Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Wiglaf]

In keeping with traditional moral American standards? Does slavery count? Or how about Jim Crowe laws and segregation? America is a country that has a bill of rights and a constitution. It is a country where all should be respected and two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Because some of America's traditional values are wrong does not mean all are. I ask you to make a clear moral distiction between heterosexual marriage and slavery and you cannot do it?

The only reason you don't like it is because it's against your personal morality... and no other reason. You have no logical arguments, just your bigotry...

Oh the bigot card again.

No, gays hurt Americans culturally because they destroy an institution so clearly intended for procreation and as a secondary benefit, social order. It's not entirely about either of the two, but primarily it's about procreation.

[Sava]

dp

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
No, gays hurt Americans culturally because they destroy an institution so clearly intended for procreation and as a secondary benefit, social order. It's not entirely about either of the two, but primarily it's about procreation.

Gays getting married provides social order... a better society... and like those couples who get married with no intention of having children, they provide a more stable enviornment for all those around them...

But you want to allow one, and not the other...

Proof again that you are just a bigot

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Because some of America's traditional values are wrong does not mean all are. I ask you to make a clear moral distiction between heterosexual marriage and slavery and you cannot do it?

Well then.. how can you say that your anti-gay propaganda and illogical morality statements that supposeably conform to some traditional values are right? They very well are wrong and are bigoted. You are a bigot. It is that simple.

No, gays hurt Americans culturally because they destroy an institution so clearly intended for procreation and as a secondary benefit, social order. It's not entirely about either of the two, but primarily it's about procreation.

No on both counts. You can't back yourself up. Marriage was intended as for committment. You have no evidence to back yourself up. Your statement are full of illogical fallacies (non-sequiters). We hurt Americans? How so? We pay taxes too. Wouldn't gay marriages help America? Afterall the couple would have to pay more in taxes...!

Your argument again backfires.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I'm not fond of nuts like Barack Obama on the other side, but this is not the issue. And i'm not registered a republican by the way.. "non-partisan".

Barack Obama would body slam you to the GROUND AND GIVE YOU A BEAT DOWN!!!

[Giancarlo]

Sava, I'm debating with Wiglaf. Except he isn't debating back. He's just throwing idiotic bigoted statements at everybody. However, please don't spam this thread. Let me have my space for a bit.

[Wiglaf]

Gays getting married provides social order... a better society.

Through repeated acts of sodomy entirely for pleasure with no procreative end?

Why should the government endorse that anymore than it should cat-sex?

[Sava]

I will defend obama's honor!

[Wiglaf]

Debating isn't calling someone a bigot. That's being a jackass..

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Through repeated acts of sodomy entirely for pleasure with no procreative end?

Why should the government endorse that anymore than it should cat-sex?

Heterosexuals engage in sodomy too. Additionally it is not illegal. And it isn't entirely for pleasure. It is often to show the love we have for another human being.

Why should the government endorse homosexuality anymore then it should heterosexuality?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Through repeated acts of sodomy entirely for pleasure with no procreative end?

Why should the government endorse that anymore than it should cat-sex?

It's nice to know you think cat sex is similar to sex between two consenting adults...

Again... a couple who has no intention of having children is doing it for pleasure and love. Gays, straight... same thing... but you allow one, and not the other... you little bigot you

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Debating isn't calling someone a bigot. That's being a jackass..

Correct. You are being a bigot. There is no debate to that.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Marriage is the government's business, even at its most secular. Not gays'.

The government sanction it - it still remains none of your business at the end of the day...

[Wiglaf]

It's nice to know you think cat sex is similar to sex between two consenting adults...

You're avoiding the issue. Gays can have sex all they want. It's fine and legal.

The government does not have to endorse them with additonal legal benefits because the practice it feels is not productive. And it isn't. It's 100% pleasure-based.

[Provost Harrison]

You've revealed your true colours there Wiglaf...it all comes down to that biblical sin - a book you swalled whole at some point and now you don't know how to question things for yourself...pity.