Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying that it matters. My point is, is that a liberal cannot even admit something that is factually true. I don't think it should be a consideration for people to get married, but can you ADMIT that homosexuals cannot produce offspring?
Techically anything against the "norm" can be considered "abnormal".
Which is why, scientifically speaking, homosexuals can be considered "abnormal".
It's not negative, as just because someone is "abnormal" doesn't mean that anything is wrong with them nor does it mean that they don't deserve the same rights and privileges, but Betamanlet is techically correct in this sense.
Also: He's one of hte few who's trying to explain how homosexuality is abnormal without actually insulting or discriminating gays. Don't be so quick to jump the trigger.
Thats just it. What is the "norm" and who defines it? People use the abnormal argument as an argument to forbid rights to a totally normal person.
It is being abused and I think we should stop calling people abnormal because they belong to the minority.
So why do liberals throw fits when people describe homosexuality as deviant? It deviates from normal behavior, which is heterosexuality.
Even liberals throw fits if you say homosexuality is abnormal. Heterosexuality is normal, as the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Homosexuals are abnormal because most people are heterosexual. Kind of like how albinos are abnormal because most people have pigmentation. But liberals throw fits when you use specific, and accurate terminology.
The phrase you are looking for is "homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality". Unless you think you know better than all the health professionals.
You're judging all gays based on the ones you don't like? How about if gays judged all straight people based on the behavior of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears? That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Lindsay Lohan dated d.j. Samantha Ronson... She's only heterosexual when it suits her.
The reason government is in marriage is to provide a secure and committed environment for the rearing of children. Different tax exemptions depending on the amount of children, etc. back up this point. It is truly a shame that homosexuals and Latinos continue to try to abuse amendments and legislation to advance their agenda that were put into place in order to prevent discrimination against African-Americans.
Have you looked at the divorce rates certainly not helping the environment for rearing children. I personally would like tax exemptions based upon how many children you have removed. Your last statement - homosexuals and Latinos .... they are citizens of the United States. Maybe it is you and your kind who wants to abuse amendments and legislation to advance your agenda
Gosh, I didn't know I married my husband for some right or claim to something of his, let alone a title. Let me give you a hint -- look up the word 'archaic'
Does not attend to the point of the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
So because "nothing can be produced from" my marriage to my husband, we should only have been legally allowed a civil contract? That's just so absurd on it's face that I can't imagine how anyone could possibly argue such a position.
I explained the reasoning. It is historically relevant, marriage does not mean same sex. Its definition means heterosexual union and it is historically supported as I explained.
You don't get to make up the meanings of words as you like in legal realms. If you want to call it marriage, I don't care. There are all kinds of social idioms out there that make no sense and incorrectly use words. This is an issue of demanding legally that a word change to fit and emotional position. The word does not fit the use and demanding it is arrogant, emotional, and self centered.
Get a civil union, then call it whatever you like outside of the legal definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Special consideration? Surely you jest. Homosexual couples are seeking equal consideration. Period. End of argument. To call it anything else is to be completely untruthful.
There you go again, redefining words to fit your emotional position. Equal it is right now. Marriage is not a gay coupling. Just as a hoe is not a shovel, and a hammer is not a screwdriver. What homosexuals are seeking is special attention and consideration. We are supposed to change a words meaning that has been historically significant and relevant as well as specific in its meaning since its conception to meet emotional demands of people who appear to be narcissistic and self centered that everyone should change to meet their unwillingness to accept intellectual discourse.
All at the same time carving out a special little corner of treatment simply because they choose to have sexual interactions with someone of the same sex.
As I said, what makes them so special above two people who want the same legal considerations and are not homosexual? Do homosexuals get a prize because they have sex with each other? It is beyond absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
No, what's pathetic is characterizing Americans who are standing up and fighting for the equal rights of all people, as throwing a temper tantrum.
No what is pathetic are people who put ignorance and the need for public attention above rational thought.
Now this is an irrelevant point and completely fallacious in position.
The fact that some people may not be able to procreate does not change the fact that heterosexuals can procreate in their couplings. They have all through history and this is why marriage came about. Its a rule, you are arguing an exception that does not change the rule or even contest it.
Now, homosexuals cannot procreate between each other. This is also a rule.
Heterosexuals who can not procreate between each other are abnormal in occurrence (this is not the standard, ie the normal occurrence), this may be because they have a problem that is also abnormal in its occurrence.
What about heterosexuals that get married but don't WANT to have children?
They go against the rule that marriage is for two people that procreate.
Thats just it. What is the "norm" and who defines it? People use the abnormal argument as an argument to forbid rights to a totally normal person.
It is being abused and I think we should stop calling people abnormal because they belong to the minority.
Myself, I think people should stop taking offense to being called names. Thin-skinnedness is one of the downfalls of society in my opinion.
Jumping on a person for being techically correct while he's not actually trying to use the term to oppress anyone is counterproductive.
Again, the gay movement pushes an illogical position like a child throws a tantrum. Marriage doesn't fit their definition, so they will stamp their feet and demand it be changed.
Oddly enough, it seems that the people trying to change the definition of marriage would be the people with the anti-gay agenda. At least as exemplified by such legislative measures as Proposition 8, and other pushes to get laws CHANGED to reflect their definition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
certainly not helping the environment for rearing children. I personally would like tax exemptions based upon how many children you have removed. Your last statement - homosexuals and Latinos .... they are citizens of the United States. Maybe it is you and your kind who wants to abuse amendments and legislation to advance your agenda
