CyrusXandria:
Sorry,but it don't work like that,first off,God loves the parents,moreso,he loves the child more for he is blameless and innocent from all sins in this world.

If at all he grows up,his gratitude will always be with his two lovely dads for bringing him so far.Love is a strong thing,if the foundation is built with love,the family pillars surely will last.You get it now.

lofty900:
homos are sub-humans. Nothing is gonna change that

mutter:
I think it is wrong to describe people by their sexual tendencies. That is a private thing and should be kept private.

However I fear that I live in a world where it is okay to be gay and evil to speak againt it.

If one man has a right to be gay, the other man has a right to be against it.

Respet both ways

carefreewannabe:


Ok, if one man has the right to be hete*rose*xual then another has the right to be against it, according to your logic. I love your logic sometimes.

mutter:


Yes that is the way I see it and very often people say I know this gay couple and they are so nice. Well I visited a couple once and I almost threw up! Simply disgusting the kind of gadgets and devices they had lying around.
Also life style related health issues.
And yet they were utmost polite and very friendly. A great couple actually.

carefreewannabe:


I have seen many disgusting people and places in my life. I didn't know it was a matter of hetero- or homose*xuality.

TV01:

If it's not a matter of "hetero" or "homo", why do homos demand rights based on their homosexuality?


TV

mutter:
I think it is wrong to describe people by their sexual tendencies. That is a private thing and should be kept private.

However I fear that I live in a world where it is okay to be gay and evil to speak againt it.

If one man has a right to be gay, the other man has a right to be against it.

Respet both ways

So if I were a sexist misogynistic atheist you'd respect my right even if I had views that degrade women and religion. Cuz it sounds too unrealistic.

mutter:


I will respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe.

When you see a mad man unclad on the road eating from the bin do you mean that man has lost his right to my respect?

Certainly not he gets my respect as a human, does not mean the trash has tuned to steak and wine.

carefreewannabe:
Despite!

pcguru1:

I get what you mean, I just believe the right to expression should be limited yes I know I sound like a tyrant but I think too much freedom allows hate speech and opinions. That's just me but I respect that you respect my view. Also Am no way misogynistic or atheist totally the opposite

TV01:

Exactly, no real answer.

Why do a set of people demand a whole set of rights exclusive to them based purely on their sexual preference?

In as much as our sexual practice are a part of the human experience, what rational person views the whole of life experience through that practice?

Why do they demand the social endorsement and legal codification and cultural celebration of that preference?

Why is something that through history and across civilisation been considered aberrant at best, all of a sudden become something that must be embedded into the social fabric?


TV

carefreewannabe:
It is a real answer. Very straight and simple.

carefreewannabe:

Which rights do homo*sexuals demand that are exclusive to them?

carefreewannabe:

Homophobic people.

carefreewannabe:

They want to enjoy the same acceptance that you and I do despite their se*xual preference which is, as you rightly put it, part of their human experience and not their entire existence.

carefreewannabe:

Why NOT?

carefreewannabe:
Are you sure that homo*sexuality has been considered aberrant all through history? Are you 100% sure?

TV01:

No utterly simplistic - what you are fond of accusing others of !

Not just exclusive to them, but also forced upon others;
- Redefinition of marriage

- Right to teach children that homosexual pracice is normal & healthy

- Right to procure children

- Right to force others to endorse and participate in their perversion

Are basically people who do not unquestioningly accede to the demands of homosexuals - Proudly !

They are accepted like everyone else - what they want is for us to re-configure society and culture around their sexual preference. No!

Because it's unnatural and unhealthy - but their choice - not something to be forced onto wider society

Yes! It is abberant, by it's very nature. It's an abnormal practice. Was there ever a time it was considered 100% normal everywhere?

Even the few cultures that allowed it, knew to keep it peripheral at best, and did not confuse or conflate it with marriage. Most cultures rightly considered it morally repugnant. It adds no value and is deleterious.

Why is something that through history and across civilisation been considered aberrant at best, all of a sudden become something that must be embedded into the social fabric?

Was everyone up until 20 years ago a bigot/homophobe. How recently did Obama "evolve" on the issue? Was he a bigot before his evolution? And if there are some who haven't or won't evolve to accepting/celebrating it, why are they persecuted.


TV

carefreewannabe:

There is a difference between simple and simplistic and also between an accusation and an observation.

carefreewannabe:

Wrong. It is not a right that is exclusive to gay people. You have the right too.

carefreewannabe:
And besides there are monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous, endogamous, arranged, spirit, group marriages ....... I could go on and on.

carefreewannabe:
How is this right exclusive to homo*sexuals?

carefreewannabe:
How is this right exclusive to homo*sexuals?

carefreewannabe:
Homophobia at its peak.
Show me one homosexual that demands the right to force others to participate in any homosexual practice.

carefreewannabe:
I have never been forced to participate in any sexual act that involved homo*sexuals, have you?

carefreewannabe:
You asked me "In as much as our sexual practice are a part of the human experience, what rational person views the whole of life experience through that practice?" and I wrote homophobic people and then you wrote the line above. Does it makes sense? Anyway.

carefreewannabe:
It is a lie to say that they are accepted like everyone else, a big lie, and you know it.

carefreewannabe:
Now explain how they want to "re-configure" culture and society.

carefreewannabe:
How is it unnatural?

carefreewannabe:
Yes, in some parts of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, possibly also ancient Egypt, and I am sure even more cultures that I am not aware of now.

carefreewannabe:
OOOOOoooo, so now a few cultures allowed it? Didn't you say the following before?

carefreewannabe:
Before I teach you again, in some cultures gay marriages were allowed long before Christ was born. Do your research.

carefreewannabe:
Have you got a problem with homo*sexuality or with gay marriages or both?

carefreewannabe:
How are you persecuted for sharing your views?

TV01:

Please try and figure these differences out - holla if you require assistance !

No one and no group has the right to redefine the societal artefact that is marriage.

And the marriage is always between a male and a female - or else it's simply not marriage as defined

1. It's not true
2. No other paraphilia is being embedded in our culture

Children have a right to their natural birth parents. Or in the event of loss, the rightg to be raised in as close an environment as possible. Homosexuals forcibly deny children this right - to satisfy their own vanity and desire for legitimacy. Are homosexual rights more important than childrens?

It's not to engage in the acts, it's to participate in the celebration of the act. It's forced assent and participation. Tyranny

As above

The point is it's homosexuals who insist that homosexuality colour all our social institutions - to normalis/legitimise it.

Marriage is not a heterosexual institution. It came about as a direct result of the outcome of the male/female union. That outcome has implications for society' flourishing. So we publically celebrate, endorse and support it.

No one asks if you are gay or straight or if you love your spouse. Gay people have the exact same right as everyone else to marry a member of the opposite sex for that reason. Marriage was not an attempt to discriminate against gays or due to animus against them.

They don't want that right, or an equivalent right which captures their unions. They wan tto re-define the rights of others - and children - to feel good about themselves.

It's not acceptance they are seeking, it's endorsement and celebration - by force!

I've explained above

The biological and psychological disorder that it is can be researched quite easily. The health implications and pathologies of the practice are well documented.

In ancient Greece, it was accepted as a phase men went through (funnily enough it was old men and a young mentor - pederasty) marriage was still expected. It was in no way elvated or formalised or considered anything like marriage. Why should it be?

Whether it was permitted and how it was considered are two different things - as I explained re Greece above.

Nope. The practice may have been overlooked or allowed. It may even have been ritualised to a degree, but it was never considered as marriage.

Homosexuality is morally repugnant and sinful. I do not foreclose on peoples choice to practice it or deny them rights as a result. Just like fornicators and adulterers.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The distinctive of marriage is of it being a formalised male/female union. It arose due to the procreative possibilty of same. Non-existent in a gay union.

One cannot preach a negative view of homosexuality or refuse to publicly declare approval for it without sanctions in the climate that prevails in the West. You can lose your job, business or livelihood and be socially ostracised.


TV

carefreewannabe:

Says who?

carefreewannabe:
Wrong, group marriage takes place between males and females.

carefreewannabe:
And there were gay marriages in ancient times. Free education for all.

carefreewannabe:
http://www.reformation.org/perverted-marriage-of-nero.html And an orphanage is "as close an environment as possible" or better one run by the Catholic church, in which children are forced to se*xually satisfy the priest or the nun.

carefreewannabe:
Welcome to the real world! In the best interest of kids.

carefreewannabe:
I would rather give my kids to a homes*exual couple (friends I know very well) if I was about to die than to a holy orphanage.

carefreewannabe:
You don't have to celebrate anything. I have never been asked to celebrate homes*exuality, have you?

carefreewannabe:
And gay marriages are the outcome of same s*ex unions, so?

carefreewannabe:
I don't understand how the relatively small percentage of gays in a society hinder societies from flourishing but I can see how they are useful, keyword overpopulation.

carefreewannabe:
Like I have already told you, your concept of marriage is not universal and has never been.

carefreewannabe:
How exactly do they re-define the rights of others?

carefreewannabe:
Nobody can force you to endorse anything and nobody is trying to. Last time I checked, you still have the freedom of opinion and speech.

carefreewannabe:
Define psychological disorder.

carefreewannabe:
Wrong! This is ONLY true for some parts of ancient Greece. In some other parts gay marriages were accepted, not only in Greece but in other parts of the world too.

carefreewannabe:
Are you implying that it was permitted but that some / all / most people still considered it abnormal?

carefreewannabe:
If it was permitted but some people considered it abnormal, then nothing has changed. For a conservative person like you, it must be good news.

carefreewannabe:

Wrong!

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

carefreewannabe:
You can refuse to publicly declare your approval, in the same way people refuse to publicly declare their approval for black or Muslim people even though discrimination based on gender, skin color or religious affiliation is forbidden.

TV01:

Simplistic

Show us where this practice is extant and of itself leads to a flourishing community? It's one of the exceptions that proves the rule of marriage as defined. As ever, your shoddy ideology precludes you seeing the big picture.

As above, never in any significant way. And certainly not as the mainstay of a flourishing community. They would never have been anything other than a parody or expression degeneracy. Afterall one Emperor married his horse, why not champion that as a form of marriage. Or your sister that married herself the other day ! Abberations and perversions are exceptions that prove the rule.
Strawman - who is championing orphanages? Children should be placed in a replica of the normal biological arrangement. Governments should incentivise it to ensure all have this possibility. Orphanages are not something I champion, neither is gay adoption.

Double strawman - churches are not the only one or the major player in orphanages.
Triple strawman - abuse is always magnified in care home situations
You've been served here

Are you a farm animal? What's with the straw?
It would be best for your kids to be placed within a natural parenting sdituation with relatives as close to you as possible, followed by those culturally similar, then at least a male/female union.
Your ideological lockjaw will not permit you to do what is in the best interest of your kids. Is it the same pathos preventing you marrying, whilst championing it for the ineligible. Shame and confusion

That happens merely by legally codifying it and giving it societal endorsement. It's furthered by making those that don't agree keep silent or actively participate.

I like to give you a little credence - perhaps it's unmerited?
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" - they are redefining marriage so it captures same-sex couples. There's a difference

1. I don't understand why we need to redefine something that has served so many, so well, for so long just to legitimise this small %.

2. Another Ideological blind spot - who told you the world had an overpopulation problem?

3. And how do homosexual unions change population numbers - as they don't actually procreate - am I oversetimating you?

It's not my concept - it's a societal concept, marriage as defined. Male/female.

If they redefine it, what I am left with, is not what I entered into. What marriage was for is now changed, and what it does is done away with.

Legally codifying marriage as a homosexual institution means socieltal endorsement. Most people don't want to - it's been forced on populaces around the world. And in the West, you cannot have a negative opinion about it without being labelled homophobe or bigot.

In this case an wrongly ordered desire and use of bodily organs in a physcally dissonant way.

I have schooled you at length about abberations, exceptions, flourishing societies and proving the rule. If they were started and died away, there was a reason for that. An unworkable , unvaluable or deleterious novation.

Why do you argue against polygamy?

Smoking is permitted - and healthwise less dangerous than homosexuality - is it normal?

The Gospel is the only good news !

And what has this shown except that it was at times "tolerated", "existed" and not "legislated for as opposed to actively legislated against". I have spoken at length about abberations, ill thought out novation, rules and exceptions.

Are you saying just because a practice was at one time historically extant, it legitimises it? What of slavery? or public beheadings?
http://www.reformation.org/perverted-marriage-of-nero.html

It's not the same thing. In any event I have not championed dioscrtimination against homosexuals. Don't appeal to emotion, sentiment or your lunch


TV

carefreewannabe:

If you first show me how it prevents a society from flourishing.

carefreewannabe:
Should, would, could. You can champion whatever you want, the reality is that we live in a world, in which a great number of traditional marriages end up in failure, if not in divorce then in homes where arguments, domestic abuse, lack of love are the order of the day. Welcome to the real world TV!

carefreewannabe:

Who said churches were the major player?
Who said abuse is ALWAYS magnified in care home situations?

carefreewannabe:
Not necessarily, if I had to choose between you and the gay couple I know, I would choose them. I mean it.

carefreewannabe:

That's your problem, not mine, am not homophobic.

carefreewannabe:
Let those whom it serves so well, endorse it. The small % should not have any considerable impact on this beautiful institution that breeds so many children and future adults with all sorts of psychological issues.

carefreewannabe:

Thanks to gay people it is not YET overpopulated.

carefreewannabe:

They don't increase them like heaters*exual couples. See Nigeria.

carefreewannabe:

For you. Once again, the concept is not universal. I don't feel like going round in circles.
And the societal concept of marriage in the West is NOW not only male / female but also male / male and female / female.

carefreewannabe:

So for you to define marriage the way you do, everyone has to define it the same way?

carefreewannabe:

So anal s*ex is now a mental disorder?

carefreewannabe:

If you think that gay marriages will prevent Western societies from flourishing, you are free to move back to Nigeria.

carefreewannabe:
Saying that homos*exuals are mentally ill is not discrimination
It is as scientifically proven as the statement that black people are less intelligent.

TV01:
As ever, you have no substantive position. Gay marriage shoul dbe allowed because;
1. It happened in the historical past
2. Because abuse happens in care homes
3. Because some hets make a mess of marriage
4. Because identifying as homosexual is like being black

TV

dinachi:
A sick man wakes up one day and decides to start licking another mans shit hole and digging same with his dick. One word. INSANITY!