BANNED!

[Slartibartfast]

Okay, that sounds so retarded, and let me explain why:

Hetero wants to do A, doesn't want to do B
A = have sex with opposite sex / marry opposite sex
Homo wants to do B, doesn't want to do A
B = have sex with same sex / marry same sex

The Law says A is ok, B is forbidden.
Homo says: I want to be able to do B

CreationismUpHisAss says: giving Homo the possibility to do B gives him more rights than Hetero

BULLSHIT: the change in law would also make Hetero able to do B. He doesn't want to, that's his problem. Homo doesn't want to do either.
EXPLAIN: how is it that Homo gets more rights.

My explanation: IDIOT FUNDIE says so, because he hates B and thinks it's an abomination to nature, God and the tooth fairy.

Law applies to both. Law can't say "you can marry your same sex only if you're gay". Law can only say "you can marry your same sex if you want to." Your comment has crossed the line of stupidity.

You say "giving the right to do B gives both the right, doesn't matter that the hetero doesn't want to" but others defending it say "thats stupid, because the homosexual wouldn't WANT a!"

They don't want more right for themself alone, but they are not getting less rights as of now.

Idiot. When I am hungry I WANT to eat. It doesn't mean it's a choice.

Concession accepted.

[Non Catenatum]

Idiot. When I am hungry I WANT to eat. It doesn't mean it's a choice.

Concession accepted.

That deosn't have to do with the argument I am making.

You say "Hetro-sexuals wouldn't WANT B but thats their problem" whereas neoolong says "but homosexuals don't WANT A so it isn't equal"

Which one is wrong...?

[Slartibartfast]

Idiot. When I am hungry I WANT to eat. It doesn't mean it's a choice.

Concession accepted.

That deosn't have to do with the argument I am making.

You say "Hetro-sexuals wouldn't WANT B but thats their problem" whereas neoolong says "but homosexuals don't WANT A so it isn't equal"

Which one is wrong...?

Neither is wrong. It only reinforces the notion that opposite-sex marriages don't trample gay people's rights, and same-sex marraiges don't trample straight people's right. Which is what you were saying (that doing the latter would give gays MORE rights). Which was the retarded part.

The Law is supposed to grant us more liberties, not less liberties for no obvious reason ("God says so", "eww, homosexuals" is not a valid reason). Forbidding something that a group wants to do, or needs to do, while allowing something that the same group isn't interested, or is unable to do, makes it NOT EQUAL. Just like forbidding insuline to everybody because non-diabetics don't need it, is NOT EQUAL rights to diabetics ("the law says they can consume sugar instead, that makes it ok").

You already conceded that so just go back to your usual fundie arguments with the other members of the forum.

[Non Catenatum]

No, Neoolong's argument is saying "they don't want it, therefore that law is of no good to them" and you, speakiogn of the opposite side, says 'they don't want it, but who cares, its still equal"

And I admit they would both be getting equal rights if you added the law B. But without the law B they stioll have equal rights, because the homosexuals don't want law A, but thats their problem.

Your argument is mirroring mine. Prove mine wrong, without proving yours wrong.

[Andrew J.]

because the homosexuals don't want law A, but thats their problem.

Excuse me? Are you saying homosexuals don't want straight people to have the right to marry each other?

[Master of Ossus]

No, Neoolong's argument is saying "they don't want it, therefore that law is of no good to them" and you, speakiogn of the opposite side, says 'they don't want it, but who cares, its still equal"

And I admit they would both be getting equal rights if you added the law B. But without the law B they stioll have equal rights, because the homosexuals don't want law A, but thats their problem.

Your argument is mirroring mine. Prove mine wrong, without proving yours wrong.

In the US, they are (according to the Declaration of Independence) given the right to pursue happiness. For them, that may mean homosexual marriages and similar. Why is it our right as heterosexuals, or your right as a rabid creationist, to prevent them from doing so? Further, if we consider this a constitutional right reserved to the states to decide, then due to the full-faith and credit clause of the Constitution, gays would have the right to marry anywhere they want.

[neoolong]

No, Neoolong's argument is saying "they don't want it, therefore that law is of no good to them" and you, speakiogn of the opposite side, says 'they don't want it, but who cares, its still equal"

And I admit they would both be getting equal rights if you added the law B. But without the law B they stioll have equal rights, because the homosexuals don't want law A, but thats their problem.

Your argument is mirroring mine. Prove mine wrong, without proving yours wrong.

"they don't want it, therefore that law is of no good to them"

That's not it at all. The point is that giving them a substitute that is utterly pointless is just a copout. Happiness is the main goal, barring encroachment on others as well as fair laws. The pursuit of happiness was mentioned above and it applies in this case.

[data_link]

Geez. What a moron.

My analogy was not to homosexuality, it was to your statement that "only God can save you from being gay." My point was that you are implying that being gay is harmful, which it is not. And you don't realize this.

As for your bullshit about the homosexuals getting equal rights, answer me this: if the law was changed so that no one is allowed to pray, you would be upset. But why? We would still be giving Christians the same rights as atheists. And you can't say that it's unfair to Christians because they want to pray because you're still getting equal rights, and if you don't want the law saying that you can still not pray, then that's your problem.

Your argument about "lopsided" children is completely bogus. Do you also think that single parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Certainly such children would be even more lopsided, because not only do they not have a parent of the opposite gender, but they don't even have a dissenting opinion to begin with. Bullshit, and the research proves it (is bullshit).And if the only secular argument you can even come up with against homosexuality is some bullshit about "lopsided" children, then you obvioiusly don't have a case about homosexual intercourse being harmful.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I see you hve carfully avoided my point yet again. You say that thast love cannot exist without marriage correct? Amd that homosexuals are incapable or love. Yet you deny the homosexual the right to prove you wrong by getting married.

That is like accusiong someone of a crime, letting the prosecution present a mountain of evidence(or in this case no evidence at all, just that a genocidal mass mudering god says so is enough) and then not letting the defence even present an argument. Skipping the defence and moving right to the virdict. That my "friend" is bullshit.

[Darth Servo]

I believe that works do not affect whom He choses.

So then WHY DO YOU CARE whether a person is homosexual or not?

I know you don't want me to answer "because its an abolishment..." so...

You apparently don't understand WHY that's not an valid answer? Do you know what the 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy' is?

I care because I would like to assert that sin is a destructive nature in a person's life.

But you have NEVER produced ONE SHREAD of EVIDENCE that homosexuality is actually destructive.

I also assert that on the Judgement, God will have us account for all our sins.

Oh, so our works DO factor into the equation of who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. Do you realize you have just contradicted yourself?

Our lives will be better whether or not we sin, not mainly because God will reward us, but our turning away from sin will consequently give us a better life.

But you have NEVER DEMONSTRATED how homosexuality harms people's lives or how them "deciding" to be heterosexual will improve them. And NO, quoting scripture is NOT evidence.

If all of us commit "amominations in the sight of God" but God decides to let some people into heaven anyways what difference does someone's sexuality make???

It makes a difference because, like all other sin, it is destructive to ourselves.

PROVE IT!!! Kindly present one tidbit of OBJECTIVE evidence that homosexuality is actually destructive.

Heres a thought. Theres one hetero-sexual couple and one male-homosexual couple. The hetero-sexual have kids, the homosexuals adopt a child. Both children are 2 year old girls. Which child do you believe will grow up normal? The one with a father and a mother each providing their unique care, or the child with duplicate fathers, who has no motherly love to learn and immitate?

Here's a thought. How do you know that two fathers would NOT provide just as good a parenting job as a mother and a father (other than the fact that the two men can't breast feed). Has it ever occured to you that maybe masculin and feminin traits are not necessarily instinctive but rather taught by society?

[Non Catenatum]

Geez. What a moron.

My analogy was not to homosexuality, it was to your statement that "only God can save you from being gay."

Excuse me, for a minute I thought homosexuality and being gay were the same thing. Forgive me for my ignorance.

As for your bullshit about the homosexuals getting equal rights, answer me this: if the law was changed so that no one is allowed to pray, you would be upset

Naturally I would be upset, because it is violating my right of freedom of religion. What right does the banning of homosexuality violate?

We would still be giving Christians the same rights as atheists. And you can't say that it's unfair to Christians because they want to pray because you're still getting equal rights, and if you don't want the law saying that you can still not pray, then that's your problem.

It would be unconstitutional...
But I will tell u, I'd break it

Your argument about "lopsided" children is completely bogus. Do you also think that single parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Certainly such children would be even more lopsided, because not only do they not have a parent of the opposite gender, but they don't even have a dissenting opinion to begin with.

A single parent would not have as much affect on a child as two parents of the same sex. And you asked how it could be harmful, not whether or not it justified an outlaw of it. I believe that a single parent CAN be harmful to a child given the circumstances, but I don't admit to outlawing it.



All the time I have for tonight. I'll answer more tomorrow.

Wow, I think I'm getting gray hairs from all these people to respond to [/quote]

[fgalkin]

Oooh, the moron has come back.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[neoolong]

Oooh, the moron has come back.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

And he decides it's alright to break the law when it suits him, but it is not alright for homosexuals to marry and break an anti gay marriage law. Hypocrite.

[data_link]

Excuse me, for a minute I thought homosexuality and being gay were the same thing. Forgive me for my ignorance.

I don't know whether you understood that it was referring to your implied statement that homosexuality is harmful as opposed to saying homosexuality is absurd. BTW, when were you planning ot back that assumption up?

Naturally I would be upset, because it is violating my right of freedom of religion. What right does the banning of homosexuality violate?

Actually, you would still have the right to freedom of religion, you simply wouldn't have the right to pray in public. Just like under your system homosexuals would have the right to be gay, they just wouldn't have the right to a public expression of romantic love (marriage). Do you see why we take offense?

It would be unconstitutional...
But I will tell u, I'd break it

Good. Then we can throw your ass in jail right next to a fat gay man named Butch.

A single parent would not have as much affect on a child as two parents of the same sex. And you asked how it could be harmful, not whether or not it justified an outlaw of it. I believe that a single parent CAN be harmful to a child given the circumstances, but I don't admit to outlawing it.

How would they have less effect - if anything they'd have more since the child never gets a dissenting opinion. And I'm glad to hear you admit that it doesn't justify outlawing gay marrige/child adoption. Now why don't you stick to that opinion.

[data_link]

I also like how you never got around to answering this question

May I point out (as I have done before) that God considers women in positions of power to be an abomination. Why aren't you trying to protest women's voting rights on the same basis, hmmm?

Here's the verses I provided.

1 Tim 2:11-12, and Isiah 3:12. Also Lev. 18:22, according to many biblical scholars

So when are you going to answer this?

[Darth Servo]

Naturally I would be upset, because it is violating my right of freedom of religion. What right does the banning of homosexuality violate?

Remember that whole "life, liberty and pursuit of HAPPINESS" thing? A gay man will most likely NOT be happy in a heterosexual marriage.

We would still be giving Christians the same rights as atheists. And you can't say that it's unfair to Christians because they want to pray because you're still getting equal rights, and if you don't want the law saying that you can still not pray, then that's your problem.

It would be unconstitutional...
But I will tell u, I'd break it

So you see whats wrong with your reasoning when it is applied to yourself. Why can't you see that you are advocating that sort of treatment towards homosexuals?

A single parent would not have as much affect on a child as two parents of the same sex. And you asked how it could be harmful, not whether or not it justified an outlaw of it. I believe that a single parent CAN be harmful to a child given the circumstances, but I don't admit to outlawing it.

ROTFLMAO
You actually think one parent can do better than two? Please justify this INSANE assumption. You DO ADMIT you support banning homosexuals from marrying and adopting you lying little SOB even though two parents most assuredly provide better parenting than one.