Homosexuality

Truth Detector said:
They are always changing; and once the pendulum swings too farin one direction, it will swing back the other way. It's a matter of degree how far it swings based on legislative malfeasance.

I'm quite certain the Venezeulans believed they were "winning" too. ;). We know how that is turning out don't we?

I'm sure the French people thought they were winning too.
Click to expand...

so... it is your belief that the people of Maine will, one day, vote to OUTLAW gay marriage?
 
One thing about Truth Detector is he calls everyone that doesn't agree with him idiots but cannot formulate a coherent argument.
 
Damocles said:
More likely their natural drive to mate and limited options. I don't think a bran the size of their eyeball has it in it to understand that the drive would net a different result if more selection of available "mates" was available.

Remember the famous captive penguin gay couple? They mate for life, etc. They were moved to a new zoo, one meets an unattached female and one of the couple moved on immediately while the other was depressed. I don't think it was "choice" either time, they have a drive to mate even if there are no available females.
Click to expand...

That accounts for one anamoly, but that doesn't account for the other species of creatures that exhibit these tendencies in nature.
 
maineman said:
I'm not bragging about anything. I am stating facts. I have a large retirement portfolio and substantial monthly retirement income. You are the moron who doesn't know shit from fat meat about anything, pal. You are the piss brain.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Well, I'll have you know I can sing like Tony Bennett, look like George Clooney, and have more money than Bill Gates. So there.
 
Watermark's Ghost said:
well first lets get one thing out of the way, it is a fact that a majority of americans support gay marriage, which was what we were originally discussing, and which I have proven with dozens of polls.
Click to expand...
and, apparently its a fact according to the poll chart above that this happened briefly a few years ago, then shifted back and now is true again......perhaps also briefly....its hardly a settled matter....

I will concede however, that when Roe v Wade was first decided something like 87% of Americans were opposed to killing unborn children.....after the law changed, society changed and it is only recently that people have once more been mostly opposed to baby killing.....

therefore, even if gay marriage is approved and support for it grows, it does not mean that at some point in the future the majority of people can't once again come to their senses.....
 
Sun Devil said:
One thing about Truth Detector is he calls everyone that doesn't agree with him idiots but cannot formulate a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Doesn't take long to figure him out, does it. I'd like to know on what planet his crap passes for debate.

A few days ago I went through some of his posts and struck out everything that wasn't an insult, and there were about three unrelated words remaining in each reply. It was fun and enlightening. Here's an example.

"No matter how many times you post the same stupid shit, it doesn't make your or this Democrat jurists case look less dumb.

The only one whining like a little bitch is you having your dimwitted talking points shoved back into your dullard hyper partisan and empty head.

I'm amused that it took you until now to raise the predictable racist canard; you dunces just can't help yourselves can you?"
 
Sun Devil said:
Marriage is a social construct and was never a "sacred" union. It was only made that way when religious institution started defining union. A large part of the Judeo-Christian world (including Islamic) had multiple wives. Marriage is not even a natural part of human procreation hence is why marriage is a social construct. Society psychological, lawfully, defines the parameters of what a union is. In this particular case in answering you, disregarding gays to marry is unconstitutional.

And notice your contradictory flaw:

You said: "no one cares what two homos want to do in their private time."

Then you said: "Now if you want to explain why men are different from women and how two men butt fucking was the way God or nature intended, I'm all eyes; go for it."

So obviously you care and immediately want me to explain to you how two men engage in anal sex. Honestly that is very homoerotic of you. Sorry I don't "get off" talking about other dudes sexual acts. Perhaps you want to ask someone else to explain to you.
Click to expand...

Good idea not to explain anything about the act to him, it'll make him start breathing heavily and groaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top