I take great solace in knowing people like you will someday be looked upon the same way we now view those who favored segregated drinking fountains.

#24 | Posted by Danforth

You can take solace in whatever deluded mindset carries you through the day. Maryland and Delaware, both equally worthless. I hope to see some more of these bullshit little ploys from these pissant little states right up until election day. Maybe if the American people get slapped in the face enough they will wake up and realize what is happening to this country. The Democrats are headed for a decisive trouncing in November.

More more more.

""You are on the wrong side of history, morality and, increasingly, the law.""

Saying it with conviction doesnt change the fact your cheering on the degeneration of culture into a morality-bankrupt free for all.

Ah well. "If it has only lived for a while, it still has lived." Greatest movie line ever.

""So in your mind, BiasPlay, gays have no morals and are degenerate. Though they may love one another, may be devoted as any het in a relationship to each other, they are degenerate and immoral.""

I couldnt give a shit what people do. It's when this crap is celebrated is when it becomes a problem with me. This little fantasy-land where the gay culture is a celebration of love and virtue is pure bullshit. Its a sex-steeped lifestyle that focuses on self-gratification. Teaching people it's ok to forego self-control in favor of self-gratification is undermining the prime foundation of a free society, discipline.

#36 | Posted by ZOT

Porn does have it's appropriate times, but we are definetly oversexed as a culture. The rest of that is bullshit. How many people got HIV from pacman? What does any of that shit have to do with broadcasting and glorifying "gay"?

Stick to Danforth's strategy and repeat "equality" and "taken for granted" about 50 times. It is at least slightly difficult to refute.

Seems the hets are doing just fine, real fine, on this "sex-steeped lifestyle that focuses on self-gratification," y'a think?

#36 | Posted by ZOT

Wasnt there a story not too long ago about how more than half of children are born to a single mother?

Clearly, Ply still can't come up with any reasonable argument against those factors.

#42 | Posted by Danforth

OK, ill repeat was has already been said time and time again.

1)Marriage has always been a coupling of a man and woman (or women going further back)

2)The coupling of a man and a woman has a basis in building a family. Two people of the same gender is a sterile pairing, therefore they cannot naturally conceive. Even if a sexually unhealthy couple joins in marriage, they can emulate the traditional model for adopted children.

3)This concept of "marriage equality" has no basis in the law because behaviors are not a basis for constitutional equality. Sexuality is a behavior, not an ethnic or racial status. Every constitutional protection to due process is based on the color of your skin, not your sexual or emotional inclinations.

4)Gay marriage has no precedence. Nowhere before modern times has any society embraced the same-gender family model. There is no proof that a benefit for society exists by shifting the focus from the heterosexual model to an ambiguous "Do what thou will" concept.

5)Marriage simply isnt for gay people. Our laws are set up to encourage a man and a woman to marry and build a family to keep our society growing and healthy. Gay marriage doesnt do that. Im really sorry they dont like the opposite gender and want to embrace a traditional and time-tested model like the nuclear family, but hey, tough shit.

6)There is no treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens. They arent being forced to register, wear pink triangles, or pay a special tax. They are given the same security and peace of mind as any other person in society. They arent subject to higher taxes or specific exclusion as the other members of society. Their behavior isnt recognized, nor should it. It is a highly destructive and essentially unproductive lifestyle.

There ya go. Now you know.

""Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married so sterile couples can have the right to pretend to be fertile?""

That isnt a sensible rebuttal. I dont even know where you are coming with that.

---------

Happy extinction bitch.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack

It isnt the worldview on homosexuality that is changing, the world view on conduct is changing. People are being encouraged to not only accept but celebrate their deficiencies. With that, society in general is going to go extinct. You can look at the quality of people today and compare them to the people 50 years ago just to see the difference.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack

The typical cheap shot from someone who can't make a case based on the merits of the target subject. Basically, you have to find legitimacy in your argument somewhere else.

---------

#53 | Posted by redlightrobot

Same thing. There is no slant against gays. I'm simply saying that society should not take the view that this lifestyle is normal and healthy. It is not. It is based upon an individual being unwilling or unable to fulfill their gender role. Society has to make the decision of how we want our men and women to behave. Do we want masculine men, or effeminate ones? Do we want men to care for their families, or pursue their base desires? Do we want women to include men in the child-rearing process, or go it alone?

My view is that the nuclear family, which has in fact been the traditional and time tested model, makes for the best environment for children and creates a strong, independent citizenry. It makes masculine men, feminine women, and a stabile home environment for children.

Fortunately, things are changing toward an honest equality, gay children aren't as likely to be rejected from their families and we can even find employment and housing without obvious bigotry declining us too often.

#53 | Posted by redlightrobot

Child abandonment is child abandonment. Incidentally, the gay community has always found for itself a home. The Castro, Capitol Hill, the Village. There has never been a concerted effort to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to housing issues.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack

No, I was affirming every families obligation to take care of their own. Does having gay parents mean the kid is absolutely going to grow up screwed? No. Is it optimal? Certainly not. Children pick up the habits of their parents. Sexuality is a behavior learned just like any other. When we blur the lines between normal, we can actually teach the wrong things. If sexuality is indeed inate as many that support homosexual marriage claim, then a genetically straight child can pick up contradictory habits from a homsexual parent. this confuses the child.

""Despite the fact gay couples pay into Social Security at the same rate as my wife and I, they don't get the same benefits on the other end, so they DON'T get the same security and peace of mind.""

So not withstanding their greed, what other reason should a gay couple receive the same rate as a heterosexual couple?

I would think it stands to reason that a genetically straight child will NOT pick up contradictory habits from homosexual parents.

If they could then the trait wouldn't be "inate".

#67 | Posted by eberly at

Behavior isnt based purely on genetics. People develop habits through learning from their parents. No one is predisposed to likes and dislikes. Parents are the main source of behavioral learning for children. The fact that society is so screwed up now is because parents arent teaching children healthy behavioral habits.

I knew a guy in high school whose father was gay. his mother had a condition and was in a home. He told me that he was bisexual at one point. Years down the road he has a wife and a kid, but the influence was pretty apparent. His father went to the bars and lived the lifestyle and it rubbed off on his kid. I've seen it first-hand.

You saw me tearing UnAmericanPOS's posts apart and chimed in to defend him. But now, you're just stuck with your foot in your mouth.

#81 | Posted by ClownShack

To start, you couldnt pull apart warm bread with that garbage. You're being a nasty little ass. He didnt defend anything I said, he voiced several differences. He's making rational points, i'm making rational points, and your putting up a string of insults.

So let me finish in kind, by called you an emotionally disturbed, nasty little fuck, and send you off with "Have A Great Day" you twisted old queen.

""But the statistics and history indicate that homosexual children are far more apt to poverty and suicide due to ostracization from their parents by religious hatred of homosexuals. No place in the animal kingdom does this happen - it's strictly a form of human sociopathy""

That is a load of horseshit. Mammals and particularly birds consistently reject undesired young. Women do it by aborting an unwanted pregnancy. That doesnt mean its right to cut your child off. It isnt always religious either. There are plenty of non-religious people that view it as distasteful. Its a natural and healthy reaction, because the mind and society knows that homosexuality leads to nothing. That is also why there are ex-gays and people that naturally suppress their homosexual urges. They understand it isnt the right thing to do. Instead of ridiculing these people they should be admired for following their convictions. Gay groups trash ex-gay groups all the time, despite the fact that these groups are composed of willing individuals that want a normal healthy life.

"We've always been persecuted BY RELIGIOUSLY INTOLERANT ZEALOTS - don't attempt to re-write history."

#86 | Posted by redlightrobot

What about how homosexual activists treat ex-gays?

What about you allow gays equality, live your life, and let them live theirs?""

What about you drop the act and stop forcing your emotional quandaries on an unwilling public.

"Purposeful abortion is rarely is known among the animals."

But ir is known among humans. If you argue that women should be allowed access to an abortion, then you can't logically oppose a family disowning a gay child. It's the same thing. A woman disowns a fetus, a family disowns a child. Either way, the role of mother or parent isnt being fulfilled.

Case in point. If the argument that homosexuality should be allowed based upon the act being between two consenting adults, the parents can disown the child because that child would one day be an adult, but currently is not.

The fetus would one day be a viable child, but currently is not.

So, why shouldnt the family be allowed to disown a child because he is not yet independent and viable?

Regarding ex-gay ministries - they are self-proclaimed targets because what they are "doing" is 1) impossible, 2) a scam, 3) dangerous. Also, you have never seen gays brawling, have you? We tend to have more respect for society, regardless the rejects who abandon us, perhaps in spite of them.

#96 | Posted by redlightrobot

There isnt anything dangerous or scandalous about ex-gay ministries. No doubt there are predators out there, but the concept of ex-gay is itself not a scam. For people that view homosexuality as an error in development, like myself, therapy to treat homosexuality is no different than treating sex addiction or alcoholism.

When I read the articles, and I read the anti-exgay cases, I very clearly saw a personal animosity on the part of the gays. Most of it came from people who tried the ex-gay route and didnt succeed. I observe that it is most probably because those people that didnt make it through the therapy or whatever dont want to think that they didnt make the cut. Basically, they are finding solace in the fact that "this is the way it is". People take their anger out on others all the time. That is what appears to be the case here.

I personally think that the reason these groups come under attack is because in our day and age, if it cant be cured with simply taking a pill or a surgery, people dont want to put in the work. Can homosexuality be remedied? IF it is indeed behavioral, of course. Should it be? If the individual chooses. the fact of the matter is that people have the right to live in the way that makes them happy. It is NOT the duty of society to subsidize or facilitate that. If a same sex couple chooses to live together in love and build a home, so be it. There should be no interference. But it is not incumbent upon society to change it's outlook on marriage and moral conduct to cater to their desire for acceptance.