Onward Gay Activists

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 12:15 pm

Christian teachers cannot throw out anything religious in their teaching. They cannot put up anything about religion in the school. They are the only specific group that has a law targetted at them about this.

The same standard is held for all religions.
Christianity is not specifically singled out.

could bet you that if you took 2 teaches in one school and one put a cross or the 10 commandments on their desk and the other put a rainbow flag on theirs, the cross would be the one to draw complaints.

Since when is a 'rainbow flag' a symbol for homosexuality?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 12:20 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote: There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.

The answer to your question is no. The point is that a married heterosexual couple are afford certain legal standings and rights (inheritence, parental custody rights, tax benefits, etc) that are not granted to couples in same sex relationships. There are laborious ways to work around some of these rights, but it is often costly and will not yield the same quality of results granted to heterosexual couples. This legal distinction is a form of sexual discrimination that is inconsistent with the tenants of the Constitution.

Essentially, there is a contradiction between marriage laws and the laws promoting equality and freedom from discrimination; logical constructs must not tolerate contradiction and our legal system must strive to be logically sound.

I believe that we have rehashed this same argument over and over again.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 28, 2004, 12:21 pm

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.

Why not? Marriage is a choice that 2 adults make. I think tax deductions for children are a different circumstance (you then have the choice of paying for child care or cutting income to have a parent care for the kids) but if they're not present, what is so special that it demands distinct status?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 12:27 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote: There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.

They do have every right that a married person has...They can choose to marry and recieve the commensurate tax breaks...

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 28, 2004, 12:45 pm

Gays can also choose to marry an oposite sex partner and get the same breaks. There is no law or constituional amendment against it.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 12:54 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Gays can also choose to marry an oposite sex partner and get the same breaks. There is no law or constituional amendment against it.

Yes but they cannot choose to marry the one they love...while straight people can...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 1:01 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Gays can also choose to marry an oposite sex partner and get the same breaks. There is no law or constituional amendment against it.

The point is that a married heterosexual couple are afford certain legal standings and rights (inheritence, parental custody rights, tax benefits, etc) that are not granted to couples in same sex relationships. There are laborious ways to work around some of these rights, but it is often costly and will not yield the same quality of results granted to heterosexual couples. This legal distinction is a form of sexual discrimination that is inconsistent with the tenants of the Constitution.

Essentially, there is a contradiction between marriage laws and the laws promoting equality and freedom from discrimination; logical constructs must not tolerate contradiction and our legal system must strive to be logically sound.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 28, 2004, 1:05 pm

The core of this argument is the definition of marriage. It could be argued that marriage traditionally has had the meaning of a bond between man and woman. But still, marriage has never been primarily a religious institution. We are not and should not be concerned with the religious implications, only the legal ones. In order to make our laws adhere with our highest law, the constitution, it has become necessary to change the traditional definition of marriage. Conservatives and Christians alike despise this idea, not necessarily because they want to discriminate, but moreso because they hold marriage as some sacred institution that must be preserved in its current form. And they see it as their duty to undertake this preservation, even though there is no logical rational or even moral reason to do so. Consequently, gays are discriminated against as a result of their stubbornness.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 28, 2004, 1:31 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote: There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.

The problem is that tax breaks shouldn't be associated with marriage at all. They should be associated with breeding. It seems the big concern is protecting the breaks that married people get from gay couples and yet those breaks are, or should be, mostly associated with raising children. The answer is to not give blanket tax breaks to "married" couples which should actually be civil unions in the eye of the government.

Keep marriage out of government. Keep tax breaks focused on what they're intended for. Limit government's involvment to civil unions between any two consenting adults.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 28, 2004, 1:56 pm

archeiron wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Gays can also choose to marry an oposite sex partner and get the same breaks. There is no law or constituional amendment against it.
The point is that a married heterosexual couple are afford certain legal standings and rights (inheritence, parental custody rights, tax benefits, etc) that are not granted to couples in same sex relationships. There are laborious ways to work around some of these rights, but it is often costly and will not yield the same quality of results granted to heterosexual couples. This legal distinction is a form of sexual discrimination that is inconsistent with the tenants of the Constitution.

Essentially, there is a contradiction between marriage laws and the laws promoting equality and freedom from discrimination; logical constructs must not tolerate contradiction and our legal system must strive to be logically sound.

This is a very clear and concise way to put things into focus. I like it.

Weren't there, until recently, penalties for being married in the tax code? I seem to remember that filing single would be better than joint because of the bullshit taxes. I know that has changed not too long ago.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 28, 2004, 2:01 pm

Winnow wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote: There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.
The problem is that tax breaks shouldn't be associated with marriage at all. They should be associated with breeding. It seems the big concern is protecting the breaks that married people get from gay couples and yet those breaks are, or should be, mostly associated with raising children. The answer is to not give blanket tax breaks to "married" couples which should actually be civil unions in the eye of the government.

Keep marriage out of government. Keep tax breaks focused on what they're intended for. Limit government's involvment to civil unions between any two consenting adults.

I agree. Tax breaks for those who don't breed Atokals.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 28, 2004, 2:14 pm

What I have a problem with is Aaeamdar's Bigotry and all consuming stupidity towards one group and one group only. He has danced around the issue, twisted and turned in order to avoid admitting that he has become that which he hates.

I have not dodged anything. I have ansered (as have many others) this charge multiple times - its not bigotry to point out that others are bigots. You just don't seem to like the answer. Not much I can do about that.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » September 28, 2004, 2:15 pm

Haha love your sig Dar...

/pinch

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 2:15 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:This is a very clear and concise way to put things into focus. I like it.

Weren't there, until recently, penalties for being married in the tax code? I seem to remember that filing single would be better than joint because of the bullshit taxes. I know that has changed not too long ago.

I cannot speak intelligently about the nuances of the American Tax System, and all of the permutations of single and joint filings spanning all states across the US available to married couples. A detailed analysis of the tax laws will lead to the conclusion that under common circumstances married couples will see tax breaks unavailable to homsexual partners.

In my present circumstances, being married has resulted in more money for myself and my wife. This is largely due to the fact that she hasn't been able to work and we have filled a single return jointly. A detailed discussion of the tax law is beyond the scope of this topic. There is no doubt in my mind that the tax laws need reform and simplification without compromising the flexibility and intent of our system.

The strength of this argument is not based solely upon the differences in the tax laws, but upon the culmination of seemingly innocuous details taken together.

As Winnow pointed out, the traditional notion of marriage and the legal notion of civil unions were intertwined in our society from the inception of this nation. These two concepts need to be unraveled and allowed their proper places and purposes: a legal standing and a religious one. The legal standing affording rights and benefits within the legal structures of our society, and the religous one servicing the doctrine of each religion.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 2:37 pm

Essentially, there is a contradiction between marriage laws and the laws promoting equality and freedom from discrimination; logical constructs must not tolerate contradiction and our legal system must strive to be logically sound.

There are many laws that contradict your freedom from some type of discrimination. You can't marry your sister for example. You can't marry more than one woman as another. There are plenty of people out there who are in love with more than one woman and yet are discriminated against because they cannot marry both. There are people who love their relatives yet cannot marry them. It is not just a gay thing....do yu understand the legal implications that legalizing something like gay marriage is going to have down the road?

I can see it now.... 2025....October is national Pump Kin month.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 2:42 pm

What the hell does incest and polygamy have to do with homosexuality?

I fail to see the correlation.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 2:44 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Essentially, there is a contradiction between marriage laws and the laws promoting equality and freedom from discrimination; logical constructs must not tolerate contradiction and our legal system must strive to be logically sound.
There are many laws that contradict your freedom from some type of discrimination. You can't marry your sister for example. You can't marry more than one woman as another. There are plenty of people out there who are in love with more than one woman and yet are discriminated against because they cannot marry both. There are people who love their relatives yet cannot marry them. It is not just a gay thing....do yu understand the legal implications that legalizing something like gay marriage is going to have down the road?

I can see it now.... 2025....October is national Pump Kin month.

You're projecting...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 2:51 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:There are many laws that contradict your freedom from some type of discrimination. You can't marry your sister for example. You can't marry more than one woman as another. There are plenty of people out there who are in love with more than one woman and yet are discriminated against because they cannot marry both. There are people who love their relatives yet cannot marry them. It is not just a gay thing....do yu understand the legal implications that legalizing something like gay marriage is going to have down the road?

I can see it now.... 2025....October is national Pump Kin month.

Your argument is subjective and inflammatory; if you would like to address the topic using rational, logical commentary, I would be more than happy to debate the topic with you.

Your ignorant distrust and hatred of those who are different from you and your desire to subjugate is the same form of persecution that lead most American's ancestors to abandon their homeland in Europe to seek freedom in the United States.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 2:59 pm

Ah....so gay love is more normal to you than polygamy would be? What exactly would you have against polygamy?

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 3:05 pm

Participating in polygamy or incest involves choice.

Homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 28, 2004, 3:08 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:Haha love your sig Dar...

/pinch

It's scary how some find it cute to have a sig saying "Christians Suck", but would be incensed, shocked, disgusted, and hurt if someone had a sig saying "Muslims Suck". I wonder if those people can even see their hipocracy.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 3:15 pm

The only 'hipocracy' is when you open your mouth (figuratively speaking).

Puns intended.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 28, 2004, 3:28 pm

miir wrote:Participating in polygamy or incest involves choice.

Homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation.

Falling in love is not a choice, AFAIK. So saying that one chooses to participate in polygamy is not exactly true.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 3:43 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Ah....so gay love is more normal to you than polygamy would be? What exactly would you have against polygamy?

You are attempting to put words into my mouth. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to engage in polygamy if their religion or personal feelings encourage such behaviour. It is not something that I would persue if it were legal, but off the top of my head I can't thing of sound reasons why it should be illegal that do not involve religion. As a clarification , this would be confined to consenting adults. Not only are you unwilling or unable to discuss this on a logical level, but it appears that you are unable to avoid putting words into my mouth to state your case.

You are unwilling to battle on the gay rights topic so you are changing venues to the polygamist rights forum as a means of discrediting the first issue. You are ignoring the issue at hand by using the Chewbacca defense. *golf clap* Good job, you are teh intarweb debate king.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:12 pm

Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 4:16 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.

Your arguments continue to be religious and subjective in nature. You are entitled to your opinion, but according to the spirit of the US Constitution, you aren't able to force your opinion on other people.

Thank you for voicing your opinion.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:18 pm

Religious in nature? WTF? That is a classic. I am going to use that for every argument I make from now on.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 28, 2004, 4:21 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.

I don't like the comparision because it doesn't make sense. It's more like sexual deviancy of sodomy. Which I am sure many of the men are guilty of regardless of being straight or gay. Like my wise mother once told me - men like holes.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 28, 2004, 4:21 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Religious in nature? WTF? That is a classic. I am going to use that for every argument I make from now on.

Then explain where your "idea" that homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior comes from if not from religion.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » September 28, 2004, 4:21 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Religious in nature? WTF? That is a classic. I am going to use that for every argument I make from now on.

Still unable to build logical thoughts into coherent arguments? Oh dear, give it another try. We are patient in this thread.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:24 pm

It is nothing like sodomy. It ain't no ballpark either....ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 28, 2004, 4:26 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.

What parallels are you refering to? Honestly if you want to distract from the original topic then please at least flesh out your argument. How is homesexuality related to incest and polygamy?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 28, 2004, 4:26 pm

you certainly don't find anthing wrong with public displays of ignorance

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:29 pm

Crav wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.
What parallels are you refering to? Honestly if you want to distract from the original topic then please at least flesh out your argument. How is homesexuality related to incest and polygamy?

Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>

Contrary to what things appear on this forum, homosexuality is not the norm. Neither would incestuous behavior or a variety of acts that we won't even go into here. You can bring up something absurd here now that oral sex is deviant or anal sex is deviant...I am not even going to go there.

If your arguing that homosexuality is the norm, then I am not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 28, 2004, 4:31 pm

Thess wrote: Like my wise mother once told me - men like holes.

Would a bowling ball be a good analogy? Three hole balls are the best!

Having your own ball can increase your score because it is made just for you. In other words, it provides consistency.

The bowling alleys are oiled, so the balls pick up oil as they roll down the lanes.

Bowling is a fun sport, gaining popularity with people of all ages. A bit of practice can send your score soaring!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 4:33 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.

Ok anal sex among heterosexual couples is much more deviant statistically...So what the hell does deviance have to do with this at all?
BDSM is more deviant still...Should we deprive those folks of their rights? People who have never masturbated are immensely deviant...lets take their rights away...

You keep using deviance and abnormality as some sort of criterion but you are still not in favour of removing the rights of those who exhibit far more deviant behaviours...Your logic...isn't...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 4:36 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>

Contrary to what things appear on this forum, homosexuality is not the norm. If your arguing that homosexuality is the norm, then I am not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.

Ahhhhh the I'm taking my toys and going home arguement!...

Homosexuality has occurred with about the same incidence in all populations through history...Therefore its occurence in the population is clearly normal...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 28, 2004, 4:38 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Crav wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.
What parallels are you refering to? Honestly if you want to distract from the original topic then please at least flesh out your argument. How is homesexuality related to incest and polygamy?
Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>

Contrary to what things appear on this forum, homosexuality is not the norm. Neither would incestuous behavior or a variety of acts that we won't even go into here. You can bring up something absurd here now that oral sex is deviant or anal sex is deviant...I am not even going to go there.

If your arguing that homosexuality is the norm, then I am not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.

ACCEPTED NORM

that does not mean one way and one way only. Homosexuality IS an accepted norm in our society. There are still narrow minded homophobes out there (like yourself), but most people accept homosexuality in our society even if they dont think they should have the same right to marriage.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 4:39 pm

Kilmoll is relying on a 2000 year old book to define his moral values.

Today's society is much more enlightened than back in the days of JC.
150 years ago, it was considered socially and morally acceptable to buy, sell and trade other human beings.
100 years ago women were not considered worthy enough to vote.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 28, 2004, 4:39 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Crav wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Homosexuality is just as deviant of a sexual behavior as incest or polygamy. There are plenty of people who engage in the activity whether you or I like it or not. You may not like the comparison and quite frankly I don't care. You are the one who is choosing to ignore the parallels between them. Sometimes I think we should have complete anarchy just to shut some of you up.
What parallels are you refering to? Honestly if you want to distract from the original topic then please at least flesh out your argument. How is homesexuality related to incest and polygamy?
Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>

Contrary to what things appear on this forum, homosexuality is not the norm. Neither would incestuous behavior or a variety of acts that we won't even go into here. You can bring up something absurd here now that oral sex is deviant or anal sex is deviant...I am not even going to go there.

If your arguing that homosexuality is the norm, then I am not going to continue to listen to anything you have to say.

That wasn't what I was asking. I think we can all agree that homosexuals are not the majority in this country or anywhere else in the world. However, by that definition interracial marriages are also deviant since as you point out it's not the norm. So are marriages of people of ages differing by more than 10 years.

The question I asked was what parallels you were referring to when you were comparing homosexuality with incest and polygamy. I am lead to believe that you honestly think that they are the same, so please explain your reasoning for this belief.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:43 pm

Arborealus wrote:Homosexuality has occurred with about the same incidence in all populations through history...Therefore its occurence in the population is clearly normal...

Ah....so in that case since incest is occurring at the same or higher rates than it has historically, then it is clearly normal.

As to whoever posted about religion.....I am not even delving into religion. A species would be extinct within a century if homosexuality was the normal behavior. Heterosexuality is what allows procreation...or did they forget to teach you that in school?

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 4:43 pm

Wouldn't there be more parallels between heterosexuality and polygamy/incest since the vast majority of those who participate in polygamy/incest are, infact, heterosexuals?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 28, 2004, 4:43 pm

he thinks they are all grody

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 28, 2004, 4:46 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Homosexuality has occurred with about the same incidence in all populations through history...Therefore its occurence in the population is clearly normal...

Ah....so in that case since incest is occurring at the same or higher rates than it has historically, then it is clearly normal.

As to whoever posted about religion.....I am not even delving into religion. A species would be extinct within a century if homosexuality was the normal behavior. Heterosexuality is what allows procreation...or did they forget to teach you that in school?

Incest is normal in the population yes...normal/deviant/abnormal do not mean right or wrong...So quit fucking using them like they do...

Apparently they forgot to teach you about normal variation in populations...

...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:48 pm

miir wrote:Wouldn't there be more parallels between heterosexuality and polygamy/incest since the vast majority of those who participate in polygamy/incest are, infact, heterosexuals?

In the case of this argument...no. I am trying to use something of a parallel between what would be labeled deviant behaviors where marriage rights are denied. The last poll I saw showed something like 75% of the population did not agree with homosexual marriage. I would bet that polygamy would be around the same number if they did a poll.

One thing I cannot understand is why the same people that argue vehemently for gay marriage claim that polygamy is something so radically different. It has clearly been more of an accepted behavior than homosexuality has been through history.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:52 pm

Lalanae wrote:he thinks they are all grody

I could quite honestly care less what 2 people do in their own home. If the people are gay they can have at it...I truly don't care. I even go so far as to support that they should have SOME of the marital rights of hetero couples. I don't think the state or the federal government should pass any law requiring insurance to cover a same sex partner. That should be left up to the company you work for. You can always go to a company that does support same sex couples...as the company does that I work for.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 4:56 pm

One thing I cannot understand is why the same people that argue vehemently for gay marriage claim that polygamy is something so radically different. It has clearly been more of an accepted behavior than homosexuality has been through history.

For this discussion, it is completely off topic.
There are no rational parallels between choosing to partake in incest/polygamy and being homosexual.
It would be like bringing up child molesters in a discussion about slavery.

Arguing the morality and legality of polygamy/incest is a different discussion.
This thread is about homosexual rights, please try to stay on topic.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 28, 2004, 4:58 pm

It can be argued that one chooses to be homosexual as well.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 28, 2004, 4:58 pm

for someone who doesn't care you sure do seem to put up a big fight to show everyone how wrong you think homosexuality is.

everytime the topic comes up, out of all the people here, you are the one who feels he has something to prove. Most people here truly don't care what two consenting adults to in their home and can say "Hey, it's not for me, but to each his own" when appropriate. They can also say "hey, two gays having marital rights doesn't negatively affect my life, so what's the big deal?"

You seem to have a problem with live and let live when it has absolutely ZERO affect on your life. Maybe you should look at that and ask yourself why.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2004, 4:59 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It can be argued that one chooses to be homosexual as well.

No, it cannot.