Gay marriage (split thread)
- Thread starter Repo Man
- Start date
It would freak me out because I was born and raised in a very homophobic culture. Certainly all through my childhood, calling someone a fag was just about the worst thing you could call someone. I knew it was bad before I knew what it was!
Getting older, and reading widely, has dispelled virtually all of my prejudice. But there are lingering remnants no doubt.
So the idea of seeing men kissing still makes me a little uncomfortable. If it were commonplace, I'm sure I would quickly learn to ignore it.
Gays grow up in the same culture, and as a result, many commit suicide during adolescence. In his Savage Love column, Dan Savage compared his fellow gay men to Vietnam veterans, due to the trauma suffered by growing up gay in our culture. And it is so unnecessary. I think George Carlin said it first, but when I'm around a group of guys running down gays, I make a habit of pointing out that the more gay guys there are, the more single women there are. That increases my chances of getting a girlfriend. How can that be bad?
Getting older, and reading widely, has dispelled virtually all of my prejudice. But there are lingering remnants no doubt.
So the idea of seeing men kissing still makes me a little uncomfortable. If it were commonplace, I'm sure I would quickly learn to ignore it.
Gays grow up in the same culture, and as a result, many commit suicide during adolescence. In his Savage Love column, Dan Savage compared his fellow gay men to Vietnam veterans, due to the trauma suffered by growing up gay in our culture. And it is so unnecessary. I think George Carlin said it first, but when I'm around a group of guys running down gays, I make a habit of pointing out that the more gay guys there are, the more single women there are. That increases my chances of getting a girlfriend. How can that be bad?
Repo Man said:
Thank you for your very down to earth post. How refreshing
I am still interested however in why you would feel compelled to ignore two men kissing given that all of your predudice has now been erradicated through tolerance over time. I love that line you give about giving you more chance of getting a girlfriend. I have never thought of it like that but it is a funny stance and one I like.peace
c20
(Insert Title Here)
Given your exceptionally low characterization of marriage, this really does seem like a personal thing you have against homosexuals. If you acted like you respected marriage, that would be one thing. But you don't seem to respect marriage at all, which I admit is quite puzzling.
You ... you speak for a whole lot of heterosexuals, c20H25N3o. When you choose to speak for a large number of people, though, you owe it to them and yourself to be more accurate in your considerations.
I don't care what you find disgusting. I think people with attitudes like yours being allowed to graduate past the fourth grade is disgusting, but that's actually beside the point. I think people with hateful attitudes like yours can be very disgusting, especially when you don't have a valid reason to explain your attitude. You seem to wish to deny people equality in society based purely on your own attitude, and one which you have a difficult time justifying.
Mystech and I both have attempted to explain to you some of the stakes involved in the issue of same-sex marriage, yet you continue to ignore those points and rail against gays because of your personal sentiment. This irrationality is also disrespectful.
The best way to not expose your child to what you find disgusting is to not visit it upon them. In other words, don't have sex with or in front of your kids. Not that hard to figure out, is it?
So you support a cycle of social discrimination? In a country that bases its equality on the concept of "Equal Protection" before the law?
Which is probably the reason so many heterosexuals are upset at the idea of a homosexual caring for the children that heterosexuals won't or can't.
Blaming a homosexual for the failings of a heterosexual is beyond perverse; it's stupid.
Consider that born-again Christians, for instance, have a higher divorce rate than others. (1)
Or that Christian churches marry people who have been divorced. (2)
So your references to God and judgment/salvation seem at least a little askew.
Making "love"?
Unplanned Pregnancy Rate:
See CNN for the article from which those numbers come; according to a 2003 paper, the 1994 numbers are the latest we have a reliable figure for.
Compared to the birth numbers (live births), those numbers equal:
That's the product of the "love" you note.
1999 estimates (Jan. 1) showed 110,000 kids waiting to be adopted, as defined by children who have a goal of adoption and/or terminated parental rights.
110,000 kids a year without a loving home. It ain't the gays.
Of course, that's the problem you encounter when you rely on such an absurd principle as the social pendulum. Did you know there are more women in the United States than men? And yet our majority has minority status in certain issues because the law still does not reflect proper justice.
Ask around with some paranoid "angry white men", who worry that "minorities" now or will soon outnumber whites. Apparently, for them, it's good enough to fear that all the minorities are the same, and will rise up against whitey. It's kind of silly. I admit, but what these "angry" folks fear is that the pendulum will swing to the other extreme, and the oppression of old will be reversed entirely.
A friend of mine looked at an uncle on the white side of his family a few years back and countered that complaint with, "Don't you think it's about your turn?" Of course, we know that the answer is that it's never anyone's turn.
So why, in a society of equal protection, will you only offer your respect if a majority attempts to force it out of you?
I do, seriously, wonder about the sort of "logic" that demands oppression.
So we revisit a question once raised in this Ethics forum: Should gays, then, be exempt from a some of their social obligations (e.g. certain portion of taxes), since they are not entitled to equal protection under the law?
Gay people will adopt the unwanted children of heterosexuals. They will continue to decorate your homes and keep cultural arts alive. They will continue to work across the aisle or hall, or even at the next desk; and they will pay their taxes and continue to underwrite the loveless irresponsibility of heterosexuals. (Or, rather, some heterosexuals, but since the term "breeder" is oft-regarded as an expression of hate, and we can't necessarily call them parents, and you have chosen to rely on the idea of heterosexual "love", the generalization seems appropriate.)
In other words, gay people will continue to buoy the heterosexuals. Stop and think of a world without gays. The only real benefit we would get has already seen its potential expire; we might have gotten through the 1980s without industrial carpeting and track lighting in residential space, and we might have gotten through the 1980s without that repugnant combination of teal and mauve that mothers thought their sons looked so dapper in. Of course, in a world without gays, the "great" Ronald Reagan might well have decided to do something about HIV infection in the United States instead of letting his bigotry contribute to the power of a terrible disease.
And as much as I love Repo's rehash of the Carlin point, it's partially inaccurate. There's no shortage of women in the United States. Even if you were the last heterosexual unmarried man in the country, there would still be thousands of women to pledge your love to.
I guess I just don't understand what's so bad about homosexuals that we need to dismantle the proud core of the American legacy of equality.
Why do marriage-traditionalists rely on straw men and outright falsehood in order to make their case against gay marriage?
c20H25N3o said:
Given your exceptionally low characterization of marriage, this really does seem like a personal thing you have against homosexuals. If you acted like you respected marriage, that would be one thing. But you don't seem to respect marriage at all, which I admit is quite puzzling.
You ... you speak for a whole lot of heterosexuals, c20H25N3o. When you choose to speak for a large number of people, though, you owe it to them and yourself to be more accurate in your considerations.
I don't care what you find disgusting. I think people with attitudes like yours being allowed to graduate past the fourth grade is disgusting, but that's actually beside the point. I think people with hateful attitudes like yours can be very disgusting, especially when you don't have a valid reason to explain your attitude. You seem to wish to deny people equality in society based purely on your own attitude, and one which you have a difficult time justifying.
Mystech and I both have attempted to explain to you some of the stakes involved in the issue of same-sex marriage, yet you continue to ignore those points and rail against gays because of your personal sentiment. This irrationality is also disrespectful.
The best way to not expose your child to what you find disgusting is to not visit it upon them. In other words, don't have sex with or in front of your kids. Not that hard to figure out, is it?
So you support a cycle of social discrimination? In a country that bases its equality on the concept of "Equal Protection" before the law?
Which is probably the reason so many heterosexuals are upset at the idea of a homosexual caring for the children that heterosexuals won't or can't.
Blaming a homosexual for the failings of a heterosexual is beyond perverse; it's stupid.
Consider that born-again Christians, for instance, have a higher divorce rate than others. (1)
Or that Christian churches marry people who have been divorced. (2)
So your references to God and judgment/salvation seem at least a little askew.
Making "love"?
Unplanned Pregnancy Rate:
• 1987 - 5.4%
• 1994 - 4.5%
• 1994 - 4.5%
See CNN for the article from which those numbers come; according to a 2003 paper, the 1994 numbers are the latest we have a reliable figure for.
Compared to the birth numbers (live births), those numbers equal:
Unplanned Pregnancies:
• 1987 - 206,766
• 1994 - 179,055
• 1994 - 179,055
That's the product of the "love" you note.
1999 estimates (Jan. 1) showed 110,000 kids waiting to be adopted, as defined by children who have a goal of adoption and/or terminated parental rights.
110,000 kids a year without a loving home. It ain't the gays.
Of course, that's the problem you encounter when you rely on such an absurd principle as the social pendulum. Did you know there are more women in the United States than men? And yet our majority has minority status in certain issues because the law still does not reflect proper justice.
Ask around with some paranoid "angry white men", who worry that "minorities" now or will soon outnumber whites. Apparently, for them, it's good enough to fear that all the minorities are the same, and will rise up against whitey. It's kind of silly. I admit, but what these "angry" folks fear is that the pendulum will swing to the other extreme, and the oppression of old will be reversed entirely.
A friend of mine looked at an uncle on the white side of his family a few years back and countered that complaint with, "Don't you think it's about your turn?" Of course, we know that the answer is that it's never anyone's turn.
So why, in a society of equal protection, will you only offer your respect if a majority attempts to force it out of you?
I do, seriously, wonder about the sort of "logic" that demands oppression.
So we revisit a question once raised in this Ethics forum: Should gays, then, be exempt from a some of their social obligations (e.g. certain portion of taxes), since they are not entitled to equal protection under the law?
Gay people will adopt the unwanted children of heterosexuals. They will continue to decorate your homes and keep cultural arts alive. They will continue to work across the aisle or hall, or even at the next desk; and they will pay their taxes and continue to underwrite the loveless irresponsibility of heterosexuals. (Or, rather, some heterosexuals, but since the term "breeder" is oft-regarded as an expression of hate, and we can't necessarily call them parents, and you have chosen to rely on the idea of heterosexual "love", the generalization seems appropriate.)
In other words, gay people will continue to buoy the heterosexuals. Stop and think of a world without gays. The only real benefit we would get has already seen its potential expire; we might have gotten through the 1980s without industrial carpeting and track lighting in residential space, and we might have gotten through the 1980s without that repugnant combination of teal and mauve that mothers thought their sons looked so dapper in. Of course, in a world without gays, the "great" Ronald Reagan might well have decided to do something about HIV infection in the United States instead of letting his bigotry contribute to the power of a terrible disease.
And as much as I love Repo's rehash of the Carlin point, it's partially inaccurate. There's no shortage of women in the United States. Even if you were the last heterosexual unmarried man in the country, there would still be thousands of women to pledge your love to.
I guess I just don't understand what's so bad about homosexuals that we need to dismantle the proud core of the American legacy of equality.
Why do marriage-traditionalists rely on straw men and outright falsehood in order to make their case against gay marriage?
Last edited:
Do you use drugs?
Share them with the women. That helps. Well, sometimes.
And remember that one of the secrets that lesbians know better than their heterosexual female counterparts is exactly how bad men are in bed. A fistful of pardons won't buy you a damn thing if they know Lysistrata.
Actually, it's considerably more complex than that, and I haven't pulled it off successfully myself, so ... er ... yeah.
In the meantime, every woman wants a gay male shopping partner; all the enthusiasm and only one-third the felinity. Femme yourself up a little bit, get a few hack phrases from theatre and galleries. Make sure you look better in hip-zip corduroys than the woman. (I actually underestimated that aspect of appearance until I actually turned on a lesbian by simply dressing appropriately for clubbing in Vegas. Now, Vegas ... talk about gay . . . .)
And, as much as I hate to include this piece of advice, go out and get yourself a couple mens' thongs. Seriously. Unless, of course, to paraphrase a David Lee Roth video, there are some places you just can't reach with a washcloth. In that case, the thong rule applies to men as well as women.
Feminize, or effeminize your sense of eros. Given how important sex is to a man, you'll be amazed at first--until you stop to look at it all--how swiftly that changes your approach to life in general.
Don't be afraid to admit it feels good when she licks your nipples. And learn how to write your full name and recite the alphabet with your tongue.
Failing that, take up a musical instrument and be a counselor at band camp
Disclaimer: At best, perhaps 4% of this post could be extracted into a serious point. Just be glad I skipped the part about dildos.
Share them with the women. That helps. Well, sometimes.
And remember that one of the secrets that lesbians know better than their heterosexual female counterparts is exactly how bad men are in bed. A fistful of pardons won't buy you a damn thing if they know Lysistrata.
Actually, it's considerably more complex than that, and I haven't pulled it off successfully myself, so ... er ... yeah.
In the meantime, every woman wants a gay male shopping partner; all the enthusiasm and only one-third the felinity. Femme yourself up a little bit, get a few hack phrases from theatre and galleries. Make sure you look better in hip-zip corduroys than the woman. (I actually underestimated that aspect of appearance until I actually turned on a lesbian by simply dressing appropriately for clubbing in Vegas. Now, Vegas ... talk about gay . . . .)
And, as much as I hate to include this piece of advice, go out and get yourself a couple mens' thongs. Seriously. Unless, of course, to paraphrase a David Lee Roth video, there are some places you just can't reach with a washcloth. In that case, the thong rule applies to men as well as women.
Feminize, or effeminize your sense of eros. Given how important sex is to a man, you'll be amazed at first--until you stop to look at it all--how swiftly that changes your approach to life in general.
Don't be afraid to admit it feels good when she licks your nipples. And learn how to write your full name and recite the alphabet with your tongue.
Failing that, take up a musical instrument and be a counselor at band camp
Disclaimer: At best, perhaps 4% of this post could be extracted into a serious point. Just be glad I skipped the part about dildos.
c20H25N3o said:
Where have I said that homosexual roommates should get a tax break? If they aren't a couple who have taken vows to one another, and have a relationship where it would be appropriate that one should be able to speak for the other, or be held as next of kin or the like then it's not a marriage and not befitting of the protections afforded to marriage. Straight or gay, roommates are not a married couple.
Don't try to put ridiculous words in my mouth.
c20H25N3o said:
When it comes to marriage the law is biased against homosexuals. Also I would contest that this discrimination is an inconsistency in the spirit and promises of American freedom and equal protection under the law.
c20H25N3o said:
What laws are based on these commandments? Certainly not those of America, and those are the ones with witch we should be solely concerned in this issue, as they are the only ones which apply.
c20H25N3o said:
I addressed this issue already in this post, but I just wanted to preserve this quote because it gave me a bit of a chuckle. I'm wondering if you were trying to twist my words so that you could make this ridiculous straw-man argument right from the get go, or if it's based on a genuine problem with reading comprehension.
c20H25N3o said:
How can you save someone if you haven't already judged them to be damned? I'd thank you kindly if you could make an effort to act slightly less condescending, or at least make an argument solvent enough to justify your haughtiness.
c20H25N3o said:
I'll certainly admit that the whole same-sex marriage battle is in part to try and eradicate some of the stronger negative sentiment toward homosexuals by having the government say, "they're not so evil that we'll treat them as second class citizens". It may well help to create a climate where less gay youths take their own lives, or drunken bigots are less likely to tie an effeminate man to a fence post and beat him to death.
However your statement about heterosexuals seems far to general. Look at any large scale gay-rights group (especially PFLAG) or actually attend a gay pride parade (If you can stomach it, I know I often can't heh) and you'll find scores of heterosexuals who are supporting homosexual loved ones, or are just coming out to support the civil rights battle in general.
All of this may be moot, however, because the spirit of equal protection under the law which is written into our constitution takes into account the tyrany of the majority over a minority. We've had to work very hard in the past to hold true to this ideal, which we have certainly betrayed many times, but I beleive it's validity still stands. Just as we can no longer deny rights of voting or even freedom itself to African Americans because so many in this country held them to be inferior, we can not use our arbitrary knee-jerk raction or faith based opinions as a legitimate foundation to descriminate against homosexuals and deny them the right to enter into a contract of sugnificant legal consiquense.
c20H25N3o said:
I would say that that's just as oppressive, discriminatory and Un-fair as the system we are currently living under. We're living in a diverse society here, one which was supposedly built on a framework that would allow people to live together freely and equally. It doesn't have to be a compromising winner-takes-all setup where we put the majority on a pedestal and they are allowed to push around and deny any rights or liberties that they like. That seems to me less a democracy and more a totalitarian autocracy. Where the granting of rights to a minority group does no harm to the rest of the nation, why not grant it?
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
tiassa said:Do you use drugs?
Share them with the women. That helps. Well, sometimes.
And remember that one of the secrets that lesbians know better than their heterosexual female counterparts is exactly how bad men are in bed. A fistful of pardons won't buy you a damn thing if they know Lysistrata.
Actually, it's considerably more complex than that, and I haven't pulled it off successfully myself, so ... er ... yeah.
In the meantime, every woman wants a gay male shopping partner; all the enthusiasm and only one-third the felinity. Femme yourself up a little bit, get a few hack phrases from theatre and galleries. Make sure you look better in hip-zip corduroys than the woman. (I actually underestimated that aspect of appearance until I actually turned on a lesbian by simply dressing appropriately for clubbing in Vegas. Now, Vegas ... talk about gay . . . .)
And, as much as I hate to include this piece of advice, go out and get yourself a couple mens' thongs. Seriously. Unless, of course, to paraphrase a David Lee Roth video, there are some places you just can't reach with a washcloth. In that case, the thong rule applies to men as well as women.
Feminize, or effeminize your sense of eros. Given how important sex is to a man, you'll be amazed at first--until you stop to look at it all--how swiftly that changes your approach to life in general.
Don't be afraid to admit it feels good when she licks your nipples. And learn how to write your full name and recite the alphabet with your tongue.
Failing that, take up a musical instrument and be a counselor at band camp
Disclaimer: At best, perhaps 4% of this post could be extracted into a serious point. Just be glad I skipped the part about dildos.
Tiassa, Would you allow this slight imposition into your conversation?
The questioning males out there might find the book, "The Multiorgasmic Man" by Chia and Abrams, which, by the way is written for women as much as for men, ie. what they can do about the male obsession to hide any lack of ejaculation as being less than "manly".
The multiorgaqsmic process is as satisfying, at the very least, as ejaculations, with huge benefits exceeding that of a 'bip, bam, thank you maam' sexual session.
The only person that is going to show you how to screw is yourself.
I agree with you Tiassa, good drugs are generally much more effective than the most practiced winsome, "Hi, baby.", smile.
Geistkiesel
Mystech said:
It isn't haughtiness, its plain old truth. I didnt damn anyone. If a man has sexual relations with a man then they damn themselves because of God's judgement against homosexuality. I didnt write the rules m8, I just follow them to a tee so if it is disgusting to Our Father, it is disgusting to me and your judgement of me looks pretty weak given that we will all be judged by the same judge. I am not saying that there is no hope of course but that would require repentance which in turn would require humility. Other than that you damn yourselves. I just say it how it is.
c20
c20H25N3o said:
No you don't, you're selective about the ones you follow, just as everyone else is. Those which fit your personal biases and bigotry’s are in, whereas those which are just a bit too absurd are overlooked. No one follows the bible to a tee, there'd be a lot of stoned children, knocked up brother's widows, and dead adulterers, and certainly no red lobsters or long john silvers restaurants if they did. http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
I propose that in response to eleven states challenging the U.S. Constitution, we ought to turn "Christian" into a disapproving curse.
Or, to quote Dolph and Jimbo (The Simpsons, #4F01), "Oh, man! You kissed a girl! That is so gay!"
Imagine the conversation:
And think of all the things it would legitimately apply to: Crippling superstition, child rape, murder, political oppression, devastating intellectual dysfunction, &c., &c.
At any rate, 'tis a mystery to me why freedom of religion isn't enough for Christians. 'Tis a mystery to me why they hate equality. Judgment isn't theirs; it's God's. Or so Christians like to remind when they feel it complimentary to their public image. But it feels so good, doesn't it?
Hate is not a family value. Of course, if you're a Christian ... well, such concepts don't apply: hate is merely the utmost manifestation of God's love.
So, yeah. If equality won't come to gays, then it should be delivered directly to the Christians. Mountain to Muhammad. Or, in this case, Satan.
Jesus weeps, indeed.
Or, to quote Dolph and Jimbo (The Simpsons, #4F01), "Oh, man! You kissed a girl! That is so gay!"
Imagine the conversation:
"Damn it, that guy is so rude. I'm gonna kill him!"
--Dude, you sound so Christian!
--Dude, you sound so Christian!
And think of all the things it would legitimately apply to: Crippling superstition, child rape, murder, political oppression, devastating intellectual dysfunction, &c., &c.
At any rate, 'tis a mystery to me why freedom of religion isn't enough for Christians. 'Tis a mystery to me why they hate equality. Judgment isn't theirs; it's God's. Or so Christians like to remind when they feel it complimentary to their public image. But it feels so good, doesn't it?
Hate is not a family value. Of course, if you're a Christian ... well, such concepts don't apply: hate is merely the utmost manifestation of God's love.
So, yeah. If equality won't come to gays, then it should be delivered directly to the Christians. Mountain to Muhammad. Or, in this case, Satan.
Jesus weeps, indeed.
Mystech said:
I seem to remember God showing Paul a vision in which He declared everything fit to eat. I also remember Jesus saying "It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean but rather what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." It's a shame you choose to root around in the dirt then. I am just trying to point you in the right direction.
c20 :m:
tiassa said:
I do not want gay's around my children. I dont want my children thinking it is ok to be like that. It is not! Justify your dirty lusts all you like, tell us that you have a right to be filthy. I will not stand in your way but neither will I permit it when you ask my permission because in my Kingdom it is NOT permitted. Do as you will in your own kingdom, your kingdom of filth! But if you want to enter mine you must put your filthy lusts aside!
c20H25N3o said:
You would teach your children to disapprove of God's creation?
The Ballad of Lawrence Poirer?
Justify your bigotry all you want. However, in the United States the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution, which demands equal protection under the law.
Whether or not you tolerate gay people in your own family is your own choice. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitution.
I'll be sure to avoid the tourist board, then.
In the meantime, I don't care about your "Kingdom". We're discussing something a little more real than that.
Judge all you want, since God's judgment isn't enough to satisfy you. But in the meantime, the gay marriage stake is in American society, not your personal little Kingdom.
tiassa - You would teach your children to disapprove of God's creation?
response by c20: err no, to treat it with all due respect and to honour God's commandments is what I impart to my children. I suggest you Tiassa take that plank out of your own eye before you try and remove the speck from mine.
tiassa - The Ballad of Lawrence Poirer?
response by c20: No, the thoughts of my own heart.
tiassa - Justify your bigotry all you want. However, in the United States the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution, which demands equal protection under the law.
response by c20 - Indeed which is why I insist that gay rights are suppressed. It wouldnt be fair otherwise to those who obey God's commandments.
tiassa - Whether or not you tolerate gay people in your own family is your own choice. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitution.
response by c20 - Family is the reason for the U.S constitution and as such has everything to do with it.
tiassa - In the meantime, I don't care about your "Kingdom". We're discussing something a little more real than that.
response by c20 - more real like what? getting AIDS and dying? Forgive me for trying to show you there is a better way
tiassa - Judge all you want, since God's judgment isn't enough to satisfy you. But in the meantime, the gay marriage stake is in American society, not your personal little Kingdom.
response by c20 - God's judgement is more than enough for me Tiassa - He says homosexuality is an abomination. More than enough for me, trust me. And as for the Kingdom of Heaven, perverts are not permitted. Ever! Thank God hew:
c20
response by c20: err no, to treat it with all due respect and to honour God's commandments is what I impart to my children. I suggest you Tiassa take that plank out of your own eye before you try and remove the speck from mine.
tiassa - The Ballad of Lawrence Poirer?
response by c20: No, the thoughts of my own heart.
tiassa - Justify your bigotry all you want. However, in the United States the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution, which demands equal protection under the law.
response by c20 - Indeed which is why I insist that gay rights are suppressed. It wouldnt be fair otherwise to those who obey God's commandments.
tiassa - Whether or not you tolerate gay people in your own family is your own choice. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitution.
response by c20 - Family is the reason for the U.S constitution and as such has everything to do with it.
tiassa - In the meantime, I don't care about your "Kingdom". We're discussing something a little more real than that.
response by c20 - more real like what? getting AIDS and dying? Forgive me for trying to show you there is a better way
tiassa - Judge all you want, since God's judgment isn't enough to satisfy you. But in the meantime, the gay marriage stake is in American society, not your personal little Kingdom.
response by c20 - God's judgement is more than enough for me Tiassa - He says homosexuality is an abomination. More than enough for me, trust me
. And as for the Kingdom of Heaven, perverts are not permitted. Ever! Thank God hew:c20
c20H25N3o said:
Perhaps I should have used the plural, "creations".
(chortle!)
Yes, it was an obscure point to begin with.
(guffaw!)
Gender is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
You managed to trash two amendments to the Constitution in that one. The U.S. Constitution affords you neither the advantage nor authority you claim. Really, basing the suspension of equal protection (14th Amendment) on a claim of religious superiority (1st Amendment) just doesn't make for much more than a poor joke.
You're on. Demonstrate your assertion. Really, I'd love to see that one. The closest you can get is the word "posterity".
More real, such as legal rights in society.
You need to find a better way before you can share it with anyone else.
Obviously not.
And yet He creates homosexuals.
And that's well enough for your shoebox myth, but we're dealing with reality here. Hello?
A puerile fairy tale is no reason to go denying people their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
I have a simple question for you: Given a choice, would you prefer a child in the custody of a homosexual, or a convicted murderer/accused child molester?
What if some circumstance made it so that it was your child? (Plane crash, car wreck, God's will, &c.)
Homosexual or murderer/accused molester? Take a choice. In this question, those are your only two options.