[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Athens:
Would you say sex between Mother and Son is natural? Because if you leave a family of rats together guess what, they have sex.

If the son is a man, then, yes it is. But I wouldn't approve of the ability to marry on that basis because it's immoral and wrong.

What do rats have to do with human beings?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
However, if you want to discuss the "societal influence on children" angle in regards to same-sex marriage you better be willing to bring drinking, smoking, drug abuse, and the whole teen pop-culture phenomena into the discussion. Because these are external influences that parents aren't going to want young kids exposed to, are they? Do you know any parents who want their children exposed to relentless advertising that promotes "being cool" with drinking? I don't.

I understand that there are influences besides sexuality that will be pulling my son's moral strings as he grows up. The difference in all of those things that you mentioned is that sexuality has an especially strong draw for people. It doesn't cost money so anyone can do it and most people enjoy it. It should be scrutinized the closest.

As for your question about parents exposing their children to advertising that promotes certain ideals? Sadly, I do know people like that. They are oblivious. Rather than actively exposing their children to advertising of certain products, they simply don't notice or don't care that the message is going in.

[OldManMac]

If your son isn't gay, he isn't going to be drawn to the homosexual lifestyle, regardless of the amount of television, print, and movie media he is exposed to featuring homosexuality.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by KarlG:
If your son isn't gay, he isn't going to be drawn to the homosexual lifestyle, regardless of the amount of television, print, and movie media he is exposed to featuring homosexuality.

Then explain to me the new trend of girls kissing and groping girls to attract guys? Explain experimentation to me? Explain to me why some people are characterized as confused?

Let me illustrate my thinking a little bit. I see sex kind of like a tree. All the various positions and fetishes are the branches of that tree. Missionary is only exciting for some people for a while before they begin exploring the other branches. Some people will be more open to trying kinkier or more alternative methods of getting off. Part of that, in my thinking, is suggested by outside influences. If society condones that behavior as normal, then why wouldn't someone experiment with it freely? That's what I am against.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Let me illustrate my thinking a little bit. I see sex kind of like a tree. All the various positions and fetishes are the branches of that tree. Missionary is only exciting for some people for a while before they begin exploring the other branches. Some people will be more open to trying kinkier or more alternative methods of getting off. Part of that, in my thinking, is suggested by outside influences. If society condones that behavior as normal, then why wouldn't someone experiment with it freely? That's what I am against.

Interesting analogy. But, you are hitting on a bigger issue which I don't think you are addressing but which I mentioned in a previous post: namely the issue of rampant sexualization of our youth via pop culture.

Do I want to see societal messages promoting homosexual experimentation among our youth, pre-teens, and teens? Absolutely not! Do I want to see societal messages promoting heterosexual experimentation among our youth, pre-teens, and teens? Absolutely not! Sexual urges--whether heterosexual or homosexual--will occur in youth and they will want to act on them without the need for society to push them towards it any faster.

But, you seem to be implying that the former is taboo but the latter is ok. Is that what you are trying to say? experimenting is OK as long as it is straight experiementation? If not, please correct me and tell me what your point is then.

[OldManMac]

There is no new "trend" towards girls kissing, etc. That's TV news sensationalism, that some people apparently buy into. Anecdotal stories do not replace reality, except for those who allow themselves to think so. Homosexuality is not exploding in growth; it's been with us forever, and will be with us forever, in very small numbers.

It's quite obvious that sensationalism sells, and in some cases, gets the effects that the producer of the message intends.

This is no different than what happens when there is a school shooting. Everybody runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, proclaiming the end of safety in our shcools, and how our youth are inculcated with violence, while in fact the number and rate of school shootings is heading downward.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
But, you seem to be implying that the former is taboo but the latter is ok. Is that what you are trying to say? experimenting is OK as long as it is straight experiementation? If not, please correct me and tell me what your point is then.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't agree with the experimentation thing. But you've got to admit that it's probably much easier for two boys in a locker room or a bedroom to experiment than for a boy and a girl to find some where private that won't raise eyebrows. That's another aspect of my concern. The ease with which certain kinds of experimentation can take place.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Gays and cloning?

Do you think the "gay left" agenda is to turn the whole world into a writhing den of hot, sweaty man-on-man love action via cloning? You really have lost your mind, dcolton. After that statement there is NO MORE possibility of logical discussion with you.

Cloning in the respect that gay couples CANNOT procreate or produce a child that shares the genes of both partners. That is what I mean by cloning...a way for a gay couple to 'reproduce'.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by KarlG:
There is no new "trend" towards girls kissing, etc. That's TV news sensationalism, that some people apparently buy into.

So gays everywhere aren't really railing for marriage rights like the sensationalist news media would have us believe? While I agree that in some cases that is true, I believe there is a kernel of truth to most of it. You'd have to be blind to not see that a sexual revolution is occurring and people are becoming more and more promiscuous. More eager to experiment. I think it's important that guidelines be placed on what's acceptable behavior and what isn't. I mean if a juvenile and an adult want to consent who's hurt, right? We know that behavior is reprehensible, but why? Does it matter? A 16 or 17 year old isn't capable of consenting to an adult, but we pass out condoms at school because they're going to consent to people their own age? Where is the the line drawn? When is enough, enough?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If there was an effect of the `gay left' on culture and lifestyle, you wouldn't notice. Coz it's been around forever.

No ****. BUt what about gaycentric entertainment? What about the introduction of gay comic book characters, sitcom characters and cartoon characters? What about all pf these semi-reality shows like queer eye for the straight guy or that sexualliy expliciy show on Showtime? What about Will and Grace. What about the internet and the gay left's agenda to recruit and manipulate the American people with deceptive lies? The gay left IS imposing its lifestyle on the American people and we can see a decline in morals already. The gay left is trying to romanticize and legitimize poor behavior. Some people have already been manipulated and brainwashed. Others have not. I am glad we live in a conservative nation that has a moral compass that points in the right direction. Regretfully, the liberal left and the gay agenda are trying to force that compass to point south.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by deomacius:
So gays everywhere aren't really railing for marriage rights like the sensationalist news media would have us believe? While I agree that in some cases that is true, I believe there is a kernel of truth to most of it. You'd have to be blind to not see that a sexual revolution is occurring and people are becoming more and more promiscuous. More eager to experiment. I think it's important that guidelines be placed on what's acceptable behavior and what isn't. I mean if a juvenile and an adult want to consent who's hurt, right? We know that behavior is reprehensible, but why? Does it matter? A 16 or 17 year old isn't capable of consenting to an adult, but we pass out condoms at school because they're going to consent to people their own age? Where is the the line drawn? When is enough, enough?

Well put deo! But you have to remember, you are asking people who let the wrong head make decisions for them to think outside of the box and to look further than their own nose to realize the overall negative effect legitimizing homosexuality will have.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by deomacius:
So gays everywhere aren't really railing for marriage rights like the sensationalist news media would have us believe? While I agree that in some cases that is true, I believe there is a kernel of truth to most of it. You'd have to be blind to not see that a sexual revolution is occurring and people are becoming more and more promiscuous. More eager to experiment. I think it's important that guidelines be placed on what's acceptable behavior and what isn't. I mean if a juvenile and an adult want to consent who's hurt, right? We know that behavior is reprehensible, but why? Does it matter? A 16 or 17 year old isn't capable of consenting to an adult, but we pass out condoms at school because they're going to consent to people their own age? Where is the the line drawn? When is enough, enough?

Yes, many gays are rallying for marriage rights, as they should. What you're not pointing out is that the gay populations still only represents a couple of percentage points of the entire population, and has always done so, and will always do so.

There is no more of a sexual revolution going on today than there was fifty years ago; the difference is that we live in a world of instant communication, so when we turn on the boob tube and they tell us that a revolution is taking place, we, being creatures that like instant gratification and have fragile egos, take that as gospel truth, and trumpet loudly that this generation is heading for hell in a handbasket, when in fact that's not the case. For some, emotionalism triumphs over rational and logical thought processes (and research), and, unfortunately, they make life decisions based on nothing solid. Our children are quite capable of deciding right from wrong on their own, with a little guidance from us.

I've always found it interesting that such a large number of people focus on what 2% of the population does in their bedrooms, yet allows their children to be subjected to watching thousands get murdered, torutured, raped, and mutilated on TV before the age of ten, while convienently overlooking their own failing marriages, cheating on their spouses, stealing from work, cheating their employers out of work performed for time paid, etc.

Homosexuals just happen to make an easy target, because they're "different." Enough is enough when some of the real societal issues are attacked, that affect far more people than a tiny sliver.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
. . . you are asking people who let the wrong head make decisions for them to think outside of the box and to look further than their own nose . . .

Block that metaphor!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:


I've always found it interesting that such a large number of people focus on what 2% of the population does in their bedrooms, yet allows their children to be subjected to watching thousands get murdered, torutured, raped, and mutilated on TV before the age of ten, while convienently overlooking their own failing marriages, cheating on their spouses, stealing from work, cheating their employers out of work performed for time paid, etc.

1. We are not focusing on what 2% do in their bedroom. We are wondering why 2% of the people want to redefine marriage to legitimize their lifestyle choice. We are wondering what the true motive really is. As I mentioned...there is never an argument for same sex marriages that relates to love...only arguments for special rights and specia benefits.

2. Attacking heterosexual families to gain special rights for the gay left isn't very prudent. may I direct your attention to November 2nd, 2004. Perhaps if the gay left can come up with better arguments for their effort to redefine marriage and family, some people would listen. Instead, gays think a wholesale attack on anything pro-family is the way to get people to sympathize with their predicament (of choice). Please, continue. Your effort does more good for my cause.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I've always found it interesting that such a large number of people focus on what 2% of the population does in their bedrooms, yet allows their children to be subjected to watching thousands get murdered, torutured, raped, and mutilated on TV before the age of ten, while convienently overlooking their own failing marriages, cheating on their spouses, stealing from work, cheating their employers out of work performed for time paid, etc.

Homosexuals just happen to make an easy target, because they're "different." Enough is enough when some of the real societal issues are attacked, that affect far more people than a tiny sliver.

Some of your statements are patently false. We are promoting sex on a grander scale than we ever did in this country. More people are having more sex with more people than ever before. I agree that communication is speeding up our ability to know what's going on. But sex and sexuality is on the rise, not the decline.

I also find it interesting that you take the stance that if people minded their own business that gays would just be gays and things would be fine. I'm all for that. No more Queer Eye, no more Will and Grace. Stop holding placards about gay marriage. Stop shoving it down the throat of the majority and everyone else will leave them alone. Let's face it. Gays trying to push their opinions down the throat of the majority is probably as bothersome as me coming to this board and trying to convince you that my beliefs are right. Actually... more so.

[OldManMac]

Let me ask this; why are there shows like Queer Eye, and Will and Grace? Because a certain segment of the population watches them. Apparently you feel threatened by these shows, which you shouldn't experience if you're so secure in your beliefs. I don't feel threatened by them; I don't even watch them, and I have lots of gay friends. I know who I am, and I'm not going to change my sexual orientation just because of a show on television. You're in charge of yourself; Will and Grace aren't in charge of you.

[deomacius]

{Sigh}

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1. We are not focusing on what 2% do in their bedroom. We are wondering why 2% of the people want to redefine marriage to legitimize their lifestyle choice. We are wondering what the true motive really is. As I mentioned...there is never an argument for same sex marriages that relates to love...only arguments for special rights and specia benefits.

2. Attacking heterosexual families to gain special rights for the gay left isn't very prudent. may I direct your attention to November 2nd, 2004. Perhaps if the gay left can come up with better arguments for their effort to redefine marriage and family, some people would listen. Instead, gays think a wholesale attack on anything pro-family is the way to get people to sympathize with their predicament (of choice). Please, continue. Your effort does more good for my cause.

No one is redifining marriage to you. If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then marry a woman. Your marriage is based on the strength of your vows and committments, not on the strength of the vows and committments made by Bill and Ken, or Susie and Barb. If you believe that a woman is your lifetime partner and soul mate, fine; Bill and Ken don't feel threatened by that, yet you feel threatened when Bill and Ken get married.

No one is attacking heterosexual families; once again you feel threatened because you can't see past the hypocrisy of those who worry about what others do, when their own houses aren't in order.

Whether my daughter made a choice, or was genetically influenced, is also irrelevant. At the end of the day, I love her unconditionally because I don't live my life in hate and fear of those who are different, unlike far too many others.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by deomacius:
{Sigh}

I know how you feel.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I know how you feel.

At least we agree on one point.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
No one is redifining marriage to you. If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then marry a woman. Your marriage is based on the strength of your vows and committments, not on the strength of the vows and committments made by Bill and Ken, or Susie and Barb. If you believe that a woman is your lifetime partner and soul mate, fine; Bill and Ken don't feel threatened by that, yet you feel threatened when Bill and Ken get married.

No one is attacking heterosexual families; once again you feel threatened because you can't see past the hypocrisy of those who worry about what others do, when their own houses aren't in order.

Whether my daughter made a choice, or was genetically influenced, is also irrelevant. At the end of the day, I love her unconditionally because I don't live my life in hate and fear of those who are different, unlike far too many others.

Karl, How is changing an age old institution that is legally defined as a union between a man and woman not being redefined if we change that legal definition to include man and man and woman and woman?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by deomacius:
More people are having more sex with more people than ever before.

Not to mention a concomitant increase in cuddling.

Stop shoving it down the throat of the majority and everyone else will leave them alone. Let's face it. Gays trying to push their opinions down the throat of the majority . . .

Again with the metaphors. I'm not gay, but your and dcolton's obsession with sex is making me kinda horny. What are you wearing?

[OldManMac]

I consider marriage to be defined as between me and my partner. Apparently, you consider it to be between you and your partner, and the state. It doesn't affect my marriage when Bill and Ken get married and move in next door; apparently it affects your marriage.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I consider marriage to be defined as between me and my partner. Apparently, you consider it to be between you and your partner, and the state. It doesn't affect my marriage when Bill and Ken get married and move in next door; apparently it affects your marriage.

You didn't answer my question, now did you?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Not to mention a concomitant increase in cuddling.



Again with the metaphors. I'm not gay, but your and dcolton's obsession with sex is making me kinda horny. What are you wearing?

Whew; I'm relieved. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You didn't answer my question, now did you?

You never answer mine. In legal terms, it does change the definition, but that's of no concern to me. I'm not marrying the world; I'm marrying a partner.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You never answer mine. In legal terms, it does change the definition, but that's of no concern to me. I'm not marrying the world; I'm marrying a partner.

Very interesting.

What question?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by zigzag:
What are you wearing?

A motorcycle helmet, scottish kilt, flip flops and a cape. Bag pipe in tow!

You like?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by deomacius:
A motorcycle helmet, scottish kilt, flip flops and a cape. Bag pipe in tow!

You like?

fap.fap.fap.fap.fap.fap.fap.fap.fap.

Thank you zigzag, KarlG, and deomacious for some much needed humor in this thread.

[deomacius]

cdmacdaddy,

I do what I can! Anything to lighten the mood, ya know? At the end of the day we're all human and none of us is perfect or has all the answers. If you(not personally) can accept that, the rest is gravy.


Lumpy, country gravy...



with mashed potatoes.




I've said too much.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by deomacius:
cdmacdaddy,

I do what I can! Anything to lighten the mood, ya know? At the end of the day we're all human and none of us is perfect or has all the answers. If you(not personally) can accept that, the rest is gravy.


Lumpy, country gravy...



with mashed potatoes.




I've said too much.

Before you made me horny, now you're making me hungry.

How about some red-eye gravy over biscuits fresh from the oven. Yummm!

I can't wait to get some of my Mom's home-cooking for Christmas. It's all very traditional with the roasted bird and other stuff but Mmmmm, home cooking is where it's at. Nobody will argue against that . . . I hope.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Before you made me horny, now you're making me hungry.

Strangely, you aren't the first to say that. odd!

How about some red-eye gravy over biscuits fresh from the oven. Yummm!

I've never heard of red-eye gravy, but it sounds... erm... pass the cranberries please?

I can't wait to get some of my Mom's home-cooking for Christmas. It's all very traditional with the roasted bird and other stuff but Mmmmm, home cooking is where it's at. Nobody will argue against that . . . I hope.

Damned skippy! Here's to a Merry Christmas! {toast}

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Cloning in the respect that gay couples CANNOT procreate or produce a child that shares the genes of both partners. That is what I mean by cloning...a way for a gay couple to 'reproduce'.

It's bad enough gays must always resort to artificial means in order to have sex (because men don't have vaginas and women don't have penises), now, with cloning they can simulate parenting as well!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It's bad enough gays must always resort to artificial means in order to have sex (because men don't have vaginas and women don't have penises), now, with cloning they can simulate parenting as well!

None of these guys will ever realize the big picture. Too many either believe the manipulation of the truth presented by the gay left or, as seen here, many are guilty of spreading hyperbnole, half-truths and espousing pure hatred.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I have seen it happen and been involved with counseling kids who experiment this way.

And who do you force your values on?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Karl, How is changing an age old institution that is legally defined as a union between a man and woman not being redefined if we change that legal definition to include man and man and woman and woman?

How old is the legal definition of marriage in the US? Is it "age old"?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How old is the legal definition of marriage in the US? Is it "age old"?

It is older than canada amoral code that allows gays to marry. But then again, who cares, eh. Canada has always been a haven for American undesireables. Your new anti-family law should attract quite a few gays...along with military deserters, liberal cry babies and wanted felons.

[DBursey]

Sorry guys; I just jumped in here. What's this anti-family law all about? Got a link?

edit: perused. It's the end of the world as we know it. I feel fine.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I see that junk science and the manipulation of the gay left has infected your thought process. There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. And I guarantee you, it is nothing like me black, white, man or women...it is a choice to act upon sexual urges and live a specific lifestyle.

I am sorry I haven't been infected by anything. The fact that absolute evidence hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is genetic, how else would people know at an early age that they are "different" even if they have never been exposed to homosexuality?

They have the right to marry. They want to redefine marriage...that equates to special rights.

Is it defined somewhere in your constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Wanting to have security and benefits when your partner dies does not constitute "special rights".

Quite similar if you are racist.

I don't really know how you come to this conclusion.

Don't compare the plight of a black man in the 60's to the virtual cake walk a gay man has because he chooses a certain lifestyle. Blacks were discriminated against because the color of their skins...not because of their actions.

Are you saying that there is a line between types of discrimination? Gays may not have the same level of discrimination as that of the black man in the 60s but discrimination is discrimination. You either are or you aren't, it should not be tolorated at any level in a "free" society.

They have the same legal rights. Onem, they have the right to marry anyperson of the opposite sex...because that is the LEGAL definition of marriage. They have the right to choose not to marry. Just because someone makes a conscience choice to sleep with someone of the same sex doesn't mean we should change an institution, tax system and way of life to cater to an extremely small percentage of individuals who are hell bent on the idea of forcing their value system and alternative lifestyle on American children and families.

They do not have the same legal rights in terms of benefits for married couples. And what is your preoccupation with the sleeping together thing? Why shouldn't loving couples in committed relationships be afforded all the rights of the state and federal governments? What difference does it really make if they are two dudes or two chicks? They are not forcing their value system on america at large except the values of couples in commited relationships. They are not asking you to be gay. There are many groups in society that you personally may not agree with that doesn't mean that you have the right to deny them equal treatment.

I will say that I don't think that churches should have to perform gay cerimonies et all if the religion is unaccepting of the union.

As for the small percentage thing I don't care, that just brings me back to the discrimination comment above.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Some of your statements are patently false. We are promoting sex on a grander scale than we ever did in this country. More people are having more sex with more people than ever before. I agree that communication is speeding up our ability to know what's going on. But sex and sexuality is on the rise, not the decline.

I also find it interesting that you take the stance that if people minded their own business that gays would just be gays and things would be fine. I'm all for that. No more Queer Eye, no more Will and Grace. Stop holding placards about gay marriage. Stop shoving it down the throat of the majority and everyone else will leave them alone. Let's face it. Gays trying to push their opinions down the throat of the majority is probably as bothersome as me coming to this board and trying to convince you that my beliefs are right. Actually... more so.

I don't think that Will & Grace and Queer Eye have a great deal to do with the gay community. Those aren't gay shows for and about gay people, they are straight parodies of gay people, primarily for the entertainment of straight people. Don't blame us if the networks only like their f*gs swishy.

Basically, you seem upset at the simple affrontory of the fact you have to acknowledge the fact that gay people exist. Do you know the story about King Canute? Whether or not people like you succeed in keeping us legally second class citizens is beside that point. We aren't going back into the closet, period. You might as well get used to it, because that is not negotiable, and not in your power to force.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by shmerek:
it should not be tolorated at any level in a "free" society.

And that's really the crux of this whole thing. You are free to marry the opposite sex and get certain benefits and privileges or not. That's entirely up to each person. Painting that scenario as discrimination when there are two clear choices is shady at best. You could choose to engage in intercourse with the same sex, the opposite sex or just not do it at all. But you choose to engage in one or more. A person of a certain race is that race from birth and there is little chance that will change. Intercourse = action (chosen). Race = trait (predefined).

[shmerek]

Originally posted by deomacius:
And that's really the crux of this whole thing. You are free to marry the opposite sex and get certain benefits and privileges or not. That's entirely up to each person. Painting that scenario as discrimination when there are two clear choices is shady at best. You could choose to engage in intercourse with the same sex, the opposite sex or just not do it at all. But you choose to engage in one or more. A person of a certain race is that race from birth and there is little chance that will change. Intercourse = action (chosen). Race = trait (predefined).

Sorry but I do not equate being gay just with who one chooses to root. I could **** a dude but that doesn't make me gay it just means I ****ed a dude.

But if I decide to marry a person of the same sex I am not entitled to benefits therefore I am not entitled to equal rights.

(and just for the record I dig chicks)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How old is the legal definition of marriage in the US? Is it "age old"?

Funny you should mention that. In my state, and probably most states, the law didn't mention gender until a few years ago - marriage was just a legal relationship governed by the state. Of course, gender wasn't mentioned because it hadn't occurred to anyone that people of the same gender would want to marry. But it illustrates that in a civil context, gender isn't germane to the definition of marriage. It was only when gays started seeking equal treatment that the family values crowd - you know, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, guys who abandon their wives and children - insisted on legislation defining marriage as between "a man and woman."

Anyway, the idea that civil marriage is or has to be defined a certain way is nonsense - the law can define it any way it sees fit, as it did until a few years ago. The Massachusetts Supreme Court correctly found that in a civil context, the man-woman limitation is state-sponsored discrimination, which is unconstitutional. More and more courts will do likewise, which is why the family values crowd - you know, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr - is so desperate to amend our state and federal constitutions. They know that as things stand, they're on the wrong side of the law. Of course, they can do as they please in their churches, but it appears that freedom of religion isn't enough.

Anyway, I'm just glad we have guys like Newt and Bob to represent family values. Better, for instance, to turn your back on your cancer-ridden wife than to let a couple of harmless women make their relationship legal.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Sorry but I do not equate being gay just with who one chooses to root. I could **** a dude but that doesn't make me gay it just means I ****ed a dude.

To - MAY - to.

To - MAH - to.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by deomacius:
To - MAY - to.

To - MAH - to.

what-EV-er

And this isn't about who you **** it is about who you share your life with in a commited relationship. If it was just about who you choose to screw then all those couples that don't **** anymore should have their marriages revoked.
Do you consciously choose who you find attractive? Is it a mental decision?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by shmerek:
what-EV-er

And this isn't about who you **** it is about who you share your life with in a commited relationship. If it was just about who you choose to screw then all those couples that don't **** anymore should have their marriages revoked.
Do you consciously choose who you find attractive? Is it a mental decision?

So you're saying that the fact that a half black, half white man is strongly attracted to white, redheaded women is genetic? I can assure you it probably had more to do with the environment I grew up in and the experiences I had when I was younger. Especially involving redheads.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by deomacius:
So you're saying that the fact that a half black, half white man is strongly attracted to white, redheaded women is genetic? I can assure you it probably had more to do with the environment I grew up in and the experiences I had when I was younger. Especially involving redheads.

No I am just saying people are attracted to people and that it just happens, I am not saying it is genetic or that it is a conscious decision.

I still have a thing for redheads... I can't help myself.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Is it defined somewhere in your constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

Many states now have such a definition in their constitutions.

After all, nature has designed men and women to seek out the opposite sex because of the way the sex organs function. To seek out members of the same sex is against nature and they therefore shouldn't be treated as equal in terms of marriage benefits with those who seek out the opposite sex.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by shmerek:
But if I decide to marry a person of the same sex I am not entitled to benefits therefore I am not entitled to equal rights.

No, you are making a conscious choice to forgo equality because of your behavior.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
No, you are making a conscious choice to forgo equality because of your behavior.

Please show us where in the 14th Amendment it says anything about forgoing equality. Do you even comprehend the sheer illogicality of that statement?