Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Inkyfingers
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Telling homosexuals that their relationship is not marriage is no more treating them as second class citizens than is refusing taxi-driver licences to blind people.

Giving taxi licenses to blind people is about as intelligent as that comparison. You really should've thought out that post before making it. The latter is done for good reason (safety), whereas the former isn't (bigotry).

reply to post by kaylaluv


Fair enough. Think of a non-dangerous one.

A blind wedding photographer. A deaf music critic.

The point is the ability does not match the label.

Inkyfingers
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Fair enough. Think of a non-dangerous one.

A blind wedding photographer. A deaf music critic.

The point is the ability does not match the label.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people, and last time I checked homosexuality is legal, and gays can sign contracts. Your comparison is still stupid.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Marriage is being redefined into meaninglessness.

Basing marriage on something that denies the nature of life and the sexes is nonsensical.

reply to post by Inkyfingers


It's because they choose to live outside the norms of society by being homosexual but want the spoils of a heterosexual life. The whole thing makes no sense to me. When two men engage in gay sex they EMULATE normal heterosexual sex in that their penis goes into a hole (albeit, a hole not designed for a penis which is why an anus does not make lubrication for sex). When two women have sex with each other they EMULATE heterosexual sex in that they use a fake penis. Now they wish to EMULATE heterosexuals again in getting married and EMULATE heterosexuals in raising children (which two women together or two men together can not conceive). They live their lives outside the norms and EMULATE normal people with normal orientation. You would figure that somewhere along the way someone would wake up and realize that they are just mimicking others in their daily lives.

Inkyfingers
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Marriage is being redefined into meaninglessness.

Basing marriage on something that denies the nature of life and the sexes is nonsensical.

Yes, there's nothing more meaningless in the world than legal union between two people being extended to..................people of a different sexual orientation who also love each other. Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, think before you post, or at the very least, try to think. I promise you, it's not going to hurt. You never know until you try.

Christian Voice
reply to post by Inkyfingers

 

It's because they choose to live outside the norms of society by being homosexual but want the spoils of a heterosexual life. The whole thing makes no sense to me. When two men engage in gay sex they EMULATE normal heterosexual sex in that their penis goes into a hole (albeit, a hole not designed for a penis which is why an anus does not make lubrication for sex). When two women have sex with each other they EMULATE heterosexual sex in that they use a fake penis. Now they wish to EMULATE heterosexuals again in getting married and EMULATE heterosexuals in raising children (which two women together or two men together can not conceive). They live their lives outside the norms and EMULATE normal people with normal orientation. You would figure that somewhere along the way someone would wake up and realize that they are just mimicking others in their daily lives.

Indeed.

reply to post by technical difficulties


You forget that up until a decade or so ago, homosexuality was illegal in most states and is still illegal in a few states such as Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana and Texas. Heterosexuality has never been illegal. You are talking about a choice that has only recently been made legal and not even in all states that now wants rights and benefits.

technical difficulties

Inkyfingers
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Marriage is being redefined into meaninglessness.

Basing marriage on something that denies the nature of life and the sexes is nonsensical.

Yes, there's nothing more meaningless in the world than legal union between two people being extended to homosexual couples. Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, think before you post, or at the very least, try to think. I promise you, it's not going to hurt.

The only nonsensical thing here is preventing people from doing something that harms no one.

Instead of just making empty snarky statements, why not engage with argument I put about homosexuality denying the nature of both life itself and the sexes?

The thought of the Mormon church losing battles over this gives me a kind of gleeful pleasure.
Thanks for joining progressive society, Utah.

reply to post by Inkyfingers


Honey, i can compare to heterosexuals just fine thank you...

again, your right to believe what you want, but if you believe that life is only to reproduce, how sad and dreary.

it basically comes down to Sex once again, which is the heart of all Homosexual arguments. My half sisters swears she will never have a kid, she doesn't want one, she is heterosexual, is she "Not Normal" because she doesn't want to reproduce?

and if i truly wanted to reproduce i could, i could easily use a surrogate mother. this is of course not the topic we are discussing.

it is easy for you as a Heterosexual to claim all these things that you may have read in books, or the internet, or have someone tell you over the years, just as many people claim the opposite, you select what you want to believe you select the facts you consider true and those that you consider "Liberal Propaganda"

you have that right, own it and serve it. But i have the right not to be denied anything any other Human gets just because i am Gay, it's simple and should not have to be voted on.

Inkyfingers

technical difficulties

Inkyfingers
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Marriage is being redefined into meaninglessness.

Basing marriage on something that denies the nature of life and the sexes is nonsensical.

Yes, there's nothing more meaningless in the world than legal union between two people being extended to homosexual couples. Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, think before you post, or at the very least, try to think. I promise you, it's not going to hurt.

The only nonsensical thing here is preventing people from doing something that harms no one.

Instead of just making empty snarky statements, why not engage with argument I put about homosexuality denying the nature of both life itself and the sexes?

Ok, what you said there is also stupid. Having children isn't a requirement for marriage. There are many old and infertile couples who are married. There are also people who are married and don't have children, or they adopt.

Gays can have children, believe it or not. They may not have them through traditional means, but they are more than capable of having them. They, like heterosexuals can also adopt (in some places).

As for denying the nature of the sexes, homosexuality exists in nature. Also, even if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be a valid argument against allowed them to marry.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but seriously, these stupid posts you're making are getting old really quick. For the love of god, put some thought into your posts. At least do it for one post. Then you can go back to make dumb posts. That shouldn't be too hard for you.

reply to post by EllaMarina


You must have misread, they haven't lost a battle yet. Even if they do it has nothing to do with "progressive society" as you call it. It has to do with a government overstepping it's bounds and over ruling the wishes of the people who already spoke and decided against gay marriage.

it basically comes down to Sex once again, which is the heart of all Homosexual arguments. My half sisters swears she will never have a kid, she doesn't want one, she is heterosexual, is she "Not Normal" because she doesn't want to reproduce?

reply to post by Darth_Prime


No she is not abnormal by just not wanting children. If she sterilized herself then I'd says yes abnormal. You using a surrogate to have a child is not normal either. We are both talking about homosexuals engaging in a relationship where it is completely impossible for either party to naturally conceive. We can talk semantics all day like what about baron women and the likes. If a woman has ovaries and has a period there is always a possibility of getting pregnant by a man but there is no possibility of a woman being fertilized by another woman. Just as a man has no possibility of fertilizing another man.

Inkyfingers
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Fair enough. Think of a non-dangerous one.

A blind wedding photographer. A deaf music critic.

The point is the ability does not match the label.

How does two people who love each other and share a life with each other not match the label of married? My aunt and uncle were not physically able to have children. They were still allowed to marry. I know people who marry for more nefarious reasons (money, stature, etc.), and yet it's allowed because they are of the opposite gender. Makes no sense to me.

reply to post by technical difficulties


No, homosexuality does not exist in nature. This ia a tired argument. In nature sex is instinctual. Any act seen as homosexual in nature is a sign of dominance and does not have homosexual conotations to it. All you are doing is comparing homosexuals to primal animals.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Thank you,

i don't want to get this further off topic regarding the normality of homosexuality.

back to the topic of same Sex marriages, no one is saying churches should be "Forced" to perform ceremonies if their religion tells them it's against the laws of their Dogma. but "Marriage" should not be denied to any Human based on Sex,Race,religion, Gender

Being homosexual has never been illegal in the US. There were various sodomy laws (forbidding certain sexual acts) on the books which were voided beginning in 1970 in Illinois and were removed from most states before 1989. Those laws were selectively enforced against homosexuals. Any such law is now declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Wrong again, dang dude, I just keep proving you wrong. Sodomy laws were written into law for homosexuals. Keep in mind, if two dudes are in "love" but never have sex they are just really good buds. Once they have sex it is homosexual.
A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or immoral.[1] Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.[2][3][4] In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.[5]

Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%); in 40 of these, only male-male sex is outlawed

Inkyfingers

Christian Voice
reply to post by Inkyfingers

 

It's because they choose to live outside the norms of society by being homosexual but want the spoils of a heterosexual life. The whole thing makes no sense to me. When two men engage in gay sex they EMULATE normal heterosexual sex in that their penis goes into a hole (albeit, a hole not designed for a penis which is why an anus does not make lubrication for sex). When two women have sex with each other they EMULATE heterosexual sex in that they use a fake penis. Now they wish to EMULATE heterosexuals again in getting married and EMULATE heterosexuals in raising children (which two women together or two men together can not conceive). They live their lives outside the norms and EMULATE normal people with normal orientation. You would figure that somewhere along the way someone would wake up and realize that they are just mimicking others in their daily lives.

Indeed.

When a gay couple (male or female) make love, they are not "emulating" a heterosexual sex act.

That is like saying a rock slide is "emulating" the striking of a nail with a hammer.

When a gay couple make love are merely using the SEXUAL organs they were born with

TO MAKE LOVE!


The same "love" that heterosexual people make.



This obsession with the "rightness" or "morality" of who sticks what wherever, that so many of you are so concerned with, is all but incomprehensible!

What does it matter to you?

Why does it matter to you?

Nobody is demanding, or even asking, YOU to do anything with YOUR sex organs that you don't want to do!

Why do YOU feel such a compulsion to tell others what THEY can/should/cannot/should not do with their sex organs?


Is it because you are afraid of some "great and powerful" unseen deity who'll smite YOU for their transgressions?


If so, you need a better deity.

One that is omniscient enough to know what fairness and justice mean; and that love, in all its permutations, is to be cherished and encouraged.

One that is omnipotent enough not to feel threatened by diversity.


In a society governed by Law, and founded on the principle of Equality before the Law, I'm sorry, but heterosexuals are NOT entitled to any "Spoils", as you put it, simply by reason of heterosexuality, or even majority. And, although I would argue that homosexuality is NOT a choice, from the standpoint of the Law, choice or not makes not a whit of difference! You, yourselves have "made a choice" to adhere to whatever spiritual beliefs you hold (or eschew); your right to equal protection under the law is not in any way forfeit because of Your "choice". Yet you eagerly attempt to restrict the rights of others who "choose" differently?

ALL, gay and straight alike, MUST be Equal Under the Law.

And ALL are entitled to the "Spoils" the law provides.