LGBT equality same as black equality

[fix]

Should a sterile woman be allowed to “marry” considering she cannot have children?

Why should she not be allowed? She belongs to a class of people that are fertile by nature. The same sex pairing people belong to a class that can never be fertile by nature. The two examples have nothing in common.

 

[Crescentinus]

Why should she not be allowed. She belongs to a class of people that are fertile by nature. The same sex pairing people belong to a class that can never be fertile by nature. The two examples have nothing in common.

Thanks for demolishing the weak rhetorical questions in this thread.

 

[fix]

Thanks for demolishing the weak rhetorical questions in this thread.

That such an argument is always used reveals how weak the reasoning is to support such an absurd position. Same sex pairings totally lack the conjugal dimension .

 

[Crescentinus]

That such an argument is always used reveals how weak the reasoning is to support such an absurd position. Same sex pairings totally lack the conjugal dimension .

But that had not stopped the homosexualists in using those arguments in order to convert us. It is very hypocritical whenever I hear homosexualists tell our side that we’re irrational and yet they themselves use very irrational arguments in order to try and convert us.

 

[Mistress_Luna]

But your arguments ARE irrational.

I m not going even to touch the subject of believing in an invisible bad guy in the sky as described by primitive shamans of the past.

• Procreation is not a requirement that allows 2 person to get married
• Once married they are not required to procreate
  - Homosexual people are NOT infertile.
• Homosexual families RAISE babies. Their OWN babies as well.
• Female gay couple two times more “productive” in relation to procreation than female-male couple for obvious reasons

You constantly talk how you want to protect family , children and marriage. YEt what you do is DESTROY families, DESTROY children’s lives.
Homosexual couples will procreate and will be raising babies whether you want it or not. Yet you want to leave these babies unprotected socially and in all kind of ways.

I more than once read “argument” that if by some accident all people were 100% homosexual humanity would die out. Its 100% antiscientific lie.

Desire to have a baby doesnt come from sexual orientation

Even if all humans turned into 100% homosexual(not even bisexual) humanity wouldnt die out. I will be talking bluntly. Delivery of sperm into a vagina is a matter of several minutes and doesnt require inserting a penis. It doesnt even require any specific complex technology.

So yeah, your arguments are irrational(and as i said im not even touching the subject of your irrational religion that requires from you to interfere in people lives who do not share your beliefs

All scientific data to this date that is supported by all major psychological organizations who represent official science and medicine (hello NARTH! a bunch of religious charlatans) doesnt have anything against same-sex parenting. The recent “research” from a conservative guy sponsored by conservative forces dont remember his name has been proven to be innacurate and actually didnt deal with same-sex FAMILIES AT ALL . Pathetic.

 

[Crescentinus]

Mistress Luna acts like she’s proselytizing.

 

[CopticChristian]

But your arguments ARE irrational.

I m not going even to touch the subject of believing in an invisible bad guy in the sky as described by primitive shamans of the past.

• Procreation is not a requirement that allows 2 person to get married
• Once married they are not required to procreate
  - Homosexual people are NOT infertile.
• Homosexual families RAISE babies. Their OWN babies as well.
• Female gay couple two times more “productive” in relation to procreation than female-male couple for obvious reasons

You constantly talk how you want to protect family , children and marriage. YEt what you do is DESTROY families, DESTROY children’s lives.
Homosexual couples will procreate and will be raising babies whether you want it or not. Yet you want to leave these babies unprotected socially and in all kind of ways.

I more than once read “argument” that if by some accident all people were 100% homosexual humanity would die out. Its 100% antiscientific lie.

Desire to have a baby doesnt come from sexual orientation

Even if all humans turned into 100% homosexual(not even bisexual) humanity wouldnt die out. I will be talking bluntly. Delivery of sperm into a vagina is a matter of several minutes and doesnt require inserting a penis. It doesnt even require any specific complex technology.

So yeah, your arguments are irrational(and as i said im not even touching the subject of your irrational religion that requires from you to interfere in people lives who do not share your beliefs

All scientific data to this date that is supported by all major psychological organizations who represent official science and medicine (hello NARTH! a bunch of religious charlatans) doesnt have anything against same-sex parenting. The recent “research” from a conservative guy sponsored by conservative forces dont remember his name has been proven to be innacurate and actually didnt deal with same-sex FAMILIES AT ALL . Pathetic.

MLuna,

Is it your belief and understanding that all major psychological organizations and all major medical associations agree on other issues as well?

Is it your understanding and belief that all major pscyhological organizations and all major medical associations agree that a treatment based on religion should not be propogated or advertised on their sites?

 

[Midwest88]

of course same sex attraction is disordered. It’s a disorder of the sex drive. It’s self evident that our sex organs are designed for procreation. Procreation requires opposite sex genders. To not be attracted to the opposite gender is a disorder.

Your argument is like saying being color blind is a variation of human eyesight when it is a disorder of the function of the human eye.

Social conservatives are “primitive.” It’s all about love, man. Love! We can’t help who we love!

 

[vsedriver]

But your arguments ARE irrational.

Only if you believe nature is irrational.

I m not going even to touch the subject of believing in an invisible bad guy in the sky as described by primitive shamans of the past.

also not necessary to the argument.

• Procreation is not a requirement that allows 2 person to get married

Right, it is not a requirement because the whole point of getting married was to prepare to raise children. They become potential mommies and daddies. Since the vast majority of heterosexuals are fertile they do end up being parents.

• Once married they are not required to procreate

True, but they are still potential mommies and daddies and can change their minds at any time. In fact, even in old age when past child bearing years a man and a woman can end up parenting grandchildren.

- Homosexual people are NOT infertile.

But they are infertile with each other. They can’t produce children without introducing an outside party. The two shall become one doesn’t work here.

• Homosexual families RAISE babies. Their OWN babies as well.

Yes, babies of one of the individual with no biological connection to the other parent but most off all the CHILD is deliberately deprived of the natural right to experience having a mommy and a daddy.

• Female gay couple two times more “productive” in relation to procreation than female-male couple for obvious reasons

and their children all lack a dad. Kind of tells the boys they aren’t really necessary as parents. Just give us a little sperm and go on your way. Don’t worry about actually having to father your kids.

You constantly talk how you want to protect family , children and marriage. YEt what you do is DESTROY families, DESTROY children’s lives.

No one has advocated pulling children out of their current home situation. However, it should always be the standard to place adoptive children in 2 gender families first and then only when no homes are available use SS couples and singles.

Homosexual couples will procreate and will be raising babies whether you want it or not. Yet you want to leave these babies unprotected socially and in all kind of ways.

How are they unprotected? They have legal parents. They are no more unprotected than the children of any other single parent.

Desire to have a baby doesnt come from sexual orientation

True, but the reason to have children should be for the benefit of the children not to indulge in our own wishes and desires. All adult humans should wish to give the best to their future children and the most basic need to give to a child is the experience of having 2 parents, one of each gender.

So yeah, your arguments are irrational(and as i said im not even touching the subject of your irrational religion that requires from you to interfere in people lives who do not share your beliefs

The common good often interferes with personal wants and desires.

 

[fix]

But your arguments ARE irrational.

I m not going even to touch the subject of believing in an invisible bad guy in the sky as described by primitive shamans of the past.

• Procreation is not a requirement that allows 2 person to get married
• Once married they are not required to procreate
  - Homosexual people are NOT infertile.
• Homosexual families RAISE babies. Their OWN babies as well.
• Female gay couple two times more “productive” in relation to procreation than female-male couple for obvious reasons

You constantly talk how you want to protect family , children and marriage. YEt what you do is DESTROY families, DESTROY children’s lives.
Homosexual couples will procreate and will be raising babies whether you want it or not. Yet you want to leave these babies unprotected socially and in all kind of ways.

I more than once read “argument” that if by some accident all people were 100% homosexual humanity would die out. Its 100% antiscientific lie.

Desire to have a baby doesnt come from sexual orientation

Even if all humans turned into 100% homosexual(not even bisexual) humanity wouldnt die out. I will be talking bluntly. Delivery of sperm into a vagina is a matter of several minutes and doesnt require inserting a penis. It doesnt even require any specific complex technology.

So yeah, your arguments are irrational(and as i said im not even touching the subject of your irrational religion that requires from you to interfere in people lives who do not share your beliefs

All scientific data to this date that is supported by all major psychological organizations who represent official science and medicine (hello NARTH! a bunch of religious charlatans) doesnt have anything against same-sex parenting. The recent “research” from a conservative guy sponsored by conservative forces dont remember his name has been proven to be innacurate and actually didnt deal with same-sex FAMILIES AT ALL . Pathetic.

So confused. Heterosexual couples cannot be infertile. Only individuals can be infertile.

Same sex persons are not infertile, perhaps non fertile is a better way to say it. It is not that they have a physical impediment it is that such pairings totally lack the conjugal dimension. IOW, the subset of persons that choose to live in these same sex relationships are in no way analgous to married people. They simply try to mimic normal marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So confused. Heterosexual couples cannot be infertile. Only individuals can be infertile.

Same sex persons are not infertile, perhaps non fertile is a better way to say it. It is not that they have a physical impediment it is that such pairings totally lack the conjugal dimension. IOW, the subset of persons that choose to live in these same sex relationships are in no way analgous to married people. They simply try to mimic normal marriage.

And regardless, fertile or not, homosexual “couples” can never be complementary at their core. They can be “complementary” in personality, just as any two friends can be of either or both genders. But their sexual relationship radically lacks complementarity, therefore radically lacks authenticity as a “couple” in some kind of faux-parallel pretension of heterosexual relationships.

They can attach a label, but the label is empty and will always be empty of meaning.

End of story.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And regardless, fertile or not, homosexual “couples” can never be complementary at their core. They can be “complementary” in personality, just as any two friends can be of either or both genders. But their sexual relationship radically lacks complementarity, therefore radically lacks authenticity as a “couple” in some kind of faux-parallel pretension of heterosexual relationships.

They can attach a label, but the label is empty and will always be empty of meaning.

End of story.

Indeed, marriages are unions of the flesh not the spirit. The spirit is irrelevant to marriage as long as they fully consent and all those other requirements.

 

[Crescentinus]

And regardless, fertile or not, homosexual “couples” can never be complementary at their core. They can be “complementary” in personality, just as any two friends can be of either or both genders. But their sexual relationship radically lacks complementarity, therefore radically lacks authenticity as a “couple” in some kind of faux-parallel pretension of heterosexual relationships.

They can attach a label, but the label is empty and will always be empty of meaning.

End of story.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m so glad to see this. Because I demand the right to marry who I love too. I want the same rights and benefits of marriage. I should not be discriminated against! I want to marry my 80 yr old mother. We’ve been living together for 2 years. I should be able to put her on my insurance, deduct her as a dependent, and inherit all her property without sharing with my siblings.

I accept as true the proposition that there are no purely private sins. When God prohibits us from doing something, it is because that deed has an effect on other human beings. The effect may not be obvious, but like the flap of a butterfly’s wing. it can cause a hurricane. What two people do in bed helps shape their behavior in public. For two men to claim that their sexual preferences must be acknowledged as “married” will have a great effect on society as a whole, and not for the good. It will reduce marriage to a mere symbol, with no role in the continuation of that society, a society in part shaped by the old concept of marriage.

 

[ManOnFire]

What if “some unknown percentage” of homosexuals developed a fear or intolerance of those of the different gender throughout development? My teenage friend who later became homosexual was very mysogynistic. Should we be expected to celebrate some people’s fear and xenophobia of those of a different gender just because the gender seems foreign or different?

 

[Crescentinus]

What if “some unknown percentage” of homosexuals developed a fear or intolerance of those of the different gender throughout development? My teenage friend who later became homosexual was very mysogynistic. Should we be expected to celebrate some people’s fear and xenophobia of those of a different gender just because the gender seems foreign or different?

I know for a fact that some lesbians outright hate all guys.
I’m wondering why the radical feminists tend to support homosexism.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What if “some unknown percentage” of homosexuals developed a fear or intolerance of those of the different gender throughout development? My teenage friend who later became homosexual was very mysogynistic. Should we be expected to celebrate some people’s fear and xenophobia of those of a different gender just because the gender seems foreign or different?

Which clearly explains the number of gays with mostly female friends.

For a number of misogynists I’ve met the only thing preventing them from being vocal was wanting sex, for your friend that wasn’t a check on his comments.

The real question is obviously “Why would a man want a soft squishy woman when firm muscled men feel so much better?”

 

[CopticChristian]

Which clearly explains the number of gays with mostly female friends.

For a number of misogynists I’ve met the only thing preventing them from being vocal was wanting sex, for your friend that wasn’t a check on his comments.

The real question is obviously “Why would a man want a soft squishy woman when firm muscled men feel so much better?”

Dakota,

You show your bias. I have known homosexuals that prefer firm muscled men and homosexuals that prefer soft squishy men. In consideration of my favor of women I like both firm and squishy women. They both appeal to me.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota,

You show your bias. I have known homosexuals that prefer firm muscled men and homosexuals that prefer soft squishy men. In consideration of my favor of women I like both firm and squishy women. They both appeal to me.

But it’s true! It’s more comfortable to recline against their bosom too (Jn.13:23 anyone?).

 

[epan]

Whatever you say, be sure to come from a place of love, and don’t sound condemning. This argument is somewhat like presidential politics. You don’t need to win the right, and you won’t win the left. Your target audience is the middle, who is willing to consider multiple points of view.

My personal opinion is that the tide has turned. So, I am not sure that I would waste my own time discussing the question. The last time that i did debate someone on the issue, I took the position that civil union was an alternative to marriage. I think the latest polls show that the majority of Americans favor gay marriage, but only when the option of civil union is not included in the polling choices. Once civil union is offered as an option, then gay marriage is a clear loser in public opinion.

The problem with this argument in comparison to black civil rights, is that you will be charged with advocating “separate but equal” accommodation. I’m not sure how to counter that without sounding like a bigot, other than to deny the analogy, by pointing out that marriage has always been reserved for people of opposite gender, and that you don’t suggest that civil union is equal to marriage. It is different. But that you advocate an accommodation which will protect the civil rights of gays who wish to be together, though you personally don’t approve of their relationship.

Trying to advance the idea that gays simply should not be together is likely to backfire. Your only receptive audience will be those who already agree with you.