In response to:

Super Bowl or Gay Equality Bowl

And the goshdarn Liberal Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:21 AM
We would not have a gay themed super bowl if neanderthals like Brown would actually read the constitution. Equal rights does not mean equal rights for some or only those you agree with. Back in the 1880s it was a disgusting idea for Blacks to vote. Miscegenation was against the law because some people did not like the idea then or now. Gays want to get married and it offends some people. Get used to it.
Recovered Lib Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 8:37 PM
"...Get used to it."

No, I will NOT "get used to" perversion and unholy *marriages." It is unGodly. YOU get used to that.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 4:26 PM
A behavioral perversion is not a human trait. You want to say that “all people” equals “all behavior”. If that were true, we would have no need for prisons. We treat people equally; we do not treat all behaviors equally.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:12 PM
You call Brown a "neanderthal" while thinking that bloody feces is just peachy?

Wow!
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:53 AM
"Equal rights does not mean equal rights for some or only those you agree with."

Everyone is free to marry an unmarried, unrelated, consenting adult of the opposite sex. Can you show me one example of a homosexual being denied his marriage application if both applicants meet the previously listed requirements? Equality does not mean getting to redefine legal, social and religious terms to fit whatever whim you hold that day.

"Back in the 1880s it was a disgusting idea for Blacks to vote."

Especially in the minds of democrats and liberals, inspiring them to create groups like the KKK.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:58 AM
"Miscegenation was against the law because some people did not like the idea then or now."

A man and a woman of mixed races are still a man and a woman - that meets the opposite sex requirement of the true definition of marriage. Marriage is designed to provide a stable home for the spouses and the children they produce, a benefit to society. Homosodomites do not produce children within their unions, and offer no benefit to society. They cannot meet the fundamental purpose of marriage, and therefore, do not deserve it.

"Gays want to get married and it offends some people. Get used to it."

Militant homosodomites want to get "married" in order to further undermine the nuclear family unit and force social acceptance for their perversion.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:24 AM
It isn't about who gays CAN marry. It's about who gays WANT to marry. During the Loving vs. Virginia case in 1967 this same logic was used by opponents of inter-racial marriage. They claimed that the Lovings were free to marry an unmarried, unrelated, consenting adult of the opposite sex AND THE SAME RACE. But the court didn't agree with that logic. So how is your logic any different?
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:26 AM
In addition, marriage isn't always done with children in mind. There are currently no prohibitions against couples that don't want to have children or can't have children. Historically speaking, marriage was used primarily as a means of producing children and continuing family lines. But that's not the case anymore. The current laws say clearly that having children is not required for a couple to get married. Moreover, how will homosexual families prohibit nuclear families? What effect does one have on the other and what research verifies this?
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:03 PM
"It isn't about who gays CAN marry. It's about who gays WANT to marry."

So, if I *WANT* to marry my neighbor's wife, I should be able to marry her if she consents? The fact that she is already married and is unwilling to divorce her husband shouldn't be any bar to my happiness! You are a stupid twit, as always HOG.

Loving v Virginia was decided the way it was because marriage was recognized as the union of a man and a woman - the court could find no reasonable difference between mixed race men and women versus same race men and women. The courts DO recognize a difference between men and woman, as any logical person would.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:09 PM
"In addition, marriage isn't always done with children in mind."

Those marriages would be the exception, not the norm.

"There are currently no prohibitions against couples that don't want to have children or can't have children."

Once again, exceptions, not the norm.

"Historically speaking, marriage was used primarily as a means of producing children and continuing family lines."

Logically speaking, that still is the primary purpose of marriage. Anything else is just the standard liberal attempt at undermining marriage and basic unit of society - the nuclear family.

"Moreover, how will homosexual families prohibit nuclear families?"

Strawman. How does it effect your life if your neighbor beats his wife and kids at home?
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:46 PM
Plural marriages are a separate issue. This still involves consenting adults and name-calling won't change that. Loving vs. Virginia wasn't decided on the merits of how unique certain relationships are compared to others. It was decided on the principle that the state could not impose certain ristrictions on consenting adults who belonged to a specific group. That's illegal under the 14th and 5th Amendment. You and I may not agree with someone else's marriage, but we don't have the authority to prevent it.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:49 PM
"Those marriages would be the exception, not the norm."

It doesn't matter how rare a marriage is. It is still recognized. The law doesn't require that a marriage not be the norm to be valid.

"Logically speaking, that still is the primary purpose of marriage. Anything else is just the standard liberal attempt at undermining marriage and basic unit of society - the nuclear family."

That doesn't change the fact that the current law does not have child-rearing as a requirement. And until that changes, there's no merit to denying same-sex couples the same benefits.

"Strawman. How does it effect your life if your neighbor beats his wife and kids at home?"

Non-sequiter. You still haven't explained how either effects your marriage.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:38 PM
"It doesn't matter how rare a marriage is. It is still recognized."

Rareness isn't the point - it's the fact that those marriages are accepted because the meet the minimum requirements even if they do not accomplish the purpose - homosodomite unions do neither.

"And until that changes, there's no merit to denying same-sex couples the same benefits."

The "benefit" is to not needlessly expand subsidization to a group which provides no benefits to society.

"Non-sequiter. You still haven't explained how either effects your marriage."

Apparently you don't think a neighbor who abuses his family has any effect on you or society - reasonable people everywhere disagree.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:47 PM
"Plural marriages are a separate issue."

Same issue - redefining marriage to "not discriminate" against the "love" between two consenting adults.

"It was decided on the principle that the state could not impose certain ristrictions on consenting adults who belonged to a specific group."

That's only a part of the answer. The other half is that the state can impose restrictions if a distinction can be demonstrated. Additionally, race is not a valid trait for discrimination because the Constitution prevents it - there is no such protection for sexual behavior / preference.
CoachKr Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:49 AM
The word equality is not even in the Constitution. It is about equal opportunity. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used to legislate every left wing kook cause, things never intended by it. But because they scream "racism" to any opposition to "civil rights," they win, even though abortion, illegal Mexicans and one man's right to assault the alimentary canal have nothing to do with civil rights. It you legitimize one freaky-deaky, then you have to legitimize all freaky-deaky. Oh, and being black and being homo are two completely different things. Now, go cruise the playground or some public restroom.
marshallbrinson Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:40 AM
When SAME Sex Couples can actually have children as a couple...then I will "get used to it"!!!! And YEP...I am against it...being called Marriage anyway!!!!
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:01 AM
Marriage has been redefined.
Like redefining male and female, or insisting hands be really called feet.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:21 AM
That may be possible one day. Look up "artificial wombs" on Google. Within the next couple decades, it may be possible for gay couples to create children without the aid of a doner. It may even be possible one day in the distant future to alter human biology to allow men and women to bear children. Would you be in favor of homosexuality then?
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:27 AM
Pie in the sky, by and by, seems to apply to your dreams.
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:48 AM
I think that people are snickering and making jokes is the real bother to gays.
Keep your utopian dreams.






Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:12 PM
You really don't know what "natural" means, do you, Herald?
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:23 PM
HOG has a tendency to reject any reality with which he disagrees - like DNA being able to prove that an organism is or is not of the human species.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:38 PM
homosexuality is an unhealthy,destructive behavior(medically PROVEN),a mental illness(readily apparent),and NOT good for society,any society(recognized over millennia).
it is not to be accommodated,enabled,or encouraged.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:42 PM
By that logic, do you give equal condemnation to those who utilize in-vitro fertilization or heterosexual couples who utilize surrogate mothers? If not, then you're just cherry picking.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:56 PM
Yes, I condemn both practices.

If a couple can't have children naturally, then they are not meant to. It is supremely selfish to force a child into existence for personal desire. Adoption is a compassionate alternative.

Besides, in-vitro fertilization often entails the creation of numerous fertilized human eggs (human beings) that are then destroyed because they are not needed.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:07 PM
Thank you for clearing that up. So you don't believe that humans should use their technology and knowledge to overcome natural limitations? By that logic, every drug would be wrong too because it changes a natural process. And I don't think you'll find any woman who has had a child through in-vitro that will agree with your condemnation.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:15 PM
Do you believe that humans should use technology and knowledge to attain any end? The Nazis most certainly did. Think of the scientific "progress" they made by experimenting on live humans.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:26 PM

anonymous981 Wrote: 2 hours ago (10:40 AM)
When SAME Sex Couples can actually have children as a couple...then I will "get used to it"!!!!

/////

Recently an 80 year old man married his male partner of 35 years.

Now if he had married his female Partner at age 80 could he realistically have had children? Especially without drugs? What are the odds?

What if a male is fixed so he cant have children? Can he not marry a female because he cant have children? What about a wounded war vet that wants to marry a female but cant have kids.

Nowhere on any civil marriage form does it ask about ability to have children.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:39 PM
In vitro fertilization and artificial wombs are extremely different compared to what the Nazi's did. Lumping all advancement with Nazis is completely irrational. You're avoiding my question now. Just screaming "Nazi" doesn't make your argument valid. Do you believe that humans should not use science and knowledge to overcome natural limitations? By your logic, would using any drug that inteferes with natural processes (which includes drugs that treat disease) be as wrong as in vitro fertilization?
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:31 PM
Again, in vitro fertilization almost always entails the destruction of conceived humans.

Destruction of human life without valid reason (capital crime/war) is murder.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 4:28 PM
Yes and we were all going to be able to clone our children too, until they discovered that in cloning, we were creating something that was a freak and unable to live for more than a few months.
Roy323 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:28 AM
tin-did you yell 'GOLLEEE!! like I did? Anyway, I thought gomer was funny, but UGLY!

Is it too much to ask that the focus of this Sunday be on football and not on “gay rights”? Will I be branded as a homophobic bigot for daring to make such a request? (I can answer that already: Yes!)

Last week, Fox News ran the headline, “Baltimore Raven linebacker [Brendon Ayanbadejo] uses Super Bowl spotlight to promote gay marriage,” reporting that, “Hours after Ayanbadejo’s team beat the New England Patriots on Sunday, paving their way to football’s biggest game, the three-time Pro Bowl special teams player wrote an email to gay marriage proponents asking how he could use...