A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Promoting American Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
Its immoral because the Bible says its immoral. The Bible is the unyielding benchmark of morality and I didn't write it.

It doesn't occur natural in other species. There's no peer reviewed evidence to suggest otherwise.

It is unhealthy the same way that heterosexual sodomy is unhealthy. Plus queers are much more apt to have multiple partners and casual relations.
Click to expand...

1) The Bible is YOUR unyielding benchmark. It is NOT the country's. It is YOUR opinion that we should use it. Yet our founding fathers provided everyone with the rights to practice religion as they see fit and to not force any one religion upon the nation.

2) So are you suggesting the other species possess cognitive abilities and they CHOOSE homosexual behavior???

3) your last comment is complete bullshit. What exactly is 'unhealthy' about sodomy? You may think it is immoral which is another point all together... what is UNHEALTHY about it (that cannot be said about heterosexual intercourse)? As for heterosexual... intercourse can produce AIDS, Crabs, Syphillis etc... just as sodomy can... just as homosexual behavior can.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Immoral.
2. Unnatural.
3. Unhealthy.
4. The children.
Click to expand...

1. Only by certain religious standards, which has absolutely no bearing on laws in the USA.

2. Already proven this wrong.

3. Double standard here - no laws restrict straights who engage in sodomy from marrying, and no laws restrict anyone from engaging in sodomy. So denying marriage based on this is pure bigotry.

4. The children are not harmed at all. Numerous studies have shown no difference between children raised by gays and children raised by straights. This is another non-issue.
 
Southern Man said:
You should take it that your points were irrelevant to the argument.
Click to expand...

His points addressed the irrelevant points you raised.

And you have no argument for his points, so you claim they are irrelevant or a strawman.

The fact that you claim that your religious beliefs have any bearing is irrelevant.

The fact that you claim it is unnatural, despite scientific evidence to the contrary makes your argument irrelevant.

The fact that you claim a health standard be applied to gay marriage that is not applied to straight marriage or unmarried private citizens makes that argument irrelevant.

The fact that you claim that the children are harmed, despite the evidence to the contrary, makes this argument irrelevant too.

In other words...

1. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant
3. Irrelevant
4. Irrelevant
 
Superfreak said:
1) The Bible is YOUR unyielding benchmark. It is NOT the country's. It is YOUR opinion that we should use it. Yet our founding fathers provided everyone with the rights to practice religion as they see fit and to not force any one religion upon the nation.

2) So are you suggesting the other species possess cognitive abilities and they CHOOSE homosexual behavior???

3) your last comment is complete bullshit. What exactly is 'unhealthy' about sodomy? You may think it is immoral which is another point all together... what is UNHEALTHY about it (that cannot be said about heterosexual intercourse)? As for heterosexual... intercourse can produce AIDS, Crabs, Syphillis etc... just as sodomy can... just as homosexual behavior can.
Click to expand...

1. The issue is morality, and the vast majority of folks who live in the consider themselves Christians, and should therefore recognize the Bible as the benchmark for moral decisions.
2. Other species when put into unnatural environments such as zoos sometimes do unnatural things. Also homosexual activity has been observed in other species as one critter seeks to assert dominance over another; that's not a homosexual relationship.
3. Oral cancer has been linked to oral sex. The health impacts of anal sex have been widely disseminated.
 
Southern Man said:
1. The issue is morality, and the vast majority of folks who live in the consider themselves Christians, and should therefore recognize the Bible as the benchmark for moral decisions.
2. Other species when put into unnatural environments such as zoos sometimes do unnatural things. Also homosexual activity has been observed in other species as one critter seeks to assert dominance over another; that's not a homosexual relationship.
3. Oral cancer has been linked to oral sex. The health impacts of anal sex have been widely disseminated.
Click to expand...

Typical Conservative viewpoints..... Want to limit freedom of those who choose not to use bible as benchmark for legal decisions in America.
 
Southern Man said:
1. The issue is morality, and the vast majority of folks who live in the consider themselves Christians, and should therefore recognize the Bible as the benchmark for moral decisions.
2. Other species when put into unnatural environments such as zoos sometimes do unnatural things. Also homosexual activity has been observed in other species as one critter seeks to assert dominance over another; that's not a homosexual relationship.
3. Oral cancer has been linked to oral sex. The health impacts of anal sex have been widely disseminated.
Click to expand...

1) Again, even though many in this country are indeed Christian, they quite obviously do not think as you do. They understand that our founders created this country where no religion would dictate morality.

2) Bullshit... they don't simply behave that way in captivity. Look at the nat. geographic link that was provided. They do the same in the wild.

3) Both oral and anal sex are acts that both hetero and homo sexuals engage in. If you want to go with the 'vast majority' argument... I would bet the vast majority of the people in this country have engaged in at least one of those acts.
 
Southern Man said:
1. The issue is morality, and the vast majority of folks who live in the consider themselves Christians, and should therefore recognize the Bible as the benchmark for moral decisions.
2. Other species when put into unnatural environments such as zoos sometimes do unnatural things. Also homosexual activity has been observed in other species as one critter seeks to assert dominance over another; that's not a homosexual relationship.
3. Oral cancer has been linked to oral sex. The health impacts of anal sex have been widely disseminated.
Click to expand...

1. The majority has no bearing on this. If the majority were to decide it wanted free speech removed, you would be the first to scream foul.

The US Constitution protects the rights of the minority from having christian dogma forced on them.

2. The link I posted used the animals in the zoo as a single example, and then listed numerous other examples observed in the wild. And none of those observed in the wild had anything to do with dominance.

3. You are wanting to only limit gay marriage because of sodomy. Straight married people are allowed and single people of both sexual orientations are allowed to engage in sodomy.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Again, even though many in this country are indeed Christian, they quite obviously do not think as you do. They understand that our founders created this country where no religion would dictate morality.

2) Bullshit... they don't simply behave that way in captivity. Look at the nat. geographic link that was provided. They do the same in the wild.

3) Both oral and anal sex are acts that both hetero and homo sexuals engage in. If you want to go with the 'vast majority' argument... I would bet the vast majority of the people in this country have engaged in at least one of those acts.
Click to expand...

1. That's not the founder's position.
2. As stated, and as linked, they do it to establish dominance over other critters. That's not a homosexual relationship.
3. You appear to have given up on your earlier position that sodomy is healthy. :)
 
Onceler said:
Says who?

Religious fundamentalists make up a large portion of the base. In the south, "Gods, guns & gays" is still the rallying cry for elections...
Click to expand...

And during the American Revolution, "We have no King but Jesus" was a typical battle cry when attacking British troops. Many of us Southerners are still patriots. :)
 
Superfreak said:
Typical response of a moron. His views are in no way 'typical' of conservatives.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I know many conservatives who feel this way.

Look up Pat Robertson (who won republican primaries), Huckabee (who won Republican primaries), Jerry Farwell, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reid, Focus on the Family...., Family Research Counsel, Especally James Dobson....
 
Southern Man said:
1. That's not the founder's position.
2. As stated, and as linked, they do it to establish dominance over other critters. That's not a homosexual relationship.
3. You appear to have given up on your earlier position that sodomy is healthy. :)
Click to expand...

1. That is exactly the founders position.

2. You obviously read the article I linked, since you copied info from it. Either you stopped after the first paragraph, or you are lying. The other examples have nothing to do with dominance.

3. Whether it is healthy or unhealthy has no bearing. Unless you are going to restrict straight marriages based on the same standard, you are just being a bigot.
 
Southern Man said:
And during the American Revolution, "We have no King but Jesus" was a typical battle cry when attacking British troops. Many of us Southerners are still patriots. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you do seem to misinterpret Christ's message when it comes to things like homosexuality.
 
Southern Man said:
And during the American Revolution, "We have no King but Jesus" was a typical battle cry when attacking British troops. Many of us Southerners are still patriots. :)
Click to expand...

Until we won the war, we were still a british colony, which makes your argument irrelevant.

And after the war our founding fathers wrote a document called the US Constitution. It superceded any battle cries.
 
I find it rather odd that anyone would enjoy getting their shit pushed followed up with a protein enema. It's obviously an act designed, at best, to establish dominance, and possibly to cause serious physical injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top