Who Here Thinks Michele Bachmann's Husband can Ungay People?

I didn't skirt anything. Both are a behavior born out of sexual attraction, both represent two people loving each other. Pedophilia is akin to being gay....a comparison. If one is acceptable, so should the other be acceptable.

 

You weren't talking about being around you, you were talking "traditionally" or in the past that your heterosexuality was more in line with the man/woman concept which is a circular argument. Recent history certainly bares your assertion out but many other past cultures had no problem with gays in their societies. But the point you're making is at least in the recent past, heterosexuality has been the acceptable norm and gays have had to keep hidden in the shadows for fear of retribution that ranged from ostracizing them to killing them for being "not the norm". You’re just being “traditional” by keeping to the old ways of dealing with those that are different and being in the majority certainly lets you exercise that right with impunity. Heck, I bet your name around town is good old traditional Tom.
As far as design goes, gays have been around for as long as heterosexuals and while they have probably done very little by comparison to propagate the species (see Markus Bachmann), they seem to have also done very little to prevent the propagation of the species as well. Is reproduction the only purpose we serve? What about people that get married and never have children? In other words, why is your justification for not accepting gays based on their lack of interest in the propagation of the species? I am sure many of them do contribute to sperm banks.

 

Wow! You really just said that? "Pedophilia is akin to being gay" What if I told you that the vast majority of adults having sex with kids is "man on girl..." and I have to put this in quotes too, "...sex"?

 

Pedophilia has nothing to do with the issues being discussed. We have not been talking about what 2 'people' do. We are talking about what adults do. Children will always have less rights and need more protections in society. Until they become adults.

And as far as conforming to society being what is most important. Well, that has been every totalitarians dream since the beginning of time whether it be Stalin or the Nazis or the Taliban or Red China. Personally, i think it is just another form of tyranny.

 

Yes...traditionally. That's how we all got here. Circular argument or not, that WAS/IS the intended design of the male/female anatomy. I don't think that they should be killed, etc., as you suggest that I might be in line with. They're people, the same as anybody else, including me, including anybody. HOWEVER....their behavior, their sexuality, their morality, isn't something I approve of. If they have the right to be gay, then I have the same right to not accept it. They don't need to be "in the shadows" during every day life. The DO need to be in the shadows when it's time to express their sexuality, their affection to the same sex. I'm hardly traditional and hardly known for being traditional. Fact, quite the opposite. I think love the sinner, but not the sin fits somewhat. Gays have been around and will always be around I suppose. Doesn't mean their values and assertions must be integrated into society. The norm, so to speak. Yeah..that sperm bank dilemma is a pisser. I guess when the gay females use it to impregnate themselves, that would be like sleeping with the world, so to speak. Another great moral concept.

 

In that it is a behavior that is contrary to the accepted norm. I try and make it as absurd as possible to emphasize the point. Man on girl is wrong, but done. My point is...where do we draw the line? Apparently you don't have any lines of morality or social conscious. All is ok, right? All great ways to educate succeeding generations. Just great.

 

My point was where to draw the line. I still haven't gotten a clear answer on what the bounds would be. I'll take a guess though. Your position would be: So long as adults consent to other adults, anything goes sexually, morally, or otherwise. Would that be correct? Drugs should be legal too? How bout prostitution? Why not? Guns too! Why not allow everyone to carry an oozi? Again, boiling the frog slowly is what it seems to me if there are no boundrys. The only time people realize the water is too warm is when its too late and they're already cooked! People get what they deserve...in politicians, in sexual behavior, in morality, and in life. They reap what they sew. Swim in s*it, die in s*it. No boundries though. That wouldn't be kind. Give everybody a joint, an oozi, some heroin, and whatever else they want. But I have digressed.
Gays are people too. Not contesting that, nor should I need to. My problem is with their behavior, which stems from sexuality. Man/boy love was an attempt to highlight the idiocy of permitting the "anything goes" line of thought. (or the lack of it)

 

We have to have lines in a society. By default we give up some freedoms in order to live in groups

However, I think We should have as many freedoms as possible that do not cause harm to others. Which is a total different philosophy than limiting freedoms based upon what some group just doesn't like.

 

You have gotten plenty of answers. You just chose to disregard them. You don't think gays should have rights. At least not the kind you have. Because they don't follow the norm. Do you? Always? Remember. Your 9/11 beliefs.

 

How about if we draw the line to include people that love other people period regardless of which gender they are attracted to and that has nothing to do with pedophilia? If you were around not too long ago, interracial marriage was against the law. People said exactly the same things about interracial marriage as you are saying about gay people, exactly the same things. Do you find interracial marriage offensive too?

 

Hey, Tom! What say we outlaw all love (heterosexual, homosexual or whatever) and consequently sex. We will just deem love and sex illegal. Would you like that? There would be absolutely no danger of you ever seeing two guys kissing in public if we did that. Or a guy and a girl either. We can set up sperm banks and egg banks then when the population runs low, we'll just access those banks and create some new babies. Abortions would disappear as well as STDs. Since marriages (of all kinds) would be illegal, divorces would also completely disappear! And you'll never have to see another gay pride parade on TV again. Since private procreation would be outlawed, there would be no more unwanted babies ending up in trashcans or left in toilets to die. With no more unwanted babies, the state's responsibility to support them with food and education would be diminished. Think of all the money society would save!

Tom, enlighten yourself or keep being a Nazi. Your choice.

 

Finally you understand. Passing legislation in order to draw a boundary is legislating morality. Making drugs and prostitution illegal are also examples of legislating morality. And the problem is who gets to choose what morality is acceptable/unacceptable? Since there is no way to fairly resolve that issue, not legislating morality at all is the only fair resolution.

Guns are a different issue since they pose a direct hazard to others. But gun ownership is protected by the second amendment of the Constitution and not at all relevant to the conversation in this thread. What is relevant is how completely out of touch your are with your own society. How is it even possible that you honestly think that uzi is spelled "oozi"?

It is incredible that on this forum I have been repeatedly accused of being homophobic simply because I like to use the homosexuality as an insult. But when a true homophobe shows up, you, nobody really gives a crap. I personally don't believe that people are born gay. It is counter to the natural order which dictates that the propagation of the species occur by heterosexual relations. Having said that, I do not believe in legislating morality, creating "boundaries" as you would say. If some dude decides he wants to be a fudgepacker, or some chick wants to be a rugmuncher, I say more power to ya and enjoy your gayness.

Next you will tell us that you think that rock and roll music and dancing should be outlawed because they are sexually suggestive and as such, are morally questionable.

 

tomc. Prostitution is legal in most parts of Nevada. Does that mean that most residents here are immoral?

 

When I go back and forth with you on this, I'll admit picturing your rump being ridden by Dick Cheney as he pulls on your hair shouting, ''Feel this tungsten, truther boy!''.

 

You didnt skirt anything? I asked you several times if you engaged in underage drinking. My guess is yes. I know it from another thread. But what makes that different than me smoking a joint when I was 15?

 

The conspiracies theorists are way out of the norm of society. I don't care if they want to spread these theories in their own homes and live their conspiracy lives in their own houses, out of sight of us normal people. But I am tired of having this fringe conspiracy lifestyle imposed on me. And my children. For God's sake. Think of the children. We have to draw a line. For the children. God Hates Conspiracy Theorists.

 

If I disregard anything, it's assumptions made by the mentally challenged. They deserve all they sew, as do we all. Believing unbelievable fallacies because I'm told to, and engaging in promiscuous behavior, are entirely different things (except to the mentally challenged).

 

Well, loving someone regardless of gender is all well and good, if you're talking in a very general sense. Men that love boys, love their boys. Why should their behavior be excluded and gays accepted? I'll use the 80 year old guy and the 17 year old, soon to be legal adult, eyed by the boy lover, as an example. Once he's 18, it's all cool. Right? He loves his boy, and he will teach his boy to love him. It's all about love. That's all that really matters, isn't it?
Interracial marriage still constitutes (normally) a man and a woman. No...I find nothing appalling about that. Do you?

 

We could do that, or we could legislate questionable behavior to be practiced in only the confines of their home, or discreetly tucked away from normal society. People have a right to be perverse too. Doesn't mean we need to be forced to accept it.

The Nazi part? That's granddaddy Bush's game. Being a hard right supporter, I'll assume you approve of the Nazi agenda. Why do you criticize your own?

 

Would legislating (by banning) s*i**ing in the street be an overstep on legislating morality? Who chooses? Society, as a whole. Majority rules. That's who. Not legislating anything opens the door for everything and anything (which you are apparently comfortable with).

"Uzi's" are relevant to this conversation. You said it. The second amendment. Why shouldn't I be permitted to carry a fully loaded "uzi" everywhere I go?

If you call being homophobic, not wanting their lifestyle to be forced onto us as not only "acceptable", and to be celebrated by marriage, then I guess I'm homophobic. Why do you think the military has such an issue with gays? Probably because many males feel like I do about their disruptive lifestyle.

Rock and roll? Depends which group you are referring to. Dancing? Start with a male and female, and there's room for compromise, when you're talking about being sexually suggestive.