kids get it

[roid]

<3

[Top Gun]

He's smarter than the state of North Carolina, at least.

[Spidey]

Sure, I say we give the homo’s the right to get married…on one condition…one of them has to legally become the “wife” so we buck toofed retarded inbred redneck clones, can tell them apart.

[Tunnelcat]

I smell homophobia, otherwise it wouldn't put a kink in your britches.

[Spidey]

As I tried to tell you before tc…your senses are unreliable fact detectors.

[Top Gun]

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

[Sergeant Thorne]

In very poor taste. What kids "get" is that mommy and daddy are the norm, and, unless they've been conditioned to think otherwise, homosexuality is naturally going to be odd. Also I contest the notion that they "love" each other. I think you've got a very different dynamic going on there, it's just not politically correct to suggest or countenance it.

[Top Gun]

Or maybe it's that you're stuck on a three-thousand-year-old take on human sexuality, instead of acknowledging that our understanding of it has greatly changed. Homosexuality is normal, albeit a lower-percentage normal.

[flip]

Homosexuality is better described as an abberation or deviancy from the norm. I guess if we or themselves keep them from pro-creating it will be ok

[Sergeant Thorne]

You just threw the standard definition of "normal" out the window, Top Gun. Homosexuality is not normal, and it certainly isn't natural. I would contend that there is no such thing as "low-percentage normal", and I would further argue that it is too convenient to disregard 3000 years in favor of only a couple of decades of dressed-up, amoral, inventions created to justify deviant behavior in society.

The "understanding" of homosexuality has undergone a great deal of calculated manipulation, and suckers like you bought it. That's all there is to it. And they also invented names that you could use on people like me who call you on it, to attempt to ostracize us into conforming with your bankrupt reasoning. "Homophobe" may work on people who don't understand their compunctions with homosexuality, but you're barking up the wrong tree here, FYI.

[flip]

The "understanding" of homosexuality has undergone a great deal of calculated manipulation, and suckers like you bought it.

They pretty much had to though ST, if they didn't, the same suckers would be chasing them down the street with rocks and clubs

[Top Gun]

Oh this is rich.

You just threw the standard definition of "normal" out the window, Top Gun.

Did I? So tell me, is having red hair or green eyes "abnormal" just because it's a low-percentage occurrence?

Homosexuality is not normal, and it certainly isn't natural.

Several hundred animal species, everything from bonobo chimps to mallard ducks, say hi.

I would contend that there is no such thing as "low-percentage normal", and I would further argue that it is too convenient to disregard 3000 years in favor of only a couple of decades of dressed-up, amoral, inventions created to justify deviant behavior in society.

Or hey, maybe it's because we actually have a decent grasp of human behavior and genetics and psychology and such, instead of just pointing at people and yelling, "Those two heathen males love each other! Stone them!"

The "understanding" of homosexuality has undergone a great deal of calculated manipulation, and suckers like you bought it. That's all there is to it. And they also invented names that you could use on people like me who call you on it, to attempt to ostracize us into conforming with your bankrupt reasoning. "Homophobe" may work on people who don't understand their compunctions with homosexuality, but you're barking up the wrong tree here, FYI.

Yeah, I guess those terms don't exactly apply to dyed-in-the-wool, anti-intellectual rednecks, do they?

Seriously Thorne, you are so ass-backwards in almost everything you believe, it's astonishing. Wake up and smell the 21st century already.

And before you say anything Foil, no, I don't see these statements as inappropriate. This sort of bull★■◆● bigotry has gone on for way too long, and it's high time to call people out on it.

[Jeff250]

I would contend that there is no such thing as "low-percentage normal"

Everyone agrees that homosexuality is statistically abnormal. But that says nothing about it ethically. For instance, in some cases, people doing the right thing can be very rare, and people doing the wrong thing can be the statistical norm.

[Top Gun]

To follow up on that and clarify my earlier statement, homosexuality could be looked at as "abnormal" in a purely-numerical sense, but the idea that this somehow makes it "deviant" is just as laughable as applying that label to the aforementioned red hair.

[Sergeant Thorne]

@ Jeff

Sure. I wasn't speaking in terms of morality.

Since the dawn of time people have been marrying, having a family, living life, and passing the responsibility on to their children. In the animal kingdom the animals give birth, teach their young, and the circle goes on. Something that is at once contrary and in some ways extraneous to this circle of life cannot be normal, no matter how much they'd like to call it normal. Someone had to get together with the opposite sex to produce their screwed-up/confused asses. Let's get a clue.

[Top Gun]

A certain incidence of homosexuality in a population increases the reproductive success of said population. Sorry, but try another excuse.

[flip]

Your viewpoint here is gonna reflect whether you believe in an eternal soul and creation. That is where the lines ethically have to be drawn. Either you think there is just outright inherent cosmic good, or you think the lines are fuzzy and movable. It all come down to who is defining right or wrong. I tend to treat everyone equal and stay within my pay grade but in my personal opinion, I think this whole life will determine if my self will be re-clothed with another body or not, so for me I seek to attain to a standard set for me. Others have no problem setting their own and to that I say "eat, drink and be merry"

[Top Gun]

...this has absolutely nothing to do with belief in an "eternal soul." From a technical standpoint, same-sex marriage doesn't mesh with my faith's view of marriage as a sacrament, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with what people can or cannot be married in a civil ceremony. (Hint: it doesn't.) There is absolutely no compelling state interest in restricting marriage to members of the opposite sex...and when you've eliminated that, you're left with bull★■◆● bigotry.

[Spidey]

I find it a little creepy that the conversation with that kid is taking place in a bathroom.

[flip]

...this has absolutely nothing to do with belief in an "eternal soul."

Sure it does, but only in the context I said it in. The point went towards if there was a single law giver or not. Whether man developed a sense of morality based on community standards or if he was designed to a certain standard. That goes completely towards belief in an "eternal soul" because then you have to start making room for the meta-physical and whether you believe your conciousness dies with your fleshly body or you continue to exists uninterupted but in a different state of being.

[Top Gun]

...which, again, has nothing to do with people who happen to be attracted to the same sex.

[Foil]

[mod-hat]This topic evokes harsh critique and debate, which is fine. But keep it professional, guys. Drop the personal shots.[/mod-hat]

----------

Back on topic, there needs to be some clarification:


Are we talking ethics/morality?

Personally, I have no problem with Christians taking an ethical stance to against gay marriage. Despite some "creative" interpretation, the basis of their faith (Biblical scripture) quite clearly sees homosexuality as evil. It would be utterly inconsistent of them to say it was acceptable!


Or are we talking legal issues?

However, I do have a problem with Christians taking a legislative stance against non-hetero couples having the same legal benefits as hetero couples. Christians see marriage as something sacred and spiritual, which is completely separate from the legal ties of a certificate. It makes no sense to take exception to "Legal marriage - the contract on a piece of paper tying two parties" on the basis of ethically defending "Christian marriage - the God-ordained covenant of man/wife".

[Gooberman]

It was a smart move by Obama to support. The problem with Romney (from Obamas perspective), is that he actually has a moderate record (yes, yes, on both sides sometimes) . This will shift the attention on romney to quantify why he is against, and paint him as a conservative.

Conservatism fails at the national level

[flip]

...which, again, has nothing to do with people who happen to be attracted to the same sex.

No, but it does affect your viewpoint . I'm basically right in line with Foil on this issue. As an individual and Christian believer, I am against the practice of homosexuality, but as an American living in a free society, I also respect their right to do so. It's a slippery slope but me personally, considering the world we live in, would always vote on the side of personal choice.

[callmeslick]

Your viewpoint here is gonna reflect whether you believe in an eternal soul and creation.

Really? How so, and why would it be consistent?

That is where the lines ethically have to be drawn. Either you think there is just outright inherent cosmic good, or you think the lines are fuzzy and movable. It all come down to who is defining right or wrong. I tend to treat everyone equal and stay within my pay grade but in my personal opinion, I think this whole life will determine if my self will be re-clothed with another body or not, so for me I seek to attain to a standard set for me. Others have no problem setting their own and to that I say "eat, drink and be merry"

and this pertains to the actual topic of acceptance of gay people wishing to marry, how?

[flip]

I was following along with Jeff's, TG's and ST's direction the thread was taking where morality had entered the conversation. My point being that how you define it, as immoral or moral, will largely depend upon your belief systems and I was giving a christian perspective.

[Tunnelcat]

Amendment 14 of the Constitution

Civil rights

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Spidey]

Yea, except for that pesky little problem of marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.

[Top Gun]

...only in states which have construed it as such, and said laws could easily be taken as violations of the 14th Amendment.

[Tunnelcat]

Yea, except for that pesky little problem of marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Unequal special rights and as recently as 1971, most state laws DID NOT specify that definition. It was assumed. Of course, NOW, with all those evil gays trying to get married and get those same rights, quite a few states are now defining it that way and creating the inequity. Convenient.

[Spidey]

...only in states which have construed it as such, and said laws could easily be taken as violations of the 14th Amendment.

I would say you were right if the state had invented marriage, but in this case I feel like the state is compelled to define marriage as the public dictates.

The public is the sanctioning body via the state.

But you are correct…there are some legal issues, that are not clear, in this issue.

..........................

tc…I’m pretty sure it was always defined that way, it’s only recent that Hollywood has defined marriage as a celebration of love and such.

[Tunnelcat]

Not in Minnesota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.

The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2004, in our own Benton County, Oregon, the county clerk could NOT find any reason to NOT give a marriage license to a gay couple, There was no requirement that the couple be of the opposite sex to be married and so they issued a certificate. Of course, the poop hit the fan so to speak after that.

[Spidey]

I agree with you completely, it was an “unwritten” definition. A mistake being dealt with as we speak.

By definition a “marriage” is always between dissimilar items. As I have stated many times before…you can’t marry a chassis to a chassis…you have to marry a chassis to a body.

I know what that sounds like, but it is the only way I know to make the point.

[Jeff250]

@ Jeff

Sure. I wasn't speaking in terms of morality.

If your norm isn't speaking to morality, then I don't see why anyone should be normal.

[Tunnelcat]

I agree with you completely, it was an “unwritten” definition. A mistake being dealt with as we speak.

By definition a “marriage” is always between dissimilar items. As I have stated many times before…you can’t marry a chassis to a chassis…you have to marry a chassis to a body.

I know what that sounds like, but it is the only way I know to make the point.

A definition created by religious bigots that has now caused a civil rights issue in a country that prides itself on preserving civil rights for everyone. And marriage neither is, nor was, the sole purview of religious institutions, but they have now turned it into one, subverting the previous separate state civil aspect of marriage.

[Spidey]

And JFTR my marriage license had a place for the “groom” and the “bride” to sign. So like I said in my first post…….

That is also another unwritten reference to the definition…also see husband and wife.

So I guess religious bigots had this all planned from the beginning.

[Tunnelcat]

You'll never get it.

[Spidey]

At least my opinions on this issue are unique…not something out of a PC handbook.

[Tunnelcat]

Not out a PC handbook, but out a sense of fairness and humanity. Unfortunately, you are not unique.

[CUDA]

subverting the previous separate state civil aspect of marriage

you mean like when the Government is now forcing churches to perform Gay marriages?? that kind of separate state??

oh and JFTR I'm not pro or against Gay unions. even tho I consider the act a sin. the Bible tells me that I have done things just as bad