Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: amana1man To me fresh from the country to see two grown men lip to lip made me very queasy.

Imagine how a gay person, fresh from the country, might feel queasy watching two grown opposite sex adults lip to lip. Why? Because, like you, the scene they're watching does not match their instincts or internal programming..

Quote by: amana1man Yes I do know some men have woman's jeans and some men have woman's jeans.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote by: amana1man I would feel sorry for this person. I do not think that two people of the same sex should be putting on a sexual display in public as I have seen collage students at U of I do. A kiss goodbye would not offend me today but two people of the same sex kissing and fondling each other in a public area is a bit hard to take.

Would you be offended by two people of the opposite sex kissing and fondling each other in a public area? How about a black male and a white female kissing and fondling each other in a public area?

Quote by: amana1man As far as marriage goes why does anyone get married when because of marriage you retire with less. Get less from social security or state help programs.

What about working couples?

Quote by: amana1man Some in this country have become divorced because of the marriage loss but still live under the same roof with different mailing addresses..

Can you give us an example?

[Dirty Name]

Just molest children. Marriage is healthier.

Certainly child molesters are perverts too. But I don't think celebate people are perverted, even if they are deviant. That's the difference between homosexuality and celebacy. Celebate people don't possess pure minds incapable of sexual thought - the secret is to have an iron will to resist the temptation. Many priests fail. Homosexuals simply choose not to resist their perverted desires.

But again, none of this matters a single bit because I believe that you, and Belverron, and lsbskins1 and all of us, really, have the inalienable and God-given RIGHT to be as perverted as we wish - so long as no one else is harmed by the manifestations of that perversion.

What I don't believe is that people should be allowed to alter the very definition of marriage just so people can claim certain benefits and force others to consider their "marriage" legitimate. The state is in the marriage business for a reason - to provide the optimal child-rearing environment possible. Any deviation from that is a waste of resources.

[Dirty Name]

Under the bill passed by the California legislature, is there anything to prevent a mother from marrying her adult daughter? A father from marrying his adult son? Two brothers from marrying each other? Sisters?

Clearly there is ample reason to prevent heterosexual relatives from marrying. But what about homosexual incest? Should two loving, committed brothers be allowed to lawfully wed? Why or why not?

These people demanding "equality" and "tolerance" are clueless.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Under the bill passed by the California legislature, is there anything to prevent a mother from marrying her adult daughter? A father from marrying his adult son? Two brothers from marrying each other? Sisters? Clearly there is ample reason to prevent heterosexual relatives from marrying. But what about homosexual incest? Should two loving, committed brothers be allowed to lawfully wed? Why or why not?

Ultimately, these will be non-issues.

Quote by: Dirty Name These people demanding "equality" and "tolerance" are clueless.

Bitter much?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Certainly child molesters are perverts too. But I don't think celebate people are perverted, even if they are deviant. That's the difference between homosexuality and celebacy. Celebate people don't possess pure minds incapable of sexual thought - the secret is to have an iron will to resist the temptation. Many priests fail. Homosexuals simply choose not to resist their perverted desires.

Once again demonstrating why any discussion with you on this topic is such a waste otf time.

Homosexuality has been accepted, begrudgingly, by the medical community as a normal variation in the human genome. There will aways be knuckledraggers who go on endlessly about "perversion" but their number is decreasing and will continue to decrease. This nation is fundamentally tolerant, even if it sometime takes a while.

So rant on Dirty Name. Rant on. More sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Dirty Name]

Ultimately, these will be non-issues.

Care to explain why? Fifty years ago, we could have said the same thing about homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been accepted, begrudgingly, by the medical community as a normal variation in the human genome. There will aways be knuckledraggers who go on endlessly about "perversion" but their number is decreasing and will continue to decrease. This nation is fundamentally tolerant, even if it sometime takes a while.

Once again, a subtle reminder that the perversion of homosexuality has no bearing on my argument against gay marriage.

And regardless of your oh-so-typical "knuckle-dragger" comment, homosexual intercourse is, by definition, a form of sexual deviance that can easily be classified as a "perversion." Just because I say it out loud doesn't mean I hate homosexuals or believe they should be persecuted. Many straight people engage in deviant sexual behavior, many straight people engage in perverse sexual activity. None of that is relevant to the discussion, but it's amusing how many on your side of the argument are quick to seize on that point of view and dismiss my arguments.

Calling me names and labeling me "intolerant" only makes YOU look incapable of advancing an argument, and I've come to expect that from the less thoughtful and more emotional folks.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Care to explain why? Fifty years ago, we could have said the same thing about homosexuality.

Blame the delay on folks who think and act like dinosaurs.

A level playing field will render sexual orientation a non-issue as well.

[Dirty Name]

Blame the delay on folks who think and act like dinosaurs. A level playing field will render sexual orientation a non-issue as well.

And couldn't we say the same thing about incest?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name And couldn't we say the same thing about incest?

Perhaps. Let's see if it even becomes an issue, first.

[Boetie]

DirtyName posts Boetie, what specific right is denied to homosexuals that others are allowed to exercise

DirtyName I keep pointing it out to you and you keep ignoring it. We can all understand why. So I will point it out again.

The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

Take a look at the second sentence above. It is from Article 1 Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution. What is it about Article 1 Section 29 that you don't understand? what is it about Article 1 Section 29 that you are confused about? And I will help you.

Now read Bruning's opinion on a piece of legislation a same sex couple lobbied for.

Such legislation would be unconstitutional because it would create new rights which spring from the recognition of a same sex domestic partnership which runs counter to Article 1 Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution


Notice in the above is states: unconstitutional because it would create new rights.

You keep asking what specifics right is denied but ignore the fact that any new rights created by the legislative branch would be unconstitutional, yet heterosexual couples can create new rights by simply lobbying their representative.

DirtyName we all know you lost this debate the facts are against you, that is why you want to keep this issue into the theoretical, hypothetical, and cloud coo coo land realm. And at the same breath you want to stay away from the real world, the world that put a gag on same sex couples.

[Dirty Name]

Perhaps. Let's see if it even becomes an issue, first.

No. That's the freaking problem. If we wait to see if it "becomes an issue," it's already too late. What I (and many others) am looking for is an answer to HOW YOU WOULD PREVENT IT IF/WHEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE.

Ignoring the issue or claiming that you'll "cross that bridge when you come to it," is really just a lame excuse for, "Gee, we know this is a major flaw with our position, but maybe I can sweep it under the rug."

This is one of those questions that you have to make a choice. And the choice that you make is what exposes the homosexual marriage movement for what it really is - a poorly thought-out demand for benefits from couples who simply don't qualify for them.

While we are at it, why don't you explain your position on multi-partner unions as well. Where do we, as a society, draw the line. What number do you limit benefits at?

These are the concerns of the majority opposition to your movement. Successfully address them, and opposition falls away. Telling people to just let you have your way and see what else develops is an irresponsible position at best.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name No. That's the freaking problem. If we wait to see if it "becomes an issue," it's already too late. What I (and many others) am looking for is an answer to HOW YOU WOULD PREVENT IT IF/WHEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE.

In the scheme of things, the likelihood of these concerns becoming an issue is low. Therefore, it receives a low priority.

Quote by: Dirty Name Ignoring the issue or claiming that you'll "cross that bridge when you come to it," is really just a lame excuse for, "Gee, we know this is a major flaw with our position, but maybe I can sweep it under the rug."

Can't you do any better than this? Those are your words and your spin on the matter. Doesn't mean they reflect anything near reality. Everyone sees this. You are outnumbered here.

Quote by: Dirty Name This is one of those questions that you have to make a choice. And the choice that you make is what exposes the homosexual marriage movement for what it really is - a poorly thought-out demand for benefits from couples who simply don't qualify for them. While we are at it, why don't you explain your position on multi-partner unions as well. Where do we, as a society, draw the line. What number do you limit benefits at? These are the concerns of the majority opposition to your movement. Successfully address them, and opposition falls away.

These issues will fall out wherever they fall out. If they're even brought up at all.

Quote by: Dirty Name Telling people to just let you have your way and see what else develops is an irresponsible position at best.

I'm sure you've noticed very few folks are buying this incessant whine of yours. They know better. You lost this debate about 50 pages back and you know it.

[Dirty Name]

You are outnumbered here.

You got me there. I must be wrong if I'm outnumbered in the Volconvo Community.

You lost this debate about 50 pages back and you know it.

Another classic example of delusional hubris, intellectual dishonesty, and preference for style over substance. Your concern doesn't appear to be "debating" at all - but rather with dropping "drive-by" posts which fail to answer basic questions.

You can hide all you want. But if you really had something solid to hang your hat on, you'd have shared it with us by now. Run along now. See you in a few more pages.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name You got me there. I must be wrong if I'm outnumbered in the Volconvo Community.

About time you realized it, too.

Quote by: Dirty Name Another classic example of delusional hubris, intellectual dishonesty, and preference for style over substance. Your concern doesn't appear to be "debating" at all - but rather with dropping "drive-by" posts which fail to answer basic questions.

Your "substance" has been refuted repeatedly.

Quote by: Dirty Name You can hide all you want. But if you really had something solid to hang your hat on, you'd have shared it with us by now. Run along now. See you in a few more pages.

The "hat" has already been hung. It still hangs where most of this community left it last -- obviously beyond your ability to reach.

[Dirty Name]

About time you realized it, too.

LOL. That's what I find most fascinating about this place. It's like watching one of those scripted Hollywood style fights where the good guy stands in the middle and takes on the bad guys - and the bad guys have no clue how to win the fight - they just take turns charging the good guy, one at a time. Occasionally, one of them will throw a chair, but the scene ALWAYS ends the same:

The good guy stands there with his fists still up, ready to fight, and the remaining bad guys form a line, one of them (you, this time) breaks a bottle and holds the jagged edges towards the good guy's face, and says something like, "You can't beat ALL of us."

But of course, he does.

So take refuge in your majority status here on Volconvo...for what it's worth.

In the meantime, I'll be here ready to debate and laugh at all of you as you always resort to the same game plan - refuse to answer the tough questions, villify your opponent as an intolerant religious zealot, and hope someone comes along with a better argument than what you could muster yourself.

Overall, pretty pathetic. Of all the debate forums I've been on, I rate you and your supporters a D- for your failure to be intellectually honest and your lack of imagination/willingness to embrace the truth.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Overall, pretty pathetic. Of all the debate forums I've been on, I rate you and your supporters a D- for your failure to be intellectually honest and your lack of imagination/willingness to embrace the truth.

Considering your pre-digested, wholly unoriginal, party line parrotting disguised as "truth", I'll take that score as a badge of honor. :)

[Dirty Name]

I figured you would.

[Jack]

laugh at all of you

I rate you and your supporters a D

Your antagonism and egotism makes you an unpleasant person to debate. I don't mind losing a debate or being shown to be incorrect in my assumptions. That's what debate is all about. But to do little happy-dances and pat yourself on the back every time you feel you've proven your point is childish and annoying.
If you don't like us, why don't you go away? If you like it here, why can't you relax a bit, show a little respect and stick to debating issues with having to try to humiliate everyone with a different opinion?

[Dirty Name]

Your antagonism and egotism makes you an unpleasant person to debate. I don't mind losing a debate or being shown to be incorrect in my assumptions. That's what debate is all about. But to do little happy-dances and pat yourself on the back every time you feel you've proven your point is childish and annoying. If you don't like us, why don't you go away? If you like it here, why can't you relax a bit, show a little respect and stick to debating issues with having to try to humiliate everyone with a different opinion?

Look around. I assure you that antagonism and egotism exists in many posts from my opposition. Read any of Italiangm's initial responses to me (around page 80-90 I think), read any of lsbskins1's responses. They all smack of presumptive victory and arrogance.

What's important here is that you debate the ISSUE, not the person. Attacking me personally doesn't do a thing to advance your argument.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Look around. I assure you that antagonism and egotism exists in many posts from my opposition. Read any of Italiangm's initial responses to me (around page 80-90 I think), read any of lsbskins1's responses. They all smack of presumptive victory and arrogance. What's important here is that you debate the ISSUE, not the person. Attacking me personally doesn't do a thing to advance your argument.

Attacking your narrow, liberty-supressing point of view isn't the same as attacking you personally, and you know it.

Many of us have found your arguments faulty when compared to the spirit on which this country was founded. Just because bad law exists doesn't make them right. The fact that you support bad law reveals much about you.

Repeating yourself endlessly won't sharpen your debating skills as you've previously alluded. It does, however, suggest you're obsessed with getting your way -- not unlike an ill-mannered child prone to temper tantrums.

But hey! Feel free to stomp your feet and hold your breath, pal...