Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Protecting Religious Liberty...Or Not

This truly is coming to a head in today's Amerika. Homo fascist activists have succeeded in obfuscating the debate over state sanctioned gay marriage, confusing and deluding a majority of the population at the same time. So now we have un-elected judges making decisions that force people to serve certain functions that they find morally objectionably and fundamentally opposed to their religious viewpoint. This is done, in good Newspeak fashion, for the sake of 'tolerance.' However, all we've done is litigated slavery into law. A particularly vile form of tyranny is one that forces people to violate their religious convictions, and the specific reason the first Amendment was demanded by the anti-federalists and codified by the United States.

But now we have some politicians actually doing something useful in Arizona and, seeing the trend of religious conviction being usurped by courts in a few other states, they have proactively attempted to amend a religious protection law in the state from 1999 in order to clarify that people don't have to violate their religious convictions when they engage in business in the state. However, the homo fascists pounced as quickly as possible to label this as Jim Crow for gays. They can't have anyone actually free to disagree with their movement and life decisions. Everyone must unthinkingly accept their way of life, regardless of how debased one may think it is. Clearly, religious people are not afforded the same consideration. But who cares? It's old and stodgy.

But what is the claim that this law is akin to Jim Crow laws? Why it's a lie. As Matt Walsh points out, "They lie, and cooperate with lies, and become willing participants in things that are very likely to be lies, and they do it all for the greater good." As long as their view is shoved down the throats of others, lying is okay.  As long as people are forced to accept their behavior by force of law, the lies are fine. One would hope that people would see through these lies, but they don't. Ignore the fact that Jim Crow criminalized desegregation. This is the other side of the coin. Still forcing business owners to act in a way they fundamentally disagree with. So in reality, not passing these laws (or at least not protecting people's religious freedom) is akin to Jim Crow. It is the homo fascist reaction that is promoting intolerance and hatred. But you have emotional responses galore by the uninformed masses, even entities like the NFL, threatening and demanding these politicians, who are spineless enough as it is, bow down to the mighty homo fascist demands anyway.

And so they will. Jan Brewer will veto the legislation, just as the cowards in Kansas and Ohio and a few other states did. Religious convictions will be further eroded, and soon speech on the subject will be limited as it is labeled a hate crime to speak against it.

Anyone who questions these predictions is, frankly, naive or one of the lying parts of the movement. Things are getting bad, folks. And they'll only get worse. Not for those who love debased sexual behavior, but for those that dare to disagree with it.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Tragedy?

I for one was heartbroken when the news of the terrible events reached my eyes yesterday. How can someone kill little kids? As a parent myself, I felt a profound and deep empathy and began to cry for these poor little precious ones whose lives were stolen by a maniac, and the families who cannot enjoy their company anymore. I hugged my children for a long time yesterday.

But what strikes me as odd is the reaction of the left in this country and in other western nations. Not to mention how they lack a moral foundation to condemn such acts and feel any sadness, they also actually approve of these actions, albeit several years earlier. 4 years and a number of months earlier, these victims were in their mother's womb. The leftist pro-aborts are just fine with shoving metal objects into their heads. They support even worse forms of death for them, such as poisoning them, burning them alive, and ripping them apart limb from limb. Yet five years later all of a sudden it's a terrible tragedy that they're killed?

It's far too easy to point out the mental deficiency that is so prevalent in the west now, especially in America. I for one don't see much hope for us. Propaganda, apathy, gullibility, and rejection of God has sealed America's doom.

Lord Jesus, help us and come quickly.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry) Video

Been a while since I've posted anything. Been busy with real life.

Here is a video that quickly lays out the secular argument against homosexual "marriage" that I've been using for quite some time. Well done.


Wednesday, July 18, 2012

What Homosexuality is not Video: Response

This video is one of the more poorly done mish mash of straw men and random assertions that I've ever seen.
My response:


//Homosexuality is not something for you to believe in.
It is not Santa Claus.
It is not a religion.
It is not a ghost.

No one has ever claimed these three.

//Homosexuality is not a preference.
It is not food.
It is not a beverage.
It is not something for you to select.

It actually is a preference. It's a sexual preference, as stated later in the same video.
No one's claimed it's a food or drink, and whether it's something that one selects is irrelevant.

//Homosexuality is not something you can become.
It is not a feeling.
It is not a profession.
It is not wealth.

Some people become homosexual, and then leave the lifestyle as well...soooo...just false.
It is a feeling (a sexual preference).
No one has claimed the other two.

//Homosexuality is not a scapegoat.
It is not adultery.
It is not bestiality.
It is not pedophilia.

What? Of course it isn't those three. Those are different types of immoral sexual activities...no one is claiming homosexual activity is the same as bestiality. I will claim it's just as immoral, however.

//Homosexuality is not an influence.
It is not a style.
It is not a fad.
It is not a trend.

Straw men.

//Homosexuality is not a phase.
It is not temporary.
It is not for the time being.
It will not pass.

It actually is and does for many people. False.

//Homosexuality is not for you to fear.
It is not a spider.
It is not a germ.
It cannot attack you

More dumb straw men.

//Homosexuality is not an accessory.
It can't take you shopping.
It can't pick out your outfit.
It can't fix your kitchen sink.

The heck you say?

//Homosexuality is not a club.
You cannot join.
You cannot quit.
You cannot be recruited.

Yawn...

//Homosexuality is not a disease.
You cannot catch it.
It cannot be tested.
It isn't something that you can cure.
(So stop trying to.)

Sure it is, and was recognized as such for a long time. It's a mental disease. Mental diseases can be treated.

//Homosexuality is not immoral.
It is not a sin.
It is not sodomy.
It cannot be prayed away.
Sure it is. Who says it isn't? This video? Ha.

//Homosexuality is not a choice.
It is not an alternative.
It is not an option.
You do not get to pick.

Irrelevant whether you choose your sexual attractions or not.

The homo-fascist community really has nothing. It's all emotive bloviating and yelling. No substantial arguments at all.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Judas

Today, America dies like Jesus died. A traitor sells us out. Sadly, there isn't much chance of a resurrection for America.

The dissent.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

In Which I am Bigoted, Homophobic, Sarcastic, Snarky, Know-It-All, Mean, Christian, Ass (aka Homosexual Marriage Advocates Don't Like My Arguments)


Here's a nice little conversation I had recently on Facebook. I'll never get how people can misconstrue straight argument as insulting or mean or whatever. And yes, I did refer to homosexual sex as a perversion, because it is a perversion. I suppose one might be insulted by that, but that's too bad. It's not a direct derogatory insult. "Homo-fascist" is to describe the gay industry's tactics in silencing those who would dispute them with similar tactics that are used against me here.

Oh well. Enjoy and comment.

Please, someone tell me how 

Disclaimer: Facebook is a public forum unless the communication is done through the private messaging feature. I've decided it's best to remove all names and pics.


Also, it looks like the formatting is a little screwy. While I attempt to fix it, feel free to highlight what is said and paste it in notepad. I know it's a little annoying, but so is mass editing this from Facebook.

Joshua 
Sunday at 7:52pm · 
  • So I know a lot of my conservative friends are going to hate me for this one, but hear me out. I'm glad the amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage didn't pass. Here's why. The constitution was created to give rights and protect those rights. Once we start using it to limit people's rights or take rights away, that's a slippery slope we won't come back from.

      • Ryan  Arguably, it's one we started down many years ago. But I like hearing you be more objective than I remember.
        Sunday at 8:51pm ·  · 1


      • William I believe that government has no rights to be in marriage what-so-ever. Just give everyone a civil partnership that comes bundled with all the tax breaks and what not. If you want a marriage go to a church that'll have ya.
        Sunday at 9:15pm · 

      • Sylvester The gay guys at the BBQ place changed your mind...
        Sunday at 9:18pm via mobile · 

      • Bossmanham That's not limiting rights though, Josh. It's defining an institution. Homosexuals and heterosexuals will have the exact same access and right to marriage if the constitution is amended to strictly define a national institution. We'll all only be able to marry one person, of the opposite gender, of the same species, of proper age (or with parent's consent). Just because some people have weird or perverted sexual preferences doesn't mean they have less rights because we define an institution in the constitution.

        And what amendment are you talking about? I don't believe there's ever been a vote on the amendment in congress...

        Sunday at 10:07pm ·  · 1

      • Bossmanham  What's really going on is the homo-fascists are demanding that we accept and institutionalize their strange sexual perversion; which is just asking for a special extra right not guaranteed by the constitution.
        Sunday at 10:10pm ·  · 1

      • Richard  FLAME WAR with hateful mean comments on all sides I love it, please I need more, can we talk about other controversial topics too?
        Sunday at 11:08pm ·  · 1

      • Bossmanham  You must be reading a different thread than I am.
        Sunday at 11:11pm · 

      • Joshua  To Townley: Two camels in a tiny car.
        Monday at 4:20pm · 

      • Richard  ‎.... You win this round!!
        Monday at 4:21pm via mobile · 

      • Joshua  To [Bosmanham]: The vote was in a state constitution, but I'm translating it to an overall picture since there has been outcry for an amendment in the national constitution. It also states in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, the The document that began our country states that they have the same right to pursuit happiness (marrige) as anyone else. It doesn't harm others for gay people to get married, people are just opposed to it on a moral basis. My stance is, it doesn't hurt me, so judge not. Now I will admit that the gay community has a habbit of perverse displays (gay pride parades) were they are not so much as expressing themselves as slapping people in the face with borderline (and sometimes outright) pornographic displays. But there are many civilized, good people that are homo or bisexuals and I happen to be friends with a few. But far more importantly, the "definition of an institution" as you put it is designed to exclude certian individuals. Therefore it absolutely is limiting those individuals. What happens if down the line people decide to define a family as one man one woman and one child. Any subsequent children should be aborted or given over to the state. That definition of an institution would hinder people like myself who want to have multiple children or you who already have them. It sounds a little extreme, but it already has a precidence internationlally and I'm constantly surprised by what certian people believe is for the good of the majority.
        Monday at 4:44pm ·  · 1

      • Joshua  To James: No. Just, no.
        Monday at 4:44pm ·  · 1

      • Richard  To other people, you may appear to be the strange pervert, and unfortunately this isn't the united states of the Christian church, everyone here gets a chance to have a say
        Monday at 5:27pm via mobile · 

      • Bossmanham ‎// It also states in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, the The document that began our country states that they have the same right to pursuit happiness (marrige) as anyone else."

        Actually it doesn't say they have the right to marriage. They have the right to pursue happiness within the framework of the society that they would then set up. Let's not decontextualize a document to support your own view on this. I mean you could say absolutely anything is okay if you use that logic.

        Neither the declaration nor the constitution deals with marriage at all. . Individual state constitutions do, and almost all of them that have had the ability to vote on it have amended it to clarify what marriage is.

        // It doesn't harm others for gay people to get married, people are just opposed to it on a moral basis.

        Actually it does harm others. Promoting homosexual sex promotes a public health nightmare (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf). It also harms the state as a whole, as the state will be compelled to fork over resources for something it gets absolutely nothing out of. The state fosters and promotes heterosexual sexual relationships because of what they get out of it; namely new taxpayers. Incidental issues with infertility or elderly people getting married don't change the fact that in principle, the only sexual relationships that make new taxpayers are heteosexual ones. The state is spiting itself if it commits resources to just any random sexual relationship people demand. Finally, the state shouldn't promote a sexual perversion.

        Furthermore, people do get hurt when they dare oppose SSM because the homo-fascists come out in force and go gestapo on anyone that dares oppose them (see Jason Alexander today for instance).

        // My stance is, it doesn't hurt me, so judge not.

        Then why are you making a judgment here at all? Which person who is in favor of traditional marriage hurt you for you to feel the need to post this? The point is this isn't a coherent position. We all make judgments. The question is whose judgment is correct?

        Just because people can make loud noises and demand they get their way doesn't mean the state nor her citizens should acquiesce. There needs to be a good reason to fundamentally redefine a societal institution beyond "wah we're mad that we don't get our way and want our perversion accepted by everyone."

        //What happens if down the line people decide to define a family as one man one woman and one child

        I'd use a similar argument to what I did here.

        Monday at 7:03pm ·  · 1

      • Richard  this is really just another example of not wanting people who aren't like you to have the same benefits as you, based off the idea that they are different. By your logic if my wife and I do not want to have children we are no different then a homosexual couple and should receive no benefits of marriage, even if a same sex couple wants to adopt a child and be more moral and contribute more to society then we do. Sex and Marriage really have nothing to do with each other, it really shouldn't matter if it is with same or opposite sex, there shouldn't be any difference between marriage between same sex or opposite sex couples. quit focusing on the fact that it offends you that they do something in their private bedroom that scares, confuses, and offends your religion. Things you do as an american or as heterosexual or any multiple number of things that identify you as who you are offend people every day, but we do not claim that you shouldn't be allowed to do things that make you happy, like get married or have children, or even attend your church, so please stop telling others that they are inferior to you and telling them they can not have equal rights.
        Monday at 10:16pm · 

      • Richard  also this is so silly to even argue over, I believe it is sad that in 2012 we still have people trying to tell others what they can and can't do. is it really any of our business what others choose to do? just let it go!
        Monday at 10:22pm · 

      • Bossmanham  Richard

        //this is really just another example of not wanting people who aren't like you to have the same benefits as you

        But...they do have the same benefits as me. Myself and any gay person have the access to the same institution of marriage where we can marry one person, at a time, of the opposite gender, of the same species, of proper age (or with parents consent). I don't want that institution withheld from anybody. Come on man, be more gracious than that.

        // if my wife and I do not want to have children we are no different then a homosexual couple and should receive no benefits of marriage

        While I do think married couples SHOULD be open to children, you should re-read what I said regarding the in principle definition of marriage. The incidental does not undo the principle. Incidents of people either not able, or not willing, to have children doesn't undo that there is only one possible sexual relationship that can produce children. The state doesn't have the ability to know people's intent anyway (they'd have to read minds).

        //Sex and Marriage really have nothing to do with each other,

        It does in the eyes of the state. The sexual relationship is what the state has a vested interest in fostering and promoting due to what it produces.

        //quit focusing on the fact that it offends you that they do something in their private bedroom that scares, confuses, and offends your religion

        I don't think I once mentioned how anything offends me. My personal feelings are irrelevant really. Now, I do think that the state should promote moral behavior, and I think there's a moral sense we have that helps us discern whether something is moral or immoral, but I haven't argued along those lines.

        // also this is so silly to even argue over, I believe it is sad that in 2012 we still have people trying to tell others what they can and can't do

        Uh....you're telling me what I should and shouldn't do......It's part of life; discerning right from wrong. I happen to have strong moral convictions. It's up to you if you want to engage me in discussion over them. Josh provided the venue in a public forum and I responded. That's how dialog works and there's nothing weird about it.

        Monday at 11:41pm · 

      • Joshua  [Bossmanham], your constant referance to homosexual "perversion" clearly states that you are offended by them. The pursiut of happiness is the right to pursue things that would increase your quality of life. If someone interprates (*spelled wrong, I know) that marriage makes them happy, that is the pursuit of their happiness. Your argument that "They have the same rights as me" doesn't hold water. You are attracted to your wife. A homosexual person is not attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I have seen gay people marry that way and I don't think it's fair to either person involved. Physical attraction is a very important and enjoyable part of a marrital relationship. If nothing else you can feel bad for the girl or guy who is not desired by their spose and misses out on that part of marriage. Plus you're saying that they have the same rights to do something your way as they do to do it your way. They are not being given the right to be with someone they love and are attracted to, but you are. That doesn't sound equal to me. By your argument that the state only supports marriages that create new taxpayers, the state should have legalized polygamy a long time ago then. But apart from all this, and completely isolating any feelings about gay marriage I have, it's still wrong to use the constitution to limit rights, and defining something in a way that excludes others, limits their rights.
        3 hours ago ·  · 1

      • Allison  [Bossmanham]: "Actually it does harm others. Promoting homosexual sex promotes a public health nightmare (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf)."
        3 hours ago · 

      • Allison  By your own arguement, heterosexual senior citizens are also harming people. They must be perverse humans. Instead of allowing them the right to be in normal nursing homes, perhaps we should confine them to prisons. They will get "equal treatment" by way of meals and medical attention, but... at least they won't be able to "harm" anyone else, right?
        3 hours ago ·  · 1

      • Allison  In the New Testamant, we are taught that the second greatest commandment is to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Matthew 22:36-40. We are also taught to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7:1. It is not our place to be judge and jury for those around us. Instead, we have been tasked by Jesus Christ Himself to merely love those around us. What right have you, or I, or Josh, to judge another for his sin? If you have committed a sin, you may not judge others.
        2 hours ago ·  · 2

      • Allison  And according to the (at least) 8 times in this thread where you've refered to our gay brothers and sisters in Christ as "perverted", "wierd", "homo-facists" and the like, you're definitely judging them.
        2 hours ago ·  · 1

      • Allison  My beliefs as a Christian aside, I agree with Josh. The constitution of the United States was meant to protect our freedoms from those who would strip them away. If we allow the government to use this beautiful document to remove us of our God given right to free agency, the government can stop at nothing. The constitution was made to protect our rights. Laws, on the other hand, were made to limit us from doing wrong. If you want gay marriage to be banned, I cannot stop you. However, that does NOT mean it is constitutional. For a long time there was a ban on black people voting or marrying white people. Thank goodness the constitution gave them their God given freedoms back. If it hadn't, I wouldn't have my beautiful neices or nephews.
        2 hours ago ·  · 2

        ....Some irrelevant discussion...


      • Bossmanham  ‎Joshua,

        // If nothing else you can feel bad for the girl or guy who is not desired by their spose and misses out on that part of marriage.

        Who says I don't, and why is it relevant?

        // Plus you're saying that they have the same rights to do something your way as they do to do it your way

        It's coincidental that the way I happen to like marriage actually lines up with what marriage IS and what benefits the state. I'm saying they have the same right as anyone; to marry. Marriage just happens to be a specific concept. Can you make an argument beyond the emotional one that it ought to be changed? Remember, I've already called into question your arguments regarding attraction and what weird sexual perversions people enjoy.

        //. They are not being given the right to be with someone they love and are attracted to, but you are

        Actually, no one is taking their ability to hang out with their "lover." Nothing is being taken away. What isn't being done is the government (as of yet) isn't giving its support to the act that homosexuals perform. No one's natural rights have been hampered.

        // That doesn't sound equal to me

        So?

        // By your argument that the state only supports marriages that create new taxpayers, the state should have legalized polygamy a long time ago then

        My argument against polygamy would differ. But even in polygamous traditions, it's still only a man and woma(e)n who are married.

        //. But apart from all this, and completely isolating any feelings about gay marriage I have, it's still wrong to use the constitution to limit rights, and defining something in a way that excludes others, limits their rights.

        It's not wrong to use the constitution as intended, and the constitution has provisions by which it can be amended (as originally intended) ergo, if people follow the proper procedure to do so, then it's not wrong to change the constitution (and I'd like to see your argument that it is beyond "i just feel it's wrong").

        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎Allison

        //By your own arguement, heterosexual senior citizens are also harming people

        Um...no that doesn't follow at all from my argument. Did you look at the study? The gay population is, by the CDC's findings, littered with diseases.

        //Elderly STD's on rise

        Promiscuous sex in general is not a healthy activity; but that's the point! The government isn't out there promoting promiscuous sex (at least outright) and shouldn't promote homosexual sex (a scientifically proven dangerous activity) as they would be by codifying and supporting gay marriage.

        //In the New Testamant, we are taught that the second greatest commandment is to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Matthew 22:36-40.

        Okay....I do love my neighbor. Why do you think I tell people that what they do is wrong?

        // We are also taught to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7:1.

        You know Jesus told people they were sinning, and that they'd go to hell too, right? So did Paul, Peter, etc. You're now decontextualizing the Bible. Jesus is speaking of having a LEGALISTIC attitude. It's impossible to not judge people's actions (which is what I'm doing) as wrong; as evidenced by the fact that you're telling me that your judgment is I'm wrong...

        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham If I didn't love people, I'd let them sin without mentioning it till the cows come home. I do care, and I will point out sinful, dangerous, morally deplorable, wrong, harmful, and perverted behavior. It's a weak society who adopts a stance of apathy and unthinking acceptance of all behavior.
        about an hour ago · 

      • Ryan  ‎"// That doesn't sound equal to me

        So?"

        This is everything that is wrong with your statement, and history proves it has been used to defend unfair and cruel things in the past. I don’t know you but this is a really damning statement.

        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham  What? That something doesn't sound equal to Josh? Josh's personal feelings about how something sounds proves very little. Ergo; "so?"
        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham 
        The fact is, he's wrong. Everyone has an equal access to civil marriage and the benefits thereof. The government isn't obligated to promote ANY institution. It chooses to based on what profits it. Nothing about two guys or two chicks shacking up does anything for the government; any more than a guy and a goat shacking up, or three guys and their whiffle bat.

        The moral issues regarding homosexual activity are just another layer for it not to interest the government.

        about an hour ago · 

      • Ryan 
        two incomes, two tax-forms, 2 tax payers for money, possibly baring children through adoption (I am a child of adoption, as is my sister my mother was incapable of bearing children but my father also wanted children.) two movie tickets, 2 restaurant orders, 2 rings, and 1 bed. Not really sure where they differ economically from a married couple at all to be honest with you nor do i think you'd find something a straight couple woudl do a gay couple may not when it comes to raising a child save maybe breast feeding if either woman cannot lactate or it is a male couple. However I am really not interested in proving something here so I am just going to leave this last comment and bow out. I already said what I wanted to say, "Equality is needed."

        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎//two incomes, two tax-forms, 2 tax payers for money, possibly baring children through adoption

        None of this has anything to do with the homosexual's sexual relationship. Anyone can pay taxes. The two individuals pay more taxes when not "married."

        The two can still buy dinner, rings, more beds.

        //Not really sure where they differ economically from a married couple at all to be honest with you

        Which is why I didn't argue in that way. Biology 101 is where this argument lies.

        // I already said what I wanted to say, "Equality is needed."

        Luckily, we got equality. I've already shown that no one's rights are being trampled on, and no one is being denied marriage. It's just that some people don't like the definition of marriage.

        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham  I don't like that triangles are three sided figures!!! I DEMAND SQUARE TRIANGLES!!!
        about an hour ago · 

      • Richard I am curious [Bossmanham]? how does it feel to be seen in today's society as wrong, insensitive, and generally a homophobic person? your arguments really don't help show that your anything other then someone who attends christian church and is scared/hates anything different or unlike yourself.
        about an hour ago · 

      • Bossmanham  Brilliant rebuttal, Richard. Oh noes, the "you're a homophobe" argument. What ever will I do? How dare someone challenge the "prevailing wisdom" of a culture. Damn Ghandi.
        about an hour ago · 

      • Richard  yes we shouldn't listen to heretics! we could fall off the side of the flat earth... or even worse the peasants might learn to read and lead to a civic uprising! Nothing good ever came from social change, woman's suffrage, civil rights, science/technology. Those were really just minor cliff notes in the story of the human race really.
        59 minutes ago · 

      • Allison  ‎#1 J - "If nothing else you can feel bad for the girl or guy who is not desired by their spose and misses out on that part of marriage." B - "Who says I don't, and why is it relevant?"

        It's relavant because you keep saying that gay people are allowed to marry, but they're not allowed to marry the people they love. When you push a gay person to marry a straight person, marriage the way God intended it is not surviving. The fact that you consider this to be "equal" shows that you've not opened your eyes to the situation.

        #2 "The gay population is, by the CDC's findings, littered with diseases." And so is the heterosexual population. I suppose this means we have licence to keep heterosexuals from marriage too, right?

        #3 "The government isn't out there promoting promiscuous sex (at least outright) and shouldn't promote homosexual sex". No one is saying that the government should promote promiscuity. However, they allow promiscuous heterosexuals to marry, but committed homosexuals are denied marriage. If we want homosexuals not to have physical relations promiscuously, shouldn't we allow them to marry each other?

        #4 "[H]omosexual sex (a scientifically proven dangerous activity)" Lol... this is funny to me. Heterosexual sex is just as dangerous... scientifically proven. In France, they call orgasms "little deaths" because of the often life-threatening way the human body responds to climax. In addition, heterosexuals are just as suseptible to STDs as homosexuals are. We're all putting our lives on the line when having sex - it's an extremely vulnerable state for a human to be in.

        57 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham  And you prove my point. So when you get an argument beyond "you're a big mean meanie head and I don't like you," get back to me.
        57 minutes ago · 

      • Richard  No, I will just laugh at you as you watch your "godly" culture crumple around you, to prove you wrong is done much better by Allison Ruth she is much smarter, but I am smart enough to accept that even if something is not for me, that there is nothing wrong with someone else doing it.
        51 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎//It's relavant because you keep saying that gay people are allowed to marry, but they're not allowed to marry the people they love

        This isn't relevant to what interests the state. The state couldn't care less about who people happen to love.

        //When you push a gay person to marry a straight person

        What? No one is pushing anyone to get married. Come on, Allison.

        //And so is the heterosexual population. I suppose this means we have licence to keep heterosexuals from marriage too, right?

        No, apparently not.

        // However, they allow promiscuous heterosexuals to marry, but committed homosexuals are denied marriage.

        No one is denied marriage. The state just doesn't have an interest in promoting sexual activity that is shown to advance disease.

        // Heterosexual sex is just as dangerous... scientifically proven

        Actually, apparently not. When you bring forward similar findings from the CDC with regard to the heterosexual community (whose rate of disease is demonstrably far less; as evidenced by the cdc and other studies) then we can talk. Furthermore, you have to attack more than this point to defeat the argument. I gave a comprehensive argument with at least three main points (procreation, practical health effects, and promoting a perversion).

        45 minutes ago · 

      • Allison  ‎#5 "I do love my neighbor. Why do you think I tell people that what they do is wrong?" [Bossmanham], if by "love" you really mean "pour out contempt for", then yes. You really, really, really "love" your neighbors.

        #6 "Everyone has an equal access to civil marriage and the benefits thereof." This is a very uneducated stance. Please take a moment to learn more about the unequal treatment of committed gay and lesbian couples when it comes to access, marriage, and benefits. There are so many resources available on the subject, so I won't expand here, but you are 100% incorrect.

        #7 "I'd like to see your argument that it is beyond "i just feel it's wrong")."  [Bossmanham] , we've all given you logical examples of why banning gay people from marrying is wrong outside of personal feelings. Primary example, Josh's original post - it it unconstitutional.

        I cannot convince you of something you are so hardened against. I've prayed so hard about this for so many years. I've come to have faith that God loves each of us dispite our shortcomings and it's our job to do the same for our fellow men. I'm sorry you're filled with so much contempt for the love between two people. I'll keep you in my prayers,  [Bossmanham] .

        44 minutes ago · 
      • Bossmanham
          ‎// No, I will just laugh at you as you watch your "godly" culture crumple around you

        Because you're a mature grown up, eh? This is what ignorant people who can't think do when argued into a corner.

        44 minutes ago · 

      • Richard The reason why homosexual marraige is not allowed has nothing to do with sexual activity that advances disease, it has to do with people fearing it, and taxes, who cares if someone else has an STD, certainly not the state, they are all money not health, if they cared about health they would promote actual healthy eating.
        44 minutes ago · 

      • Allison  You are such a troll!
        40 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham // [Bossmanham], if by "love" you really mean "pour out contempt for"

        I take offense to how you're misconstruing what I think, Allison. It's lying at worst, and ignorant misleading at best. I would appreciate an apology.

        //Please take a moment to learn more about the unequal treatment of committed gay and lesbian couples when it comes to access, marriage, and benefits.

        I've already shown how this is wrong.

        //we've all given you logical examples of why banning gay people from marrying is wrong outside of personal feelings.

        No you haven't. The only arguments you've given are with regard to how people feel. Please, if I've missed an actual logical argument, help me see it by formulating it in a syllogism.

        //I cannot convince you of something you are so hardened against. I've prayed so hard about this for so many years. I've come to have faith that God loves each of us dispite our shortcomings and it's our job to do the same for our fellow men. I'm sorry you're filled with so much contempt for the love between two people.

        God's already answered your question as to how He feels. How I feel is largely irrelevant, and it's been that way from the start.

        40 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎//The reason why homosexual marraige is not allowed has nothing to do with sexual activity that advances disease, it has to do with people fearing it, and taxes

        Argument?

        39 minutes ago · 

      • Richard  your so clever you have me, I am exceptionally unintelligent and know nothing about society or people, I bow down to your knowledge on the subject. people teach me your ways of preventing others from civil liberties!
        39 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham Well I can only go by the behavior in response to logical arguments. All you've been able to do is claim I'm a troll, make fun of me, make fun of Christianity (or religion in general), and post silly overused internet memes (which proves you're so clever).

        Prove me wrong. I'm begging you. Make an argument.

        38 minutes ago · 

      • Richard  
        well despite the fact that there have been 5 people who made arguments about how you are in fact wrong, and how homosexuality should have nothing to do with marriage. The truth is, you only have 1 thing you should be able to do about ANY behavior someone else has is honestly to vote for or against it. Morally your wrong for telling others what they can and can not do or by trying to define others lives in a way that makes you feel better about yourself. But do what you want I don't care your just going to be stubborn and not see how anyone else thinks/feels.

        33 minutes ago · 

      • Richard  and for the record internet memes are always clever, we have proved this to be true.
        33 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham ‎//well despite the fact that there have been 5 people who made arguments about how you are in fact wrong, and how homosexuality should have nothing to do with marriage

        Here are the arguments made by my count.
        1) The declaration of independence says we should be able to pursue happiness.
        2) Gay marriage makes some people happy.
        3) Therefore, gay marriage should exist.

        I countered this by pointing out how Josh was removing the saying in the document, and the document itself, from its context. The founders didn't mean that every any action that could conceivably make people happy should be allowed. By reductio ad absurdum, I showed that you could justify any behavior conceivable legal because it could make someone happy.

        The next argument was stated in several different ways, but boiled down to this:
        1) Gay people love each other.
        2) Anyone who loves each other should be able to get married to each other.
        3) Therefore gay people should be allowed to marry each other.

        I countered this by pointing out that marriage is defined one way (man and woman) and that this would require a fundamental revisionist definition. I asked for justification for that revision and haven't received one. I also argued that the state's interest in marriage has nothing to do with love, but with procreation. The state gets nothing from two people simply loving each other. By this logic, all sorts of deviant and perverted behaviors should be codified in the institution of marriage (another reductio ad absurdum). This is clearly ridiculous.

        I also showed how this is nothing but an appeal to emotion. How people feel proves nothing.

        Other arguments focused solely on only one point of my comprehensive case; the health risks of gay marriage. This is a fairly small point to my entire case, but the one I find attacked most often due to the ambiguity of statistical data. All I can do is continue pointing to all the studies that show what a health risk homosexuals are at.

        Another argument, err assertion, was that Josh didn't feel that not allowing homosexuals to wed each other is not equality. I countered that by pointing out that the institution to marriage is available to all, it's just that he and others don't like what the institution is. I will add to this now that not allowing people to marry animals, small children, more than one other person, inanimate objects, or even themselves is also very unequal. Why do you hate beastiality, prdophilia, polygamy, weird erotic materialism, or unhealthy self love?

        Another argument was that I'm a biggoted, old fashoined, small minded, judgmental, flat earther, heretic burning Christian. We call this the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

        That's a summary of what I've gotten in response. I ask again, give me a good argument. Please.

        13 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎// internet memes are always clever, we have proved this to be true.

        And they're made by other people, whose idea you then copy while presenting as your own witty saying...Yep you're very clever.

        12 minutes ago · 

      • Allison  [Bossmanham]
        , I believe you owe just about everyone on this thread an apology. You've twisted our words, been snarky and sarcastic, belittled everyones' inteligence based on your version of logic and philosophy, driven the conversation in a million directions and verbally assulted us when we've addressed your side comments, insulted homosexual people, hid your squeamish homophobic fears behind the mask of Christianity making all Christians look ignorant and unloving, pretended to be holier than thou, and been a general ass. Once you apologize for every single one of those, I'll apologize for reminding you that your judgemental. Sound good?

        You know, you're right, [Bossmanham].... your feelings are "largely irrelevant, and it's been that way from the start." Allison [...], over and out!

        12 minutes ago · 

      • Bossmanham  ‎//You've twisted our words, been snarky and sarcastic, belittled everyones' inteligence based on your version of logic and philosophy

        What? How so? Name one sarcastic thing I said that wasn't in response to being called a bigot or a homophobe. I've been respectful and just stated my arguments matter-of-factly. I'm sorry if you take logical arguments as sarcastic or snarky...

        //driven the conversation in a million directions

        I've stuck to three main points. I've addressed other arguments against those points, and whatever few individual arguments I've been presented. I've tried to keep the discussion on track by pointing out irrelevant points. So please, show me evidence of where I've done this...

        //verbally assulted us when we've addressed your side comments

        Uh...what?

        // insulted homosexual people

        Not once. I've called homosexual behavior what it is, but I've not once insulted any homosexual. Just because you don't like what I'm saying, and are now reacting emotionally to it, doesn't mean you can say I'm being insulting. I again ask for an apology for either lying about me, or making unintentional yet ignorant and misleading comments about what I think.

        //hid your squeamish homophobic fears behind the mask of Christianity making all Christians look ignorant and unloving

        I never once used Christianity in my arguments, but the Christian documents that influence us the most speak for themselves. If you don't like Christian orthodoxy, I suggest you find a different religion rather than misrepresenting mine.

        //pretended to be holier than thou,

        How so?

        //and been a general ass

        Ah there it is. Well we'll let the reader decide I suppose. I can honestly say I came into this conversation looking for nothing but a respectful dialog with other people who I supposed were friends, and leave the same way. Never once did I call you, Josh, or your friends here any names. Never once did I make fun or belittle you. Never once did I lie about what you believe, or put forward a statement that even was supposed to represent what you believe. I only responded and presented. I stick to logical arguments. You just don't like them.