@logicisforsquares said:

Government should not be involved in any marriage, straight or gay. Let it be a religious ceremony if two people want to do that. If two consenting adults, of any sex, want to be legally bound then let them sign on the line. It would kill this whole debate.

it would seem reasonable if the government set up a civil union program that would carry across all 50 states. If you also want to call yourself husband and wife find yourself a church (or anything) that's up for it blow the money on the band the hall and the reception and have at it.

WSS

And yeah, I condemn the entire Catholic priesthood for the actions of a minority. They were institutionally protected sexual assaults. That means there were many people involved in the acts and protecting the offenders. The same thing could be said for Penn State when it came to light that Joe Pa and other higher ups were protecting Sandusky. They were just as guilty.

you two have committed a faux pas .."haha".

He who laughs last, laughs best, eh?

*********************************************************

no "haha"... @@

Liberals tend to do the same things. So I refer to a group.

I don't condemn every single liberal for being a rapist, because as a liberal,

they are all the same criminal.

See? Would you agree that most liberals do not like Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity?

But if I said a particular liberal didn't like Glenn Beck because he was a member of that group,

that would be invalid.

So, what we are talking about, condemning an individual of a group, based on trends of certain

reps of that group.... my point is valid.

@calfoxwc said:

Oh god, I almost fell out of my chair. Hahahahah

Cal is great at blaming one group for something, and then crying victim when it is flipped on him.

@calfoxwc said:

You are the same guy that blames all liberals....for everything haha.

*********************************

I wasn't proving a point, I just thought the article was interesting. It's not valid to dismiss all opposition of a viewpoint,

because you claim every single person in an organization is corrupt. That is a common psychological

self defense mechanism - characterization of all persons by membership to a group.

A republican does something bad, all republicans are bad? All priests? Every catholic nun? All conservatives?

that crime you refer to, those criminals should get an immediate death penalty. But all catholics didn't commit the crime,

nor do they condone it in any way. Come on, Logic - you're better than that. That higher-ups in the Vatican...ie...

covered it up? Send them to prison. But don't label every single bishop/priest whoever, with the same label

just for belonging to that religion.

btw, I heard an interesting interview on the radio the other day...

Hannity.

She was gay, and was aghast that gay orgs continued to press for

"marriage", that she felt it was fair to have civil unions, which did get

them rights they wanted. She said the gay "marriage" battle was not

constructive, and quite counter-productive, and was causing significant

backlash in her own life.

I've never been against civil unions. Don't agree with em, but I understand

the fairness.

But the controversy over gay "marriage" - redefining real marriage, and slapping

people in the face with lawsuits over baking wedding cakes? Forcing pastors/etc.

to recognize and perform services that they know are not real?

And pushing the perversion behavior in the face of society?

Sounds like perverted gay rebels without a genuine cause to most folks.

That gal was correct, and she and Hannity had a great talk. Civil unions were

society's correction to unfairness to a very small minority.

The only thing left, what the conservation didn't get, is politics. vicious, self-destructive,

in-your-face-if-you-are-a-conservative political aggression.

That's my point and the reason I put quotation marks around the word natural. Often people, like somebody here, have used the argument that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural since it happens in nature. Another reason given by some is that people are born that way or that it might be genetic. I'm not making a value judgement I'm just saying that none of those conditions make it right or wrong.. People are born with many different traits that we wouldn't consider proper.

I would say that a case could be easily made that giving perks or benefits two married people of any sex should be unconstitutional since unmarried people are denied those same things.

But I will leave that lawsuit to the people who give more of a shit about it than I do.

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

I think we can agree that homosexuality is not normal - the norm is that you're straight, clearly. But does that mean that anything that isn't 'normal' should be illegal? If most people choose to act in one way, should the other way be illegal? Like, most people in America are Christian of some description - catholic, protestant, mormon, whatever. That's a belief, a way of life, like you said being gay is. Should the minority religions be outlawed? Nobody's forcing you to go to a mosque and kneel before allah, much in the same way that I'd hope nobody is forcing to suck a dick (if they are then perhaps your view is more understandable!)

Abnormal is an aberation to the above.

Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor

lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.

If indeed that's the definition you what to use for natural.

WSS

@legacy-fan said:

This is how I feel. Government should be out of the marriage business all together. Let people decide if they want to be legally bound to one another. I don't need the federal government to be involved at all.

@mld-woody said:

There is nothing that says it is genetic. It is just perverse.

I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks.

Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male.

***********************************************************

Genetics - people can't help it.

We're talking about behavior. That isn't the same thing.

But libs love to redefine words to try to make some kind of dumbass point.

Look at what logic just posted.

Don't be stupid. Please.

Ice Dawg19 said:

Why are you taking your kids to watch gay dudes bang? Because otherwise I don't see how they would be privy to "perverted crap" unless you are taking them down to watch the stuff.