FileFront Forums - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other? (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/284339-do-you-jim-take-john-your-lawfully-wedded-something-other.html)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Another homosexuality debate. Couldn't we keep this to one thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3316622)

I said normal, homos are not normal people.

There's no difference, save sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3316573)

Whats next? teaching gayness in school?
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentHitz (Post 3316598)

I dunno bro', when they start on kids so early trying to make the accept something wierd as something "normal", they're taking their agenda too far IMO .

As opposed to...what? Teaching hatred and intolerance? Let’s let our children grow up to be close-minded and apathetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3316641)

LOL
So you are calling a man who sticks his manmeat in another man is normal?
I'll tell you what society doesn't need...more homos and freaks.

That's funny because it's so hypocritical. What society needs less of are bigots and ignorant punks who preach their unfounded opinions. If I had to choose between people like that and "the homos and freaks”, I'd take the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3316622)

More like common sense.

Discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3316666)

If thinking that gay sex is nasty and should not be taught to our kids and done in public makes me a bigot, than lable me the biggest bigot in the world and I am 100% proud of that.

I could agree there; a lot of sex is nasty, with no exception to the gay variant. It's the intolerance that would make you a bigot, not your personal opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice (Post 3317048)

the whole thing is actually pretty amusing in a disturbing way. The idiots in San Fransisco boasted about how their unions would be better than the straight "sham marriages"... now half of them are wanting divorces.

Doesn’t mean much, considering how many conventional marriages result in divorce as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3319034)

No.
Homosexuality is a disease. Eye color is a trait.

Prove that using something other than your personal opinions and assertions, and maybe you'll have an actual argument to present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice (Post 3319293)

This possibility is backed by a lot of evidence

Except, of course, the testimony of countless homosexuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3320478)

And gay guys having kids? No.:rolleyes:

Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3321870)

I never said I hated a gay person, just their acts I find sick.

The "hate the sinner not the sin" attitude is a lot of shit. If you hate the defining attribute of a person, you hate that person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3322087)

I would hope that normal is described as some characteristic shared by the majority of some faction of a population. So yes, i suppose that if in a homosexual commuity, a straight guy is an aberration.

Right. On a social scale, homosexuality is only slightly less normal than, say, being Jewish. It's not "normal", because it isn't the social norm, but that does not make it in any way negative.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Beef is playing with you guys. He's keeping you under the impression you can win this argument. He's not going to concede no matter how moronic his argument gets.

All hes been doing for the last 3 pages is dance around your disagreements by continuously refering to the act (man love) and not facing the issue homosexual marriage.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob L. Scrachy (Post 3322342)

What issue?
I'm too busy to quote all your babble so here it goes:
I stated my issues and views and you stated yours.
You think mine are moronic and I think yours are moronic.
Nobody is going to win here.
In the end I do believe I will get my way and this will all be moot anyway.
The matter stands.
*Homosexuality is far from normal
*Manlove is a nasty act shared by two abnormal males.
*Gay "marriage" will and should be called a Civil Union (hopefully) where I live
* I don't hate gay people I just do not approve of their sick lifestyle.
* I'm against homos having kids
* Did I mention homosexuality is far from normal?

Quote away and call me a biggot, I absolutly am loving it, but you will not change my views on the matter.
Now go hug a homo or watch some gay porn and support it for all i care.
:beer:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo

:naughty:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Adam and eve not adam and steve.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beef flaps (Post 3322836)

*Who defines what is normal?
*Why should gay marriage not be included in the definition of marriage? (Just "because" and "its not normal" isn't good enough.
*All anyone reads here is that you hate "homos" just because they're homos. Its obvious you hate them. When you deny it you loose what little credibility you have.
*As long as the kids are loved and aren't abused what does it matter?

You are a bigot and I’m glade you proudly love being identified as one. Is everyone who disagrees with you automatically labeled homo? If yes, you have social issues you need to see someone about.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/106/tostfugs0.jpg

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 3321676)

Nope.

It's been observed and proven (oh no, those two evil words from the evolution debate:eek:!) that over 400 animals in the world engage in homosexual intercourse. While some anti-gays may argue that "they're doing it to show authority" or whatever, no one can deny that same-sex intercourse is same-sex intercourse.

Almost every species of fauna on the planet has occasionally been spawned with an extra limb.

That means being born with an extra limb is normal!

Quote:

As a side note, sex for pleasure is as far as we know only undertaken by humans as well. Are you against that, too, since it's so "unnatural"?

Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Popularity

Three fallacies in one post. Impressive. Most impressive.

See above.

Maybe this will make you see how ridiculous it is to apply 2000-years old mythology to today's society, though I doubt it.

Not that it matters. If Christians can pick and choose from the Bible what to believe and follow, gays can, too.

Appeal to tradition again.

Your problem, not theirs.

I'm sick of seeing hot dogs everywhere I go, do you see me tell them to go back inside their houses to eat them?

I don't find it "pathetic" to fight for the same rights as everyone else. Do you find it pathetic that people goto through inter-racial marriage, too? That us left-handed people once got this funny idea there was nothing wrong with us? That those stupid Negroes suddenly tried to get themselves viewed as intelligent beings, like us whites?

Didn't think so. Oh, and me neither:smokin:.

Hot dogs gross me out, yet you don't see me protesting when someone eat them in public. Look up "tolerance" the next time you're reading a dictionary.

Isn't it now. And just what rock have you been living under? It's getting more and more accepted every day.

Nothing new there. Same attitude reigned when inter-racial marriage was surfacing.

Exactly what they said when inter-racial marriage was allowed, when racism was proven to be idiotic, and I could go on and on.

Sorry, bigots, but the schools don't agree with you. There's this stupid liberal fad called "civil rights" afoot, and damn if it ain't growing in strenght.

Yeah, how evil of them to teach kids of tolerance and equality. How evil of them indeed.

I suppose you apply the same reasoning to teachers telling kids inter-racial marriage is normal and OK.

We aren't. Marry a man or don't. Your choice.

Homosexuality is not a disease.

Appeal to Popularity

Parody mode: "Ummm, do you actually need me to prove to you that eating meat is sick? Really?"

I have no idea where you get it from that diseases and brain disorders are "labels". I thought they were diagnoses made by proffesionals based on symptoms, not on logical assumptions such as "it's gross, so it's a disorder":confused:.

As for it not leading to reproduction and hence being a disorder, that's just downright ridiculous. Small breasts are one thing that can keep you from getting boys and having kids, norms being what they are today. I suppose you're born "genetically malformed" if you've got small breasts, then? I suppose this "error in your DNA" needs to be treated ASAP with silicone? What about this idea that you shouldn't have sex before getting married, or that prevention should be used? Clearly, as this leads to fewer children, the people who spout such views are sick?

Sorry, don't buy that.

As a left-handed person, I felt a little hurt by that statement. After all, it's not like it's normal to write with your left hand.

Then I remember that the "abnormal=wrong"-argument is just an excuse and only applied to homosexuals. I feel better now:D.

Straw Man.
No one here has cited MTV or Bravo.

Same with inter-racial marriage, I presume? Or are you specifically after homosexuals for some reason?

:lol: Good one, FancyPants. Way to go.

Oh, and to answer that: We're not talking about the "treatment" of homosexuals, we're talking about what rights to give them.

So basically, your entire argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. Trying to say that gay marriage is exactly like interracial marriage. And we should ignore practicality "in the name of love".

Sorry, but idealism doesn't trump common sense.

Quote:

But yes, it's great that we don't treat cancer patients like homosexuals. I can picture you attacking them: "No, you can't marry that woman who's got cancer, as it'll encourage her tumor and it's not natural!"

Yes, this attitude is responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions, of people - when the Red Cross refused to screen gays from blood donations (Before they developed means of accurately screening blood for aids).

It was very idealistic for gay rights activists to insist that gays not be screened in blood donations. But from a perspective of common sense - it was moronic.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Well, you can't have a gay couple having children becuase you need both an egg and sperm to create an embryo, and there just isnt the egg. Im talking about natural means, so AI, cloning, and stuff don;t count.

I suppose you could adopt kids, as Bob says, it doesnt really matter as long as your 'children' are well cared for, loved, and not abused.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

But every previous change to the marriage insitution enacted by the progressives has been a total disaster. The divorce rate is a testimony to this.

What makes you think this will be any different?

There's also suspicion among some that a gay couple is less stable than a straight one, and more likely to separate. Gay unions have only been around for a short period of time in California, and they're already filing "divorces" in droves.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Maybe its something about the brain chemistry - maybe people of the same gender have too much alike to live together for that long.