Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
You're point is meaningless, sir. :ninj:
Click to expand...

the way you're running from it and having a total meltdown over kids is amusing and very telling...because you know that your point was thoroughly and unequivocally destroyed by my simple comment....

parents can teach their kids that britney spears type marriage is not normal, just as they could teach their kids that homosexuality is not normal....you know i am right about you, that is why you exhibited such an embarrassing hissy fit
 
Yurt said:
the way you're running from it and having a total meltdown over kids is amusing and very telling...because you know that your point was thoroughly and unequivocally destroyed by my simple comment....

parents can teach their kids that britney spears type marriage is not normal, just as they could teach their kids that homosexuality is not normal....you know i am right about you, that is why you exhibited such an embarrassing hissy fit
Click to expand...
Actually, your writing was so poor back there I didn't think that you were making a point. Now that you have clarified, I see that you've created a simple non sequitur.
 
Southern Man said:
Children will have to be taught a lie, that queer marriage is normal.
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
nah....you don't teach your kids that britney spears type marriage is normal....
Click to expand...

the only lie here is your comment, my comment is spot on, so much so that you've embarrassed yourself in one of the most flamboyant hissy fits i've seen on the interwebs.....:clink:

and if you don't understand the english i used above, perhaps you should try hooked on phonics
 
Yurt said:
the only lie here is your comment, my comment is spot on, so much so that you've embarrassed yourself in one of the most flamboyant hissy fits i've seen on the interwebs.....:clink:

and if you don't understand the english i used above, perhaps you should try hooked on phonics
Click to expand...

Yurt, don't pay much attention to SM's avoidance techniques. He tries to twist and avoid a topic when he is getting hammered in the actual debate.
 
Yurt said:
5

i even colored coded the topics for you so you can't falsely claim i am only talking about loving v. virginia
Click to expand...

sorry, when you began talking about racial issues I hadn't bothered to read the rest....

as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...
Click to expand...

except that isn't true....I linked you to the California Supreme Court decision....they specifically stated that California law had always banned gay marriage.....they based their decision not upon a claim that California law didn't ban gay marriage, but that California's approach to creating "domestic partnerships" for gays and "marriage" for straights was a violation of the uniquely worded equal protections clause of the California constitution.....

your criticism of my position is based upon a false assumption.....
 
Yurt said:
the only lie here is your comment, my comment is spot on, so much so that you've embarrassed yourself in one of the most flamboyant hissy fits i've seen on the interwebs.....:clink:

and if you don't understand the english i used above, perhaps you should try hooked on phonics
Click to expand...
How ironic. :)
 
Southern Man said:
How ironic. :)
Click to expand...

Back to the topic at hand, the idea that children will be taught that gay marriage is "normal" is a non-issue. What people teach their kids is up to them. I know people who still teach their children that interracial marriage is wrong. (serious rednecks)

And, despite the hissy fit, what Yurt said was valid. People do not teach their children that Britney Spear's marriage is normal.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, when you began talking about racial issues I hadn't bothered to read the rest....



except that isn't true....I linked you to the California Supreme Court decision....they specifically stated that California law had always banned gay marriage.....they based their decision not upon a claim that California law didn't ban gay marriage, but that California's approach to creating "domestic partnerships" for gays and "marriage" for straights was a violation of the uniquely worded equal protections clause of the California constitution.....

your criticism of my position is based upon a false assumption.....
Click to expand...

wrong again....the court held that the CA CONSTITUTION did not distinguish or define marriage as solely between a man and a woman...thus, for five months homosexuals were able to marry in CA...then the voters changed the constitution to ban gay marriage....you also continue to ignore some other 26 states that have changed their constitutions to ban gay marriage....i wonder why

that is a fact and you ignoring that fact shows your hypocrisy and now it is becoming clear to me why you keep running....because you support change if it suits your political agenda, that is intellectually dishonest and you know it

if the law was clear before 1977....the law would not need to have been changed.....or made less ambigious...nice try
 
Yurt said:
wrong again....the court held that the CA CONSTITUTION did not distinguish or define marriage as solely between a man and a woman...
Click to expand...

dude.....so what?....state statutes did.....read the CaliSC decision.....you look real silly claiming that banning gay marriage is a change when gay marriage has been banned in California since it became a state.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude.....so what?....state statutes did.....read the CaliSC decision.....you look real silly claiming that banning gay marriage is a change when gay marriage has been banned in California since it became a state.....
Click to expand...

why are you being dishonest....your own research expressly stated it was ambigious prior to 1977....why do you run from this question:

if it was clear or banned, why the need to change the law in 1977?

the cali decision clearly stated that the constitution, which you should know is the highest law in CA besides the US constitution, did not define marriage...you're either reading the wrong case or have very low reading comprehension skills

tell, why did the voters have to change the constitution? and why do you support that change, it is the height of hypocrisy and one you keep running from....

and stop wimping out by deleting the bulk of my posts....try answering the whole post
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
why are you being dishonest....your own research expressly stated it was ambigious prior to 1977....why do you run from this question:

if it was clear or banned, why the need to change the law in 1977?

the cali decision clearly stated that the constitution, which you should know is the highest law in CA besides the US constitution, did not define marriage...you're either reading the wrong case or have very low reading comprehension skills

tell, why did the voters have to change the constitution? and why do you support that change, it is the height of hypocrisy and one you keep running from....

and stop wimping out by deleting the bulk of my posts....try answering the whole post
Click to expand...

it is becoming clear to my why you keep avoiding the issue of interracial marriages....

in CA, interracial marriages were banned from the state's founding...however, the CA supreme court in Perez struck down the ban as unconstitutional....

PMP has placed himself in a bad position....he is against gay marriage because it will change the law....so, he either presents himself as supporting the ban on interracial marriage, or showing his intellectual dishonesty by supporting the change in that law, but not the gay marriage law....

congratulations on backing yourself into a corner PMP

:)
 
Yurt said:
no reason for you to dishonestly claim you don't know what my point is....
Click to expand...
Your hissy has gone on for so long now I honestly don't remember what point you claim to have made. It was something about Britteny Spears, which didn't make sense to me at all. :facepalm:
 
give me a break....

you claimed that if homsexual marriage is legalized parents will HAVE to teach their children that homosexual marriage is normal....

that is not true, britney spears marriage is legal, but not normal and as has been pointed out to you numerous times, parents do not and are not forced to teach their children that marriages of her type are normal....

now, let's see if you can address this or will you keep up the stupid game because you know your point has no merit
 
Yurt said:
give me a break....

you claimed that if homsexual marriage is legalized parents will HAVE to teach their children that homosexual marriage is normal....

that is not true, britney spears marriage is legal, but not normal and as has been pointed out to you numerous times, parents do not and are not forced to teach their children that marriages of her type are normal....

now, let's see if you can address this or will you keep up the stupid game because you know your point has no merit
Click to expand...

Actually what I said was: "Children will have to be taught a lie, that queer marriage is normal." Undoubtedly that lie will be taught by the public school system.

If you read what I wrote with an open mind instead of preconceived perceptions it would save us both lots of time.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually what I said was: "Children will have to be taught a lie, that queer marriage is normal." Undoubtedly that lie will be taught by the public school system.

If you read what I wrote with an open mind instead of preconceived perceptions it would save us both lots of time.
Click to expand...

And I responded that those who are taught to believe in the bible as accurate, will not believe that homosexual marriage is "normal".


And what would be the worst thing to happen if an entire generation were taught that homosexual marriage were normal?

Do you think more of them would be gay? Do you think the very fabric of our society would unravel? Would the entire generation reject christianity?

What exactly do you think would happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top