Kat_Somm_Faen

OMG you better give up this wicked way of communicating via a kyeboard for verily God has created the hand to do field work and gathering. And give up a car and an aeroplane for if you were designed to fly God would have given you wings.

Better go back to living as a hunter-gatherer in the African savannah since that is what you have been designed to do - not this utterly wrong civilization! Have eyes been designed to view TV? Has a hand been designed to grasp a pen? Has a leg been designed to fit a shoe? Better not start using glasses since your eyes have been designed to have deteriorated vision! Also with dental care! A tooth has not been designed to be filled with anything like the dentists are putting inside them.

And you better discard this notion of fighting sickness and disease! Poor bacteria have been designed to produce toxins and who are you to interfere! If a child has been born with a defect - better not do anything about it since it is designed to be that way!

Daggah

You are certainly no libertarian, "senor boogie woogie."

TollHouse

Yep, pure and utter bullshit. There was once a time when slavery was part of the natural order. In fact, I believe your Asian wife may have found her 'natural order' in carrying explosives to the side of a mountain so she could give her life in building the white man's railroad.

Also, how far do you think we need to go back into our collective pasts to find a time where your inter-racial marriage was illegal?

Obey the 'natural order', hypocrite. If God wanted you to marry a Chinese woman he would have made you Chinese.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by senor boogie woogie
Let's look at biology. The male and the female are designed tio have sexual intercourse with each other for the sake of procreation. Two males or two females cannot procreate, thus there is no sexual bond or activity, thus unnatural acts.

So post-menopausal sex is wrong?

Deliberately childless marriage is wrong?

before, I proceed, animals, especially monkeys have "homosexual contact" with each other. If a liberal homosexual proclaims this, I hope that they know that man is above animals. MAN IS NOT AN ANIMAL.

If this was a gun you would be in the ER now.

You are arguing about what is natural. What animals do is by definition natural!

And no, I'm neither liberal nor homosexual.

Man is different from an animal because we can think, reason and evolve. A dog cannot, a monkey cannot, a dolphin cannot.

Gorillas can be taught things like cameras. Using a non-polaroid camera certainly implies a certain amount of thinking--the understanding that what you click now becomes a picture later.

Now to humanity. Unlike animals, we have feelings and emotions.

Oh, come on now--animals certainly have emotions.

Also, homosexuality is a choice, so please dont lay that horse shit that you were born this way.

If it were a choice why would anyone choose it?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by senor boogie woogie
I hear some say, would someone choose to be gay, it is a hard lifestyle! Well, no worse than paying for a cocaine addiction. Addiction is hard also, but I chose to pick up that drug, there was no DNA involved.

But you wouldn't have taken crack that first time if you had known you would get addicted.

Most older people do not have sex anymore because procreation is not there anymore.

No. The reason they stop is either a failing relationship or physical inability.

My wife and I are in our mid thirties, and I enjoy cuddling with her almost as much as sex. The ONLY reason I like sex better is that in intercourse there is a payoff, the orgasm.

It sounds like you have a lot to learn about sex! The road to orgasm can be very pleasurable, also! It's not just stick it in, a few thrusts and leave her unsatisfied.

Two men are naked and together, and one man has an orgasm. What comes out? Sperm. Of course sperm has a purpose, to join into union with an ovum or egg. There is no ovum at the end of a man's colon. There is no ovum in the back of Monica Lewinsky's throat either.

And there is no ovum in a post-menopausal woman, either. Nor one that has had a complete hysterectomy.

Even if you believe that God is pure BS, one has to respect the natural order. Males and females. If homosexuality was natural and normal, there would not be two sexes out there.

Only if sex were stamped out with a cookie cutter.

A union is between a man and a woman only. If the USA legalizes marriage between two men and two women, what is next, polygamy? Marriage to animals? Marriage to children? What's next?

Neither animals nor children can give informed consent and therefore they can't marry.

With proper controls I would have no problem with polygamous marriages.

Lastly, someone in Hollywood pointed out (I think around the Academy Awards) to Steve Martin that he and Ellen Degeneres both dated Anne Heche. I think Steve must have cringed inside.

If my wife had had a homosexual experience I wouldn't care one bit.

theyeti

They're full of shit. The exact opposite is true.

Unlike the Repubs, most Dems are not obsessed with other people's sex lives, and therefore the issue of gay marriage is not a hot-button issue with the Left the way it is with the Right. The Democrats can play this one to the hilt, and it's unlikely to alienate any of their traditional voters, even the gays. The Republicans, however, have to carefully watch where they step, because any percieved moderation on the issue will cause a rebellion by the religous nuts, who see any attempt at compromise as a sure sign of American going to hell. On the other hand, if they come out of the closet as being bigotted, they will alienate their moderate constituents and give the Democrats an issue with which to bash them over the head with.

Besides, the Deomcrats have an easy out: Civil unions. Civil unions give homosexual couples the same rights and benefits of any married couple, and thus satisfy the problem most liberals have with outlawing gay marriage -- namely, the fact that they're being denied certain rights merely because they're gay. The Democrats can simply come out in favor of civil unions, say that heterosexual-only marriage will be preserved for symbolic and/or traditional reasons, and still satisfy most of their base. Gay rights activists may not be fully satisfied, but they'll take it as a sign of progress. They surely won't bolt to the Rebublicans.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are almost in a no-win situation. If they come out in favor of gay rights in any fashion, they'll lose their hard-core socially conservative base. Chances are they won't bolt, but the Right has convinced itself, with little empirical evidence, that keeping these people happy is the key to electoral success. Bush and other Republicans won't risk looking moderate on this issue. But they can't look extreme on the issue either, because it plays perfectly into the stereotype of Republican party as the part of bigotry and intolerance. If they take a hard line against gay rights, it's only a matter of time before one of their candidates says something stupid and smears the whole lot of them with the stench of homophobia. This will turn off the all-important independent voters, who tend to be socially liberal.

I think that the Republicans will try to avoid this issue as much as possible, and that it's the Dems who will bring it up whenever they can, to intice the Repubs to "show their hand". I think we're already starting to see signs of Republican unease when it comes to the subject of gay marriage.

theyeti

TollHouse

I agree with you completely. Look at how long it has taken Bush to say *anything* on the topic after the Supreme Court decision.

I honestly do think this will pay a big part in the upcoming election - and even if the Repubs get back into office again they will forever after be remebered as the party that stood against gay rights.

We're on the cusp here regarding homosexual rights, it's only a matter of time before homophobes are regarded with as much contempt as racists and anti-semites.

I think we need to push this topic to it's fullest.

fragmentsofdreams

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This clause of the Constitution requires that states acknowledge, among other things, the marriages in other states. A mere law cannot override this. This is why they want to amend the Constitution. If, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court requires the state to recognize gay marriage, it would effectively mean that all other states would have to recognize them (although couples would have to go to Massachusetts to get married). Of course, they would need to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA, but only the most bigotted judge would deny that it is clearly unconstitutional.

Darwin26

Ladies and Gentilmen i give you

The Enemy: Rev Sheldon and

http://traditionalvalues.org/



there's a survey in here (somewhere)

i must say these folks are just plain repugnant...

But for sure it's easier to announce one's sex pref than to announce you're a non believer... our own Equal Rights as non theists is coming ...

Know thy Enemy