Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
okay things have changed....I talked it over with my wife and I'm not getting a divorce.....we're moving the elephant into the house and having a menage a rie'.....we've discovered we're bi-specious.......
Click to expand...

Find one that gives good trunk and you will be all set.
 
Southern Man said:
Laws are based on traditions.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like the tired old tradition where inter-racial couples weren't accepted??

Or maybe that time honored tradition of keeping Blacks as slaves??

OR, maybe the tradition of women being kept in subserviancy and not being allowed to vote??

OR MAYBE, .............................................?? :good4u:
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Except that people have been marrying across racial lines for millennia, strengthening the gene pool and hence society as a whole. No one can argue that queer marriage will do that.

Hissy is making a caricature of my argument as you attempted.
Click to expand...

But they weren't accepted as normal, until the courts stepped in and told the bigots to stop.

Now, let's include those WHITES ONLY resturants!! :good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
I was simply arguing that a society using queer marriage as its basis won't survive past one generation.
Click to expand...

I think I finally understand your objection to gay marriages.


















You're afraid that you're going to be FORCED to marry someone who's gay.
Don't worry, that will never happen. :cof1:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it does illustrate, however, that there can be a rational basis for objecting to having law changes forced down one's throat.....Winter has confessed to having difficulty understanding that......I merely wanted to enlighten him......while bestiality is not as widely engaged in as homosexuality and has not received the same level of public acceptance, the proposal to change the laws to permit a man to marry an animal is no different than changing the laws to permit same sex marriage......
Click to expand...

So now you're letting everyone know that you equate gays, to being nothing more then amimals.

Gee, that's kind of like when Blacks were considered to be only 1/8 human.

Good job. :good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
Odd definition of hissy. The real definition is letting your emotions get the best of you, and in your case manifesting itself into a display of condescension against your opponent.
Click to expand...

So the majority of your comments, in this thread, were nothing more they you having a hissy. :good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
Odd definition of hissy. The real definition is letting your emotions get the best of you, and in your case manifesting itself into a display of condescension against your opponent.
Click to expand...
Then neither of us are in a "hissy"...

Condescension has nothing to do with my emotional state and when I apply it, it is only towards the inane argument presented. In this case it is something that you add with "tone" while you read, not something I am presenting.
 
Southern Man said:
First of all, a "real man" is chivalrous, and does not force himself on a woman, or seek to degrade her.

Second, your argument seems to be that rape is how a queer society reproduces. That doesn't fit the definition of a civil society.

Third, a priest is a man, and it is only the traditions of the Catholic Church that keeps him from fulfilling his natural tendency.
Click to expand...
Yet it happens, even without their consent. However, lesbian women often consent to sex they don't enjoy so that they can have children, homosexual men also sometimes participate in such a thing solely for children. Your statement that they were incapable was simply and directly wrong.

And that isn't my argument, I am simply stating that homosexuals can and do have children. Your absolute statement was untrue, and therefore does not apply to the discussion, other than as fiction. You may want to use more accurate statements like maybe, "it is far more rare for them to have children naturally"...

As for the Priests if they "remain true to their god" they'd be as fruitless as gays who "remained true to their nature" (again I am laughing that you now understand it is part of their nature.) Neither of them are "incapable" of having children, except in the land of make believe.
 
btw, wanted to thank southernman for answering all my questions an fully debating this subject. to bad more people who claim to prophets can't do that.....
 
Yurt said:
yes, i've already stated that...why do you think i keep asking you for an example and why do you think i keep referring you to loving v. virginia? what state is that from? and did you notice your statute was altered regarding consent in 1957? why do you keep ignoring california? let me ask you this:

if a state, like CA doesn't have it defined, are you then going to honestly admit that such state cannot deny gays the right to marry?

further, you apparently are not aware, no matter how many times i keep bringing up and you ignorantly swipe it away.....states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses by not allowing interracial marraiges.....

tell me....how did that turn out for them...

you have lost the legal argument, but i did enjoy your efforts
Click to expand...

unanswered despite the false claims it was answered....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top