Gays living in New York State wanted the right to fuck themselves in the ass and call it marriage and now they have it.
Gay marriage will always be a mutant bastardization of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage does not define itself by a man fcking the woman in the ass (I know it happens but that's not what traditional marriage is defined by); and that's what gay marriage is, one guy fucking the other guy, in the ass, and having the nerve to call it equal.
In the Yahoo article about it, Yahoo News misleadingly calls NYC mayor Bloomberg just a Republican turned independent. Bloomberg is an actual Democrat who became a Republican just before his first term as mayor so he can have an easy primary, NYC being predominantly Democratic of course.
Sorry libs, sexual perversion is not a "basic right" or a Republican value.
21 comments:
Sexual perversion isn't a right? Do rabbis and priests who have been molesting others know this?
Do I defend rabbis and priests who molest others? No.
In a non-religious state marriage can be defined however the populace one - one man and one woman or any two people regardless of gender.
The only real issue is if the gay lobby then petitions that all religious groups must also accept gay marriage as acceptable in violation of their beliefs. So far that hasn't happened.
>> In a non-religious state marriage can be defined however the populace one - one man and one woman or any two people regardless of gender.
This argument that religious people make that only religious people can have morals is very harmful.
In any given species, it is normal for a member of it to feel attraction for the opposite gender. If a member of a species feels attraction to the same gender, SOMETHING IS WRONG.
In any given species it is normal for the male to go around and impregnate every female he can in order to allow his genetic material to continue into the next generation. Marriage and the commitment to monogamy is, according to nature, wrong.
>> n any given species it is normal for the male to go around and impregnate every female he can in order to allow his genetic material to continue into the next generation.
Thank you.
>> Marriage and the commitment to monogamy is, according to nature, wrong.
Not relevant. And as an added bonus, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life/old-faithful
Moral of the story: look up stuff before you say something.
Wrong. Animals that mate for life are the exception, not the rule. For example, look at college students. They demonstrate perfectly what I'm saying.
The whole point of Torah is to raise a person above his naturalistic desires. However, if someone doesn't want to be raised, a secular state has no right to force him to be.
What you are doing is agreeing with me that an organism is supposed to feel attraction for the opposite gender.
Feeling attraction for the same gender is not a sign of a properly functioning human body, either mentally or genetically, and the secular state has no need to take it seriously.
>> Animals that mate for life are the exception, not the rule
This is not relevant. The issue is NOT being consistent with the majority of nature. The issue is that gayness is not proper function.
Comeon Garnel, I'm not even a talmud geek and I'm out logicing you. XD
lol
First of all, you've lost sight of the ball.
My point was never on the normality/abnormality of homosexuality. It was that in a secular state in which national values are kept to a minimum to maximize inclusiveness in a diverse population, there is no real difference between saying a marriage is one-man-one-woman or two-people-regardless-of-gender.
It would seem to me that traditional marriage is much more within the state interest than gay marriage in terms of propagating the population.
>> My point was never on the normality/abnormality of homosexuality.
That's why you never were on the ball. The burden is on the homos to prove that it's normal to be gay. This is impossible because the way the human body is supposed to function is one gender is attracted to the otha. Kapish? XD
Keeping people alive is within the state interest since the living pay taxes but that doesn't stop some states from legalizing abortion and euthanasia.
As for burdens, the burden on the homosexual community is to prove that in the secular sphere there is no such thing as "traditional marriage is an unchangeable institution". And they've gone and done that.
>> that doesn't stop some states from legalizing abortion and euthanasia.
Two things that a good conservative would be against.
>> the burden on the homosexual community is to prove that in the secular sphere there is no such thing as "traditional marriage is an unchangeable institution."
Assuming it's true I don't think it flies that because traditional marriage between man and woman always existed, this means gay marriage is natural.
As it is,
Ancient Egyptians married men with women.
Ancient Chinese married men with women.
If the gays have "proved" that humanity didn't always hold that marriage = man + woman, then I'd like to see how.
Marriage was ALWAYS, and TRADITIONALLY 1 man + 1 woman?
Uuuhh... NOPE!
Ever hear of polygamy, polygyny, harems? If anything monogamy is a deviation. Mormon men are allowed more than one wife, or at least were officially until the federal government pressured the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to alter that policy. (And they had a "special revelation" but some Mormons continue the practice.) Some Moselm men take multiple wives. Hell, even the Biblical Patriarchs from the Book of Genesis practiced polygyny. (I want the right to marry MORE than one wife! At least two, but probably no more than five...) So, uh yeah... your "argument" does not really go anywhere.
But I know what this is really about. SJ, you are so closeted it is not even funny. You are gayer than Dane Cook! I mean, really, why do you Christian conservative faggots care what another man does or does not do with his dick? I mean, you SURE like to go on and on about buttsecks. SJ? More like SGay!
Marriage was always traditionally man and woman.
Let me explain something. What gays do amongst themselves is NOT the issue. The government should NOT be in the bedroom.
However, giving marriage licenses is a function of government so gay marriage is a societal issue.
(1) Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Well you obviously did not comprehend it. Were you employing a language that does not have a grammatical singular-plural distinction (i.e. most Asiatic languages), there would not be an issue. You typed that in English where there is a distinction. Marriage was usually TRADITIONALLY man and woman, except when it was often sometimes TRADITIONALLY man and women. So your "traditional" argument is moot. (All the retarded pundits who claim that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to legal recognition of polygamy got it backwards. If anything, polygamy is biblically sanctioned.)
(2) You mentioned buttsecks, not I. Clearly an obsession of yours. I pity the sexual repression and self-loathing you suffer but you are the one with ass fucking on your mind 24/7. (I only wish I could have plural wives...)
(3) Back to the main issue. Why should marriage licenses be a function of government to begin with? (I tend to think it should not be, given the religious connotations of it.) But even so, take for granted that it must be a function of government. That somehow makes it a societal issue, but how does it affect YOU personally? It doesn't affect me! Will you be tempted by your own homosexual impulses once gay couples have legal recognition? ("The government made it legal, so now it must be all kosher...") I suppose if/when gay marriage ever becomes legal in your state you will go from Dane Cook to Mario Cantone over night. Rest assured. It is all a private matter. You can remain in the closet should your state ever legally enshrine homosexual and lesbian marriage.
1) Happening here and there in history does not mean it was universally accepted. Also, something happening in the past does not make it the right thing to do.
2) you did mention whatever you mentioned in your post June 28, 2011 2:40 AM. Normally I would delete your comment for messing with my like this but you do ask a fair question in 3) which leads me to
3) Why should the state government be involved in marriage licenses?
Because it's easier for everyone to have marriages recorded by a local authority. Married couples also get needed tax breaks.
>> but how does it affect YOU personally?
- homosexual sex spreads AIDS. Taxpayers will very likely have to foot the bil for the medical care, oh and by the way, AIDS will be spread.
- As a silencing/scare tactic, the gay political agenda is trying to equate disliking the lifestyle with hating the people.
- I think it's likely that upon further thought most heterosexuals will agree that homosexual couples are not real families and are people with psychological problems or genetic aberrations that shouldn't exist.
It is up to the individual whether he wants to view homosexuality as an equal behavior with heterosexuality.
First off, "homosexual sex" does not spread AIDS. Unprotected sex (be it of a homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian nature) with an HIV-positive person spreads AIDS. "Buttsecks" between HIV-negative men won't transmit AIDS, but vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman will transmit AIDS if one partner is HIV-positive. The "AIDS" argument is horseshit, that religious lunatics like you throw out as an excuse to distract from your real issues/objections, namely either blind acceptance of religious dicta, or your own inability to come to terms with your own (and in your case, painfully obvious) homosexuality, or some combination of both.
Second off, since you seem to be eluded by basic facts and logic and once again need the obvious pointed out, this statement:
"- As a silencing/scare tactic, the gay political agenda is trying to equate disliking the lifestyle with hating the people."
...clearly contradicts this statement:
"- I think it's likely that upon further thought most heterosexuals will agree that homosexual couples are not real families and are people with psychological problems or genetic aberrations that shouldn't exist."
You do not hate the people, you just believe them to be dysgenic and worthy of extermination.
Not to mention you exhibit paranoia (the "gay political agenda" is out to get you!), and project your own severe homophobia on "most heterosexuals." All the mental energy you waste keeping your latent homosexuality at bay is evident.
Good lord, SGay! GET HELP! Maybe you need to pray to Jesus harder to rid you of your inner gayness?
>> You do not hate the people, you just believe them to be dysgenic and worthy of extermination.
Noone ever said that anonymous, you tend to mix it comments like these with some fair issues to bring up but if you fuck with me again along these lines your comment will be deleted. I'll answer the rest of your stuff tomorrow. I'm busy today.
I'm not sure I buy your "busy" excuse, seems to me like you're stalling for time. However, you could have simply waited for the next day to respond in full, ya know?
I will say this. You stated that a certain group of people are "genetic aberrations" and hence dysgenic ("dysgenics" being the opposite of "eugenics") and that said people "shouldn't exist." If you said that mermaids shouldn't exist, then that statement would be moot because they don't exist. But if you say that a group that DOES exist shouldn't exist, then you ARE in fact suggesting that they are worthy of extermination.
I mean, do you even read what you type? If you truly do not get this, then you must be literally stupider-than-stupid if that makes sense. I mean beyond stupid, "stupid" would be insufficient as an adjective, you would need to be made smarter just to be stupid. Stupid would be an understatement.
But I don't think you really mean everything you write. I think it is all symptomatic of your own sexual frustration, denial, and self-loathing. You use the most inflammatory rhetoric to convince the world, but mostly yourself, that you ain't a fag. Many have accused you of being a self-hating Jew (and they're probably right, though I can't say for sure), but I see a different form of self-hatred.
P.S. I know that this reply is futile amd that debate with any inanimate object is infinitely more productive than debate with you, as you will almost certainly delete this immediately. But I also figure that you would take refusal to respond as a sign of deference or surrender.
>> and that said people "shouldn't exist."
You are twisting my words and you lost any moral high ground you had. No more comments from you will be accepted.
Post a Comment