Laughable paradox of conservatives preaching their value from an escort review board

Churches have the liberty to set requirements for couples if they wish to get married there (such as documenting a strong previous relationship or taking religious or non religious couples therapy).

When I was in dc I saw many churches that welcomed gay members as a part of the family, so it really varies by church not masking a whole sect of Christianity because of broad views. If Catholic churches won't accept gays to marry in their church they have every right. But there are so many more options for having secular or religious marriage ceremonies outside if church as long as the person ordaining the marriage is licensed to do so by the state.

So what's your next argument? Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Very clearly stated 'Roman Catholic Church' -- there are others, but that suffices as the only example necessary in this instance. Or perhaps you missed that point!?!

So which one do you believe the LBGT community would challenge? The ones that acquiesce and accommodate their demands, or the ones that resist?

So what's your next argument?

Once the Federal benefits are worked out, a Civil Union will suffice. ). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They work that out , then fuc'em. Call marriage what it really is, Hell!

. In 50 years, it'll be an S.E.P. ('somebody else's problem'). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No shit, I'll be pushing up Daises in fifty!

They work that out , then fuc'em. Call marriage what it really is, Hell! Originally Posted by WTF

PC effrontery!!!

No 'gay gene' has ever been found. Such a gene, were it to exist, cannot/could not be sexually passed to the next generation through the natural procreative process in a homosexual relationship. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Revisionist posting. That is NOT what you posted the first time, was it. I never argued for the existence of a "gay gene", I only pointed out the stupidity of your argument that a homosexual person can pass along to the next generation whatever genes they do or don't have.

Sorry you are embarrased about your stupid comment.

Now that was interesting. Popocorn anyone?

Now that was interesting. Popocorn anyone? Originally Posted by 4karlos

suggesting popcorn is anti-liberal

popcorn will be outlawed..and the butter too...just you wait and see

PC effrontery!!! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That is what the privileged side always thinks. Right now, they are discriminated against. I have provided the link to prove so. Many people think it is just a PC issue. IMHO it is because they do not realize how the law discriminats against gay couples when it comes to marriage. Fix that legal issue and I will stand beside you on the marriage issue. The gay will have to call marriage something else. Straight folks used that word first.

That is what the privileged side always thinks. Right now, they are discriminated against. I have provided the link to prove so. Many people think it is just a PC issue. IMHO it is because they do not realize how the law discriminats against gay couples when it comes to marriage. Fix that legal issue and I will stand beside you on the marriage issue. The gay will have to call marriage something else. Straight folks used that word first. Originally Posted by WTF

As pointed out earlier, those who choose to mark up their bodies with tattoos and body piercings are also treated differently from those who do not. Those who choose criminal avocations are treated differently from those who do not. Those who make deviant choices need to STFU and deal the associated negative consequences of their choices. And no one cares if they call marriage "something else".

Very clearly stated 'Roman Catholic Church' -- there are others, but that suffices as the only example necessary in this instance. Or perhaps you missed that point!?!

So which one do you believe the LBGT community would challenge? The ones that acquiesce and accommodate their demands, or the ones that resist?

So what's your next argument? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Still on the same topic obviously the roman catholic church doesn't have too much against lgbt community since they are routinely accepting homosexuals as priest and members if staff. As I said it would depend on whether each individual church whether they accept gay members if the church or wanted to perform marriages in their church.

And lgbt people are not the only ones pushing their beliefs to the general public. You just want it too seem like its growing monster that won't stop even after it gets want it wants, but if that was the case you would initially see lgbt rallying to be accepted members of the catholic church. Which hasn't happened.

People just want the same legal rights and the chance to commit themselves to each other in a legally binding ceremony - honestly religion should have no say in a legal matter such as this. So your catholic conclusion is really just fear mongering because in reality I highly doubt the catholic church would be forced to marry homosexuals.

Marriage is not a Christian things people have been getting married before the first collection of stories the the bible consists of was even made. Marriage is a social commitment where religious presence is optional if you want to get back to the basics.

Tis all

As pointed out earlier, those who choose to mark up their bodies with tattoos and body piercings are also treated differently from those who do not. Those who choose criminal avocations are treated differently from those who do not. Those who make deviant choices need to STFU and deal the associated negative consequences of their choices. And no one cares if they call marriage "something else". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't consider homosexuality deviant nor am I certain it is a choice at least not in the majority of the instances. Fix the federal law, allow civil unions and call it a day. Is there discrimination? Yes, but it’s discrimination like “First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did nothing.” You and BM are right, it is a PC issue purely and simply. We have bigger fish to fry like the economy and the attack on Liberty.

Still on the same topic obviously the roman catholic church doesn't have too much against lgbt community since they are routinely accepting homosexuals as priest and members if staff [the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church is celibacy: sexual abstinence; it does not 'recruit' homosexuals as you imply. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful]. As I said it would depend on whether each individual church whether they accept gay members if the church or wanted to perform marriages in their church.

And lgbt people are not the only ones pushing their beliefs to the general public. You just want it too seem like its growing monster that won't stop even after it gets want it wants, but if that was the case you would initially see lgbt rallying to be accepted members of the catholic church. LBGT militancy is a fact; if you cannot see it, it is because you choose to remain blind. Which hasn't happened.

People just want the same legal rights and the chance to commit themselves to each other in a legally binding ceremony - honestly religion should have no say in a legal matter such as this. The real truth is, all 'legal matters' can be accommodated with a Civil Union. Redefining 'marriage' to meet the militant agenda of the LBGT community is social effrontery. So your catholic conclusion is really just fear mongering because in reality I highly doubt the catholic church would be forced to marry homosexuals. Twenty years ago, it would have been unimaginable that the Catholic Church would be forced to go to court over the issue of government mandated contraception.

Marriage is not a Christian things people have been getting married before the first collection of stories the the bible consists of was even made. Marriage is a social commitment where religious presence is optional if you want to get back to the basics. If you want to get back to basics, for the entire history of this nation, the United States of America, marriage has been recognized as a covenant between one man and one woman.

Tis all Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Fix the federal law, allow civil unions and call it a day. Is there discrimination? Yes, but it’s discrimination like “First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did nothing.” You and BM are right, it is a PC issue purely and simply. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

+1

I have tried to limit how many IB posts I respond to, largely because reading too much IB drivel is dangerous to a reader’s mental wellbeing. However, since he insists on attacking me with lies and frivolous statements I sometimes—like here—feel compelled to respond.

Let’s take his stupid rant point by point:

1. I will assume that most people on this board believe the legal system should not legislate my ability to spend time in bed with a consensual young (but not too young) lady. Maybe I’m wrong with that assumption, but I don’t think so. Additionally, there are quite a number of FMF reviews and threads on this site, and generally guys drool over the thought of two women sexually interacting. But while all this is going on there are clearly some folks here who do not believe two men have the same right—otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. To me—and many others—this seems this is contradictory. Not IB! He tosses it all away with “You pulled that out of your ass, Old-goaT, because you didn't see it in black & white.” Nice of you to admit you don’t have any thoughts of your own, that if you haven’t read it in a Hannity sound bite it doesn’t pass through your neurons. I know it’s hard for you to wrap your mind around but some of us don’t have to read ideas in order to think.

2. I equated the communist-like desire to tell me my sexual preference no different from the communist-like desire to tell me my pet preference. I don’t know how to address IB’s inability to understand the similarities, “Only you, Old-goaT, because you are too insufferably ignorant to know better.” All I can do is sympathize for his inability to think broadly—but then that has been a known IB defect for a long time.

3. IB, in his typical approach, identified a lot of references. I have learned they are often not worth the effort it takes to search through them, but in this case I did because I was curious what he had found. I should have known better. The key point for discussion was my statement that no clear safety argument exists for heterosexual marriage vs homosexual marriage. Let’s look at the two references Good Ol’ IB claims prove homosexual marriages are dangerous:

“Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large sibships, and late birth order. For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.”

Hmm, that doesn’t seem to support IB’s homophobia. Maybe the 2nd reference does:
“For many youth, homosexual attraction develops due to negative or traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse. These students need therapy for the trauma, not affirmation of a gay identity.”�

“Homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, social and biological influences. Inheritance of predisposing personality traits may play a role for some. Consequently, homosexual attraction is changeable.”

“The homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks.
Research also makes clear that individuals who ultimately adopt a non-heterosexual lifestyle are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS and shortened life spans.”

Hmmmm, seems to link some family situations to a greater likelihood of sexual preference. It says there is a correlation between growing up in an abusive situation, being homosexual, and then (later?) abuse. But which is the cause, and which is the effect? I am also guessing IB is referring to the HIV comment, which I admit is a safety issue. I’m convinced, IB, outlaw homosexuality! Outlay anything that is a safety issue! We need stronger police action to arrest smokers, have invasive public checks on seat belt usage, and we absolutely must jail anyone who is overweight!!! Those are bigger health risks in a global nature than HIV!! IB, what did you have for dinner last night? Too much fat!! That is a $250 fine for increasing the health problems of the US!! Obviously I’m being facetious (in case you can’t understand that, IB). I am being facetious because your reference is so out of context it’s laughable. And you are hypocritical (again) supporting heavy government legal restrictions against gay marriage but don’t seem as interested in protecting ourselves from the more dangerous obesity and smoking issues. Why not?

4. ME: The bible thumpers and quran thumpers are both using their personal religious text to justify their closed mindedness and hate. OB: “You are a liar, Old-goaT”. Oh? Are you really claiming there are not religious zealots of every flavor out there? Do you really want me to enumerate a few examples we are all too familiar with? OB: “In the long run it matters naught, for if the liberals have their way, and marriage is redefined, they will eventually realize that Sharia Law calls for the punishment of both partners in a homosexual relationship.” IB, no argument, I decry the extremists of all religions—and I have respect for the many good people who follow different religions. The extremists give a bad name to the good ones. It sure sounds like you are making a religion based argument against homosexual marriage, but obviously I must be mistaken. Yea, right.

5. And now yet a little more insight into IB's "mind". A scary thought indeed: OB: “In the Those who make deviant choices need to STFU and deal the associated negative consequences of their choices." What gives you the right to say their behavior is "deviant"? Is your definition of "deviant" really "anything IB doesn't like"? That is the essence of your bigotry--why can't you just live with "They don't look and act like me. What they do isn't what I care to do." No, small mined people have to take it a step farther and yell "Deviant!"

There are a lot of people who like things I don't like. A lot who do/eat/listen to/believe things I don't do/eat/listen to/believe. So I just ignore their private activities. You should try it.

Lastly: IB: "And no one cares if they call marriage 'something else'." Finally something we agree on. But out of curiosity, wuld that mean they are no longer deviants? just curious.

This has been a nice distraction from the real issues. Fuckem.

This has been a nice distraction from the real issues. Fuckem. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Completely agree.

I don't consider homosexuality deviant nor am I certain it is a choice at least not in the majority of the instances. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And you claim Obama can't make a decision?

Oy!