Same Sex Marriage Vote Passes In Mn

[The Cysko Kid]

and this is as fucking dumb as it gets. when you are in grade school and in the scouts the last thing a kid should be thinking about is being or wondering about homosexuality. let the kids be kids while they can instead of this. starting to wonder if I need to sit down with my twins and have the talk with them before the 3rd grade.

I remember things, its a curse, let me tell you, and I remember how in a discussion about gay players over on the browns board side you started making lewd unsolicited comments about Kim kardashian's ass because her name happened to be on a link at the bottom of an article zombo posted on kordell Stewart. It made me think you simply couldn't help yourself. Like you were the kind of guy who would be fired because he thinks it's acceptable, even polite, to tell co-workers that their Tits look hot today, So I can only imagine any conversation you might have would boil down to:

 

"Fags bad, Tits and ass good."

 

I hope you never have a gay son. Why do you think so many gays are self-loathing? Unfortunately many gays are gay from birth, before they even know what gay or sex is. If you're gay and your father fears and loathes gays, well, I feel sorry for them, the kind of complex that must give you.

[The Cysko Kid]

Can anyone, anyone at all, provide one valid reason that Gay marriage ruins society?

 

Anyone? One single reason?

 

The only reasons I won't accept as valid is "I hate it, or God forbids it"

 

Because...those reasons make you this:

 

[slowburn]

What people do behind closed doors is their business. If you are civil and not rude to me then I have no problem treating you

 

with respect. Just because a new law says same sex marriages are ok, I don't expect to see a sudden surge of newly discovered

 

gays converting from the heterosexual lifestyle. Since the dawn of mankind, homosexuality has been a prevalent sexual preference.

 

People change very little over generations.........it just the laws that govern us that change.

 

However, I don't understand why dude would want to suck a hairy, veiny schlong with all those horny and willing female babes out there

 

just waiting to get laid.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

The future of woody:

 

 

[MLD Woody]

Again, Diehard, is this your response when you know you are wrong? When you know there is nothing you can say to back up your point?

[FairHooker11]

Its selfish to not want to be held to a lower standard then everyone else?

 

lower standard is in the eye of the beholder isnt it? why do gays have esteem problems? and then why do they (gays) want everyone else to apologise to them for that ?

 

The definition of marriage has changed countless times over history, to act like now, because to people of the same sex can get married, our society will decay into chaos is preposterous. I was generally looking for an answer with any real substance, not the paranoid delusions of a conservative old man with no basis.

 

You hold marriage to this high ass standard in your eyes,as if its the only way to get have kids, or raise a family.

 

I cannot hold marriage to any high standard without first having gone through the tough times... I mean, its easy and fun to have the sex, but its quite a different story to stick around and pay the bills, help raise

the kids, love your wife even when love is the furthest thing from your mind... commitment should be serious, and the most beneficial when it involves kids imo

 

 

 

Divorces? Adoptions? Single parent house holds? Adultery? All of these pale in comparison to the damage allowing two gays to marry will have on the traditional family institution...

 

 

Divorce happens and is sometimes neccesary, but at a 40-50% clip that hetero marriages does not speak well of their need for commitment - no?

 

adultery is just as bad for a family trying to stay together, its a total home breaker imo....

 

Why is the ability to procreate even held as a high regard when it comes to marriage? now come on... think that through a little?

 

 

What about old couples, couples that choose not to have kids, couples that can't have kids, where do they fit in?

 

 

 

 

Good, traditional values, right?

 

Deuteronomy 22 ... why are you mocking Gods law for ancient Israel ? a different place and time...

and why leave out the other 20 or so verses that preceed these and discuss the basis for some of our laws regarding rape for instance?

oh I know, I always did- you have a disdain for the bible!

[MLD Woody]

You didn't really answer anything in your last post....

 

 

 

Lower standard = not being able to get married. You are bitching and moaning over here like gay people want to take something for you or be put on a higher level, that's not true. It just seems like a common theme with the conservatives on this board is "If it doesn't affect me, then I don't care". That's a great way to live...

 

 

 

 

Why is the ability to procreate even held as a high regard when it comes to marriage? now come on... think that through a little?

 

Alright, then what is your response to everything I mentioned right after that? Old couples? Infertile couples? Couples that choose not to have kids?

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22 ... why are you mocking Gods law for ancient Israel ? a different place and time...

and why leave out the other 20 or so verses that preceed these and discuss the basis for some of our laws regarding rape for instance?

oh I know, I always did- you have a disdain for the bible!

 

"A different place and time". So you are saying laws of the land can change over time? Huh, imagine that...

 

Disdain for the Bible? What are you talking about? The Bible has a lot of good general lessons in it about how to live your life. If people want to follow it on their own time then good for them. I think its crazy to take the accounts in the Bible as historically accurate and I think the Bible, and religion in general, when included in public policy, slow down the rate of society's advancement. When people, like yourself, can point at a 2000 year old book and say "Nuh uh! That's not what the Bible says!" and then you have people agreeing with you and this affects our country's laws and policies... that's scary

[calfoxwc]

libs demand honest answers, then they get emotionally hell bent

to bash it.

 

Happens all the time. It seems that being a liberal like woody involves

hatefully challenging that reality exists. Trying to think like a liberal would warp

any normal human being's mind.

 

They say they want an honest answer, then they get angry as hell that they got an honest answer.

[MLD Woody]

Explain WHY it will cause the moral decay of society. Don't just make wild claims, explain WHY.

[The Cysko Kid]

He can't, woody, obviously. No one can.

[Westside Steve]

I'm just curious as to what the vote would be if there were three options. First options no gay marriage of any kind. Second option gay marriage recognized completely equally with straight marriage. Third option civil unions comprising of the exact same set of legal circumstances as marriage.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I would ask that if it is considered to be exactly the same as marriage, why not call it marriage?

[Erie Dawg]

I think what you're really saying is that its ok to dictate policy based on what Christians think God wants, but not on what Muslims think Allah wants. However, both of those things are exactly the same and neither Christian god or Islam god has any place in human politics. Especially in America.

Well thats where you went wrong!

No, made no mention of christianity, muslims..

[VaporTrail]

I'm just curious as to what the vote would be if there were three options. First options no gay marriage of any kind. Second option gay marriage recognized completely equally with straight marriage. Third option civil unions comprising of the exact same set of legal circumstances as marriage.

WSS

 

It'd be interesting. The religious bigots would go for option 1, I would bet most gays and gay rights activists want option 2, and the more libertarian-leaning people would go for 3. I think option 3 is the most fair to everyone involved. Just get the government out of marriage, and if you want to get married, go find a minister who agrees with your version of it.

 

 

I would ask that if it is considered to be exactly the same as marriage, why not call it marriage?

 

Because many religious feel like their views are being infringed upon and, as you can see, there's a ton of backlash. Option 3 allows them to marry and turn away whomever they want and it makes a gay couple the legal equivalent to a straight couple.

[Westside Steve]

I tend to agree with vapor trail except I'm probably a tad more liberal on this particular subject just because of my Theater background.

 

I would not expect the government should tell the Episcopalian or the Catholics or the Jews or the Baptists what they may or may not consider in performing a marriage. The only rub is that certain people are given special perks and privileges by the law.

and while I can understand homosexuals being upset that they are excluded from these privileges so then should be straight unmarried people. I'll predict that will be the next barrier within a generation or two.

 

and the answer to your question Woody is that it isn't exactly the same thing. That's why there's a PGA tour and and LPGA Tour.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

and the answer to your question Woody is that it isn't exactly the same thing. That's why there's a PGA tour and and LPGA Tour.

 

Except you're talking about sexual dimorphism, and this entire issue is about the legal difference between the gender composition of couples (and one of the sides does not have a compelling argument).

[Westside Steve]

I don't agree. Marriage itself has its traditional roots in family, clans, children et cetera.

one of the reasons that was found to be an unacceptable rule is that since some married men and women have no children why exclude those who cannot have children.

 

what logical reason would you have for separating the two golf leagues? naturally man will win almost all of the big matches. So is the separation a Jim Crow solution? Is it affirmitive action since women can't be expected to perform against men? I'm actually just being the devil's advocate but you understand what I mean.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Well then I don't see why it shouldn't be the same thing.

 

If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they won't have to. No one would force them

[Erie Dawg]

I remember things, its a curse, let me tell you,Do you want us to start calling you rain man or something? Or feeling sorry for you that you remember something that happened not that long ago? Dude get over yourself, really. and I remember how in a discussion about gay players over on the browns board side you started making lewd unsolicited comments about Kim kardashian's ass Rainman your mind is sliping I said "kims ass mmmm yummy" so that is ONE comment. Did I offend you in some way? Quit being such a self righteous pussy. Didn't know I needed permission to comment on her ass like I stated before. Yes she has a beautiful ass, does that bother you? It must you keep bringing it up. because her name happened to be on a link at the bottom of an article zombo posted on kordell Stewart. It made me think you simply couldn't help yourself. Like you were the kind of guy who would be fired because he thinks it's acceptable, even polite, to tell co-workers that their Tits look hot today, So I can only imagine any conversation you might have would boil down to: Wrong again. LOL. Do you ever watch sports with your friends? For instance the super bowl. Yes I commented on how nice of a body Beyonce has in front of my friends. And they were all on board with that, and the conversations took off from there.

So if you were watching with your friends would you comment or would you go to the rest room and cry because it was uncalled for to comment on someones figure. Again Quit being a self righteous pussy.There is a time and place for everything, so quit assuming you know me.

 

"Fags bad, Tits and ass good."

 

I hope you never have a gay son. Why do you think so many gays are self-loathing? Unfortunately many gays are gay from birth, before they even know what gay or sex is. If you're gay and your father fears and loathes gays, well, I feel sorry for them, the kind of complex that must give you. I'll start by saying don't make comments about my family period. And if thats the case so be it. I give my Kids as innocent of a child hood as I can and let them make as many decisions as they can make on there own and don't push them to do things they don't want to do.

[Erie Dawg]

You should be wondering why you're such a bigot that you want to bam gays getting married just because.

Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

Frank Turek | Aug 26, 2011

 

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to opposewhat they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love. According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destruction—if a truck is about to run over you—the only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that road—that I celebrate the road you’re on—how could I hate you more?

But isn’t homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior, but homosexuality is a behavior! Skin color affects no one, but destructive behavior affects many. Moreover, sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African-American.

So if you don’t approve of a man because of his race, you are a bigot. But if you don’t approve of a man’s destructive behavior, you are wise.

The “born that way” argument doesn’t work either. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” non-existent, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.

First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because homosexual unions don’t reproduce.

Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.

Third, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important— they were also born with a specific anatomy. We can’t know if our desires are inborn since we can’t remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.

Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.

The bottom line is that the standard arguments for homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t work. That’s why some homosexual activists will continue to smear conservatives as “bigots” in order to bully them out of the debate and even out of their jobs. In America today, it’s much easier to win with demagoguery than evidence. If you convince the majority that your opponents are “bigots,” then you automatically win even if you’re the bully actually practicing bigotry (read the bigotry and bullying by homosexual activists of conservative but suspended “Teacher of the Year,” Jerry Buell, here, and my own case here).

Will they get away with their bigotry and bullying? Not if Americans start thinking. Thinking people realize that equating homosexuality with race, though presently fashionable, is just as fallacious as calling marriage based in biology a form of bigotry. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

[MLD Woody]

^that guy missed the point completely with his bigot rant

[Westside Steve]

Well then I don't see why it shouldn't be the same thing.

 

If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they won't have to. No one would force them

and if those are the set parameters then there's no reason marriage should exist at all. Not in the legal sense.

 

why should you deny benefits to single people? Why make them second class citizens?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

and if those are the set parameters then there's no reason marriage should exist at all. Not in the legal sense.

 

why should you deny benefits to single people? Why make them second class citizens?

WSS

There are legal, financial, etc, reasons for the govt. to recognize to individuals as married. If the govt. wants to call it a civil union and outside parties want to calk it "married" then go ahead.

 

But if the govt. is issuing marriages then I see no reason why both straight and gay couples shouldn't get the exact same treatment

[The Cysko Kid]

 

I remember things, its a curse, let me tell you,Do you want us to start calling you rain man or something? Or feeling sorry for you that you remember something that happened not that long ago? Dude get over yourself, really. and I remember how in a discussion about gay players over on the browns board side you started making lewd unsolicited comments about Kim kardashian's ass Rainman your mind is sliping I said "kims ass mmmm yummy" so that is ONE comment. Did I offend you in some way? Quit being such a self righteous pussy. Didn't know I needed permission to comment on her ass like I stated before. Yes she has a beautiful ass, does that bother you? It must you keep bringing it up. because her name happened to be on a link at the bottom of an article zombo posted on kordell Stewart. It made me think you simply couldn't help yourself. Like you were the kind of guy who would be fired because he thinks it's acceptable, even polite, to tell co-workers that their Tits look hot today, So I can only imagine any conversation you might have would boil down to: Wrong again. LOL. Do you ever watch sports with your friends? For instance the super bowl. Yes I commented on how nice of a body Beyonce has in front of my friends. And they were all on board with that, and the conversations took off from there.

So if you were watching with your friends would you comment or would you go to the rest room and cry because it was uncalled for to comment on someones figure. Again Quit being a self righteous pussy.There is a time and place for everything, so quit assuming you know me.

 

"Fags bad, Tits and ass good."

 

I hope you never have a gay son. Why do you think so many gays are self-loathing? Unfortunately many gays are gay from birth, before they even know what gay or sex is. If you're gay and your father fears and loathes gays, well, I feel sorry for them, the kind of complex that must give you. I'll start by saying don't make comments about my family period. And if thats the case so be it. I give my Kids as innocent of a child hood as I can and let them make as many decisions as they can make on there own and don't push them to do things they don't want to do.

That's the point. You're worried that you might have to explain gay to them? You will and it doesn't matter if its at scouts or elsewhere. You brought it up as an issue of concern. Its fine and dandy to want your kids to have a innocent childhood, but try to be realistic. You're not going to neglect telling them about stranger danger because you don't want to upset them are you? Sometimes you've just got to explain hard shit to your kids, and frankly they're probably going to wonder about gays before the age when any scouts would be openly gay anyway. Unless you know any openly gay 8 year olds that might be in cub scouts.

[Westside Steve]

There are legal, financial, etc, reasons for the govt. to recognize to individuals as married. If the govt. wants to call it a civil union and outside parties want to calk it "married" then go ahead.

 

But if the govt. is issuing marriages then I see no reason why both straight and gay couples shouldn't get the exact same treatment

I understand your point. I'm just asking why single people should be treated as second class citizens.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I understand your point. I'm just asking why single people should be treated as second class citizens.

WSS

They aren't?

[The Cysko Kid]

Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

Frank Turek | Aug 26, 2011

George Orwell said, In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceitname-calling and bullyingwill be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldnt an swer he called me a bigot.

I asked, Whats your definition of bigotry?

He said, Fear and intolerance.

I said, The definition of bigotry is not fear and intolerance. Its making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not bigotry. With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. Thats the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexualityif you dont agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are bigots for opposing homosexual behavior, then why arent homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why arent homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriageif marriage had no definition it wouldnt be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. Thats why the state recognizes marriage to begin withnot because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or hating people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to opposewhat they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love. According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destructionif a truck is about to run over youthe only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that roadthat I celebrate the road youre onhow could I hate you more?

But isnt homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior, but homosexuality is a behavior! Skin color affects no one, but destructive behavior affects many. Moreover, sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. Youll find many former homosexuals, but youll never find a former African-American.

So if you dont approve of a man because of his race, you are a bigot. But if you dont approve of a mans destructive behavior, you are wise.

The born that way argument doesnt work either. Not only is the evidence for being born that way non-existent, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.

First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual gene be passed on? Homosexuals dont pass on anything because homosexual unions dont reproduce.

Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are notthat sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollablethen you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.

Third, the born-that-way claim is an argument from design since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them. But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important they were also born with a specific anatomy. We cant know if our desires are inborn since we cant remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.

Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an orientation to bad behavior, but those desires dont justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Dont blame meI was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not bigotsthey are wise.

The bottom line is that the standard arguments for homosexuality and same-sex marriage dont work. Thats why some homosexual activists will continue to smear conservatives as bigots in order to bully them out of the debate and even out of their jobs. In America today, its much easier to win with demagoguery than evidence. If you convince the majority that your opponents are bigots, then you automatically win even if youre the bully actually practicing bigotry (read the bigotry and bullying by homosexual activists of conservative but suspended Teacher of the Year, Jerry Buell, here, and my own case here).

Will they get away with their bigotry and bullying? Not if Americans start thinking. Thinking people realize that equating homosexuality with race, though presently fashionable, is just as fallacious as calling marriage based in biology a form of bigotry. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.

This is stupid and I don't have time to read it all but let's look at it like this. Say you're a vegan right? You only eat vegetables. And then you tell two people they can't get married because they eat bacon. Does that make sense to you?

[MLD Woody]

This is stupid and I don't have time to read it all but let's look at it like this. Say you're a vegan right? You only eat vegetables. And then you tell two people they can't get married because they eat bacon. Does that make sense to you?

Both this and what you quoted make sense.

 

Key point here is gay is not a choice. Being a vegan is. So whatever connection you were trying to make doesn't work

[Westside Steve]

I think the point that is being missed is this. the inability to control the desire to perform a certain Act does not in itself make that act normal natural right or wrong.

that should be fairly obvious.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Let's try something else. Ok, say two people have been together for ten years and they're finally about to get married but they're swingers. They do wife swapping or whatever for fun. Do you get the right to deny them marriage because you disagree with wife swapping?