamy (which includes polyandry, polygyny and group marriage). Is it wrong just because you're unfamiliar with it? Because you grew up in a culture where it frowned upon? Polygamy is actually acceptable practice in over 50 countries - including the US and Canada under certain circumstances. Should we look at "normal" then? One third of American children (that's around 15 million kids) are raised without a father. Nearly 5 million more kids doesn't have a mother... Source. For extra reading the stats for 2007.

So, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there is no "normal" or "natural". In your mind's eye you have picture of a happy Mom in the kitchen, a Dad that works all day to put food on the table and 2.5 kids. Not to forget the white picket fences. That is nothing but a fantasy, because during lunch Dad has a go with his secretary in the storage closet and over weekends he makes sure the local prostitutes stay in business. Meanwhile Mom drowns her regret in choice of husband in a bottle of red wine while longingly staring at Miss Robertson across the street. Little Jack plays doctor-doctor with his best pal Jimmy, and little Jill tries to solve the world's problems by being a vegan.

So, to complete the circle... Your "conclusion" as to why hetero families trump homosexual families... "Bio diversity"? If you insist on bio diversity then polygamous families trump heterosexual families. The main purpose of humans are not to breed. We've evolved past that. Independence? You fail to explain how heterosexual families are any more independent than homosexual families. Just making points up as we go, are we? Value? Gay couples are typically financially stronger - and can therefore look better after a child or three. (See "Pink Money". Would you rather have kids fill overfull orphanages and government family homes than have two financial strong (but gay) people look after the kids? You are obviously quite wrong. A homosexual couple offers just as much - if not more - potential value to society. If only society would let them. Sounds quite rational to me.

Sorry, but your little boxed view where "equality is meant for morons" is what's keeping society back. And the worse part is - not me, or anyone else would ever be able to change your mind. Sorry about that. Insight is a gift.



I would like to share this video to add to the original opening post:



You see. It's all the same.

Yeah, any sane society should put het. rel. over homo. rel. as any sane company owner would pay more to an employee of greater value
than a lesser one. wouldn't you??
FYI, marriage is an institution just like the military and not an individual right, you have to qualify to join it.Society
offers benefits and protections to het. rel. because an average het. unit brings far more benefits to the society in return.
Since, a homo rel. cannot bring the same, it would be illogical to give them the same benefits and protections.
First and foremost, society, not an individual has the right to define relationships and demand recognition and protection in return.
Regarding, change in value of het. marriages, let's assume that in a race, a person comes first and the organizers declare
that he would be given the same recognition and prize as to the person who has come second. Would that be just for the person coming
first and what would be the value of coming first?? reply to post by markosity1973

reply to post by Gaspode


no i don't believe in equality as well as i don't believe in santa.
You think all humans are equal then scientifically prove it?? I can prove all humans are different and thereby unequal, can you prove your assertion?? if there is difference, there will be inequality.
The problem with sheep like you is they confuse equality in the eyes of god for everyone is equal.
Regarding natural diversity, answer this, which group is more diverse, a pair of two males or a pair, in which, one is male and one is female???