The religious bigots march onward in their futile fight against gay marriage (Page 6)

sprocket girl:
again chronology ignores my questions... is it possible he views women like gays as inferior? who knows...

he claims marriage being between a man and a woman is a core principle of western civilization. why is that chrono?

why did the founding fathers say marriage was between a man and a woman?
no one against gay marriage will answer this I promise... so I will myself...
oh yes, because of The Bible but chrono and buddies will ignore that again because they have no issue with adulterers being married but do not want to admit hypocrisy. if this was not the case he would not ignore all my posts.

by the way for anyone who cares the vast majority of sex crimes are perpetrated by strait men.... including those of paedophillia... stats on this are easily found. and incest is by a huge percentage almost exclusively male family members molesting younger girls. do not even attempt to say this stuff is the result of gays. your homophobia is showing...
also to think gay marriage would increase sex crimes is literally crazy!

also, anyone with google can find out that in America tax relief for children has absolutely nothing to marriage. you get a break based on number of dependents. the fact married people get a tax break has nothing to do with having children and tax breaks for having kids has nothing to do with being married. a single parent gets the same tax break per child as a married couple does according to the IRS website. also, a mrried couple gets the same tax break regardless of if they have children. seems the ones discriminated in this case are single people without kids are expected to pay more to help those with kids raise them. just like people without kids pay taxes that fund schools... hmmm

also as pointed out gays have kids.

no one should get a tax break because they are married! it is not fair to those who chose not to be married. and the tax break for married people again has nothing to do with having children. you get it with or without tricycle motors.

and anyone with kids gets a break for them regardless of marriage status, so that is not related to gay marriage. funny an English girl could figure out American taxes in ten minutes... maybe that was not a well founded arguement. should stick with the homophobic ones.

still confused how Dave not wanting a minority group infringing on others freedom is the same as Chrono wanting a minority groups freedoms infrindged upon. Chrono seems not see that one minority group (gays) are asking for equality. the other (vegans) is aksing to take away others freedoms.

maybe single moms should not get tax breaks for raising children because a family is a mother and father with children... before I get burned at the stake that was sarcasm.. it seems the same as denying a childless gay couple the same tax breaks a childless strait couple get. luckily both get the same breaks for children maybe chrono and gang want that tax law changed....

davesdatahut: No, Chron you were trying to compare a minority that has its rights upheld by laws allowing people to eat whatever they want with a minority that does not have its rights upheld by laws that bar gay marriage. It is an invalid comparison. If the law PREVENTED vegans from being vegans, just as the law prevents gays from getting married, then the comparison would be valid. But it doesn't so it's not. Gays are not trying to impose anything on anybody. Last I checked, they are not trying to force me to marry a guy, which would be analagous to vegans forcing others not to eat meat or to eat only non-meat products. Gays are asking for equal treatment under the law, a concept you still refuse to acknowledge as valid for this class of citizens.
As for the "number of core principles of Western Civilisation," these civilized people also, at one time, were fine with laws that kept blacks and women as second-class citizens not accorded the same rights as whites and men, for no other reason than that they were blacks and women. The courts properly rejected those laws as conflicting with....drum roll...that equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution you keep trying to drive around and ignore.
Children, meanwhile, can and are raised by gays, with no apparent destruction of society, as far as I know. If there is evidence that children raised by gays are rotting the values of society, please let me know. If not, any supposition along these lines is all in your head.
When you say that "marriage is more than two people having their photograph taken in church," your implication is that gay marriage is about two people taking pictures. With this, you grossly insult gay people who may love each other. You insist you don't dislike gays. But this smacks of other feelings.
And, finally, of course I would support the same tax relief for married gays with children that is given to married straights with children, just as married gays without children would pay the extra taxes paid by married straights with no children. Why would that be a problem?

shadowline: "Marriage is more than two people having their photograph taken in church" means that marriage is about mature relationship, forbearance, mutual growth, and child rearing. It is not an attempt to equate gay marriage with having your picture taken. It doesn't grossly insult anyone.

The question is whether gay relationships can be considered marriage when they are not open to the transmission of life, which is the bedrock of marriage (and of society), and when the relationship being formalized may be as much a form of psychological maladjustment as it is anything else.

That gay relationships are not simply a form of psychological maladjustment has never been established, and at this stage, all signs are that it never will be. Is psychological maladjustment marriage? Should it be encouraged by legal sanction? Most people would probably say no, if they were asked - which, of course, in democracies, they never are. Should psychologically maladjusted people be raising children? Possibly not, but for the moment, we are content to stoke a generation of children into that furnace while we wait to see whether they burn or not.

pyroclastic flo: yikes. whatta bunch of gibberish but i'll try to pick thru it and find something cogent enough to address. i like a challenge.

since your wording is a jumble of slipperiness i'm gonna have to make an assumption that when you use the odd term "the transmission of life" you're referring to reproduction, spawning offspring and you're suggesting that Gay couples should be disallowed a legal status marriage b/c they can't "transmit life"/spawn offspring. i could spend my efforts pointing out all the ways Gay people can manage to have and raise kids. i think it'd be more simple to point out that according to your criteria anyone unable to reproduce should be denied the right to a state issued marriage license, this would include impotent men or those with low sperm count/motility, post menopausal women or those w/ problematic reproduction organs, anyone who can't, for whatever reason, make babies. what a strange world you world want to create. so many limitations on so many people. oppressive. creepy.

and that's about all i could find to address in all that nonsensical . maybe someone else could take a shot at it and decode more of it. its like the Rosetta Stone of "wft".

shadowline: I sympathise with your inability to answer me, pyro. I know how frustrating that can be. It mightn't be a bad idea to try to express your disagreements without resorting to insult quite so much, though. It makes you sound kind of adolescent.

I will just point out that marriage is based on openness to the transmission of life, it does not require that that transmission take place. The nature of relationship is therefore also so based. As only men and women can have children, so only men and women can have marital relationships. It's nature's way, not mine.

pyroclastic flo:


aaaah! "nature's way". well if you respect "nature's way" then you'll respect the way nature has evolved something like 15,000 species of animal that practice homosexuality, humans being one of those species. a behavior pattern being present in at least 15,000 species doesn't appear to indicate that the pattern is a maladjustment but instead, entirely normal. natural.


oh and your anti-Gay "arguments" are insults, in and of themselves, so resorting to insults is ALL you've been doing. trying to couch your bigotry in officious sounding garble just makes you sound like ... like a bigot employing officious sounding garble.

davesdatahut: So again, Shadow, we must address the question: is marriage to be limited only to people who
a - can procreate?
b - are socially well adjusted and have no personality problems?
c - people who can be proven NOT to be psychologically maladjusted?
Even assuming - again with massive suspension of disbelief - that all gays or lesbians are somehow maladjusted oddballs who have no business trying to raise kids, then what you are suggesting is that all potential couples must pass some kind of social test before than can marry to see if they are happy and peppy and bursting with your brand of acceptable love.
This, Shadow, is unqualified, irredeemable, dystopian rubbish.
Who will be next on your list of people deemed unqualified for marriage?
How about people with low IQs? Or perhaps political radicals? Or ex-cons? Or maybe people in religious cults? Certainly people in the latter group could be defined as maladjusted.
What about people with autism or those with borderline personalities or other personality problems? Are they off the list, too?
Or is it just them damn queer faggots you want struck from the marriage rolls?
By the way, for what it's worth, a lesbian can bear a child of her own. Science is a wonderful thing.

davesdatahut: A bit more on Shadow's winded way of saying gays can't possiby do anything but suck at marriage:
Shadow says "marriage is based on openness to the transmission of life, it does not require that that transmission take place."
Translation: gays are closed to creating life, so they shouldn't be married.
Reality: A married gay man can have a child with a surrogate mother or adopt. A married lesbian woman can have a child via artificial insemination or adopt.
Shadow says "only men and women can have children, so only men and women can have marital relationships. It's nature's way, not mine."
Translation: If you're gay, you can't make babies, so you can't really have a real wife or a husband.
Reality: See above.
Of course, Shadow's reasoning doesn't leave a whole lotta room for couples who can't have kids or don't want to. Does it, Shadow?

chronology: Hmmmmm well davedata, of all American children in the U.S. less than 1 percent are being raised by Gay couples. It seems artificial insemination and adoption are not high priorities for Gays. Traditional couples account for more than 99 percent of babies, even if many do wind up in single parent homes.

pyroclastic flo: ^
then i guess the concerning teh Gays taking over the country and destroying American family values is just a lot of hype. gee... big surprise there.

davesdatahut: Chron, it is estimated by the National Institutes of Health that 1.5 to 2 percent of adults identify themselves as gay or lesbian. So exactly how high a percentage of kids do you expect would be raised by gay parents? Considering the obstacles to gay marriage and the stigma attached to gays raising kids, I'd say less than one percent would be just about right!

shadowline: Put it this way: if there are perfectly sincere practitioners of medicine who are convinced that intoning chants and waving magic beads over a heart patient in danger of dying will save that patient's life, do medical authorities owe it to these "doctors" to legitimize their practice and allow them to treat patients? Or should the authorities keep in mind what makes a real doctor and take that reality into account?

Now of course no one is going to die on account of it if society decides that two sad sacks who have never developed the manhood to relate to a woman and who want to spend the rest of their lives yerking each other off, are legitimately married. But what IS going to happen? Do we know? Did we foresee AIDS when we decided that both homosexual, and every other kind, of sexual abandon was a good thing?

IF homosexuality is not inborn and physical in basis, then it is a psychological condition. And IF it is a psychological condition then the best general term for it is failure - since nature seems very much to have had something else in mind. How wise is it to treat psychological failure as if it were a perfectly healthy condition analogous to ethnicity? Not wise. It is stupid. When your society is producing an outsized number of psychological crash and burn cases, you look for the reason, you look for what's going wrong. You don't say "let's pretend everything's fine - that'll take care of it."

davesdatahut: What was that you said, Shadow: "sad sacks who have never developed the manhood to relate to a woman and who want to spend the rest of their lives yerking each other off."
Are you making your true feelings known - that, in fact, you just can't stand gays and how they live? That they are an affront to your vision of a pure heterosexual world? That the rest of all you say is just - as Flo rightly put it - officious, bigoted garble? Or psychobabble that cloaks your loathing and disgust?
Those ass-banging, cock-jerking fags just have no place in your world, do they?

davesdatahut: On further review, let me ask another question, Shadow: If you had, or have, a gay relative or a gay son, would you or will you tell them that he is a sad sack who has never developed the manhood to relate to a woman and wants to spend the rest of his life "yerking off" another guy? Whaddaya think? Would you do that? Or would you keep those thoughts to yourself out of fear - or belief - that you might be seen as somewhat less than a nice person? Or that your relatives or son would be incredibly insulted or hurt?
Or will just respond that you don't have any gay relatives or son, so you don't need address the question?

orkanen: The chance of homosexuality being a Psychological disorder, or mental trauma is miniscule at best, as homosexuality is also discovered in other species.

pyroclastic flo: at least 15,000 species of animal practice homosexuality but that fact has already been posted and tactically ignored.

sprocket girl:
the arguement that it is perverse is weak at best... because the government is not attempting to stop perverse strait people from marrying.
the common theme from those wishing gay marriage banned is that strait people respect and do not abuse marriage. which is not accurate or true. if strait people had respected the concept of marriage then maybe the claim would at least be intellectually honest.
there is no law stopping psychologically inhealthy people from being married, heck in your country Charles Manson living in prison is about to be married, he is psychologically messed up.. if Manson can marry while spending life in prison, pretty much no one has any case to stop anyone else.
basically you are saying Charles Manson has more rights and is more sane than homosexuals, you might want to revise that thinking...

orkanen: The reason I repeat it, Pyro, is to make sure those inclined to do so have to repeatedly and deliberately ignore what is considered a fact, concerning homosexuality. It's a deliberate action. I also wrote it as short as possible to ensure it being read.

sprocket girl:
orkanen, wise on both accounts...

orkanen: Thank you, SG.

calybonos: I am kangaroo curious.

vaporize53: We forbid both inter racial and same sex marriage. Our Clergy will not perform them. Our Right. Many Amendments from the 1st on down provide us this Liberty. The obola administration in it's attempts to accelerate White GeNOcide has taken every possible step to thwart the cultural development of our race. From immigration to gay marriage ; White volk breeding is a popculture faupas.

wayne elliott: Yes Flo, I was going ask what psychoanalysis shadow had done on the thousands of documented species who have homosexual traits. Also how many gay humans he has analysed to arrive at such a warped hypothesis. I agree with you Sprocket, ork has a habit of posting very sensible comments and its a joy to read them all the way from Norway.

davesdatahut: Shadow doesn't need to do any analysis on his own to come to his conclusions. He can use his brain, read something on the subject other than the dubious writings from Carl Jung and observe reality.
That oughta do it.