What is personal responsibility?

[A.B.Normal]

The reason why we have recreational sex is because we still have the desire to produce offspring, even though we may not have the desire to rear them.

If that were true why would not all living organisms would use this as an attempt to procreate .

The reason why we have recreational sex is because we still have the desire to produce offspring, even though we may not have the desire to rear them.

Translation : we are driven to have sex without the need/want to procreate,thats mighty homosexual of you. <---see ,there is a smile.

 

[flavio]

Unfortunately, the majority of humans would be in disagreement with your argument, and in full agreement with mine, so who has less merit?

Yours does....and going by the posts in this thread looks like you;re wrong about the "majority" thing too.

1. It is not natural.
2. They do deserve the same rights as anyone else...as long as what they doesn't force the rest of society to validate their behavior.

It is natural and if you agree they deserve the same rights then marraige is one of them.

Gee...Guess that thing about public decency only applies to homosexuals, right?

It would seem that's what you're trying to say.

 

[Gonz]

This alone seperates us from other species ,so why do you keep using other species

Don't tell the chimapnzes & apes that.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yours does....and going by the posts in this thread looks like you;re wrong about the "majority" thing too.

So now you have no math skills, either. The people on this board are not a majority of people.

It is natural and if you agree they deserve the same rights then marraige is one of them.

Marriage is not a right.

It would seem that's what you're trying to say.

If two straight people are in full public view, groping each other, they are breaking the law. Just because you don't call the police on them, it doesn't make it legal.

 

[flavio]

So now you have no math skills, either. The people on this board are not a majority of people.

Actually it doesn't matter what the majority think anyway. The majority used to think slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote. What math are you referring to?

Marriage is not a right.

Regardless of what word games you play limiting what one group is allowed to do based on sexual preference is every bit as wrong as discrimination based on race or religion. It is certainly not equality.

If two straight people are in full public view, groping each other, they are breaking the law. Just because you don't call the police on them, it doesn't make it legal.

What's your point? It's only wrong if gays do it right? ....and every gay person does it?

 

[Gonz]

Regardless of what word games you play limiting what one group is allowed to do based on sexual preference is every bit as wrong as discrimination based on race or religion. It is certainly not equality.

Yep. Let's also make public restrooms unisex.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Actually it doesn't matter what the majority think anyway. The majority used to think slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote. What math are you referring to?

Simple, really.
1. The people on this board are not the majority of humanity.
2. There are only 3 people here in this thread actively naysaying me.

Simple math.

Regardless of what word games you play limiting what one group is allowed to do based on sexual preference is every bit as wrong as discrimination based on race or religion. It is certainly not equality.

So? You keep calling this a word game. Is that because you don't understand what the difference between a right and a priviledge is, or is it because you refuse to understand the difference?

What's your point? It's only wrong if gays do it right? ....and every gay person does it?

Nope. How you can constantly place words in my mouth that I didn't say is beyond me. You'd better read what I said again...and this time pay attention. You might learn something.

 

[flavio]

Simple, really.
1. The people on this board are not the majority of humanity.
2. There are only 3 people here in this thread actively naysaying me.

So? You have no idea what the "majority of humanity" thinks on the subject. Even if you could say for certain that "the majority of humanity" agreed with you about gay marriage it would make you right.

So? You keep calling this a word game. Is that because you don't understand what the difference between a right and a priviledge is, or is it because you refuse to understand the difference?

I understand the difference. What's your point? You don't understand the term equality? Would it be ok if the government denied black people the "priviledge" of getting married?

Nope. How you can constantly place words in my mouth that I didn't say is beyond me. You'd better read what I said again...and this time pay attention. You might learn something.

I doubt I can learn anything from you. You said homesexuals display their feelings in public...I pointed out that heterosexuals do too. So did you even have a point?

 

[Gato_Solo]

So? You have no idea what the "majority of humanity" thinks on the subject. Even if you could say for certain that "the majority of humanity" agreed with you about gay marriage it would make you right.

Yes. I do. You are only knowledgable where it suits you. You really need to get out more.

I understand the difference. What's your point? You don't understand the term equality? Would it be ok if the government denied black people the "priviledge" of getting married?

I understand full well the concept of equality. Homosexulas are not denied the priviledge of marriage any more than any other group. They are only denied the priviledge of marrying someone of the same sex. By equating this with race, you are doomed to fail every time.

I doubt I can learn anything from you. You said homesexuals display their feelings in public...I pointed out that heterosexuals do too. So did you even have a point?

Yes. You obviously missed it entirely. Perhaps you should ask someone to explain it to you, because you're trying to redefine what it says and you are failing miserably.

 

[flavio]

Yes. I do. You are only knowledgable where it suits you. You really need to get out more.

No. You don't. You really need to stop kidding yourself.

I understand full well the concept of equality. Homosexulas are not denied the priviledge of marriage any more than any other group. They are only denied the priviledge of marrying someone of the same sex. By equating this with race, you are doomed to fail every time.

No, you are failing miserabley. How about we deny blacks the priviledge of marrying other blacks. They can still get married so it would be ok right?

Yes. You obviously missed it entirely. Perhaps you should ask someone to explain it to you, because you're trying to redefine what it says and you are failing miserably.

You are failing miserably to show your point about about the public display thing.

 

[Gato_Solo]

No. You don't. You really need to stop kidding yourself.

Then why, when this issue is put to a vote, is it voted down every time? If it's not, you need to put up, or shut up.

No, you are failing miserabley. How about we deny blacks the priviledge of marrying other blacks. They can still get married so it would be ok right?

So homosexuality is a race? Boy are you deluded. They are two distinct and seperate issues.

You are failing miserably to show your point about about the public display thing.

Then you are ignorant and blind. Show me where my point is not made.

 

[flavio]

Then why, when this issue is put to a vote, is it voted down every time? If it's not, you need to put up, or shut up.

The people who vote on such issues are not the "majority of humanity". That would represent a minority actually. Even if it was a majority it has no bearing on whether you're position is correct. So now you can put up or shut up.

So homosexuality is a race? Boy are you deluded. They are two distinct and seperate issues.

Same issue, denying people a "priviledge" based on their differences whether it be race, gender, religion, or sexual preference is wrong.

Then you are ignorant and blind. Show me where my point is not made.

Starting the personal attacks again? Since you're namecalling you must have no point. Show me where your point is made? Really, did you have one with the public display thing?

 

[MrBishop]

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

What type of Marriage are they discussing?

 

[Gato_Solo]

The people who vote on such issues are not the "majority of humanity". That would represent a minority actually. Even if it was a majority it has no bearing on whether you're position is correct. So now you can put up or shut up.

Show me where a clear majority of humanity has voted to give homosexuality the same validation as heterosexuality, then. You can't do it, and you know it. You wish to naysay me, come with your facts, and not just your opinion. As for being correct or not, that is not the main issue. Just because you refuse to go beyond your own ignorance on personal responsibility, that doesn't make your argument stronger.

Same issue, denying people a "priviledge" based on their differences whether it be race, gender, religion, or sexual preference is wrong.

No. It's not. If the laws are changed...again, by a majority, then you'd have a point. Until then, quit whining.

Starting the personal attacks again? Since you're namecalling you must have no point. Show me where your point is made? Really, did you have one with the public display thing?

It wasn't a personal attack, but a very apt description. You keep claiming I said something that I never did, and refuse to point it out, so that makes you either blind or ignorant. Take your pick, or point it out.

 

[Gato_Solo]

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

What type of Marriage are they discussing?

Again...not the main issue. Just because flavio wants to turn this choice issue into a race issue, it doesn't make it so.

 

[catocom]

Show me where a clear majority of humanity has voted to give homosexuality the same validation as heterosexuality, then. You can't do it, and you know it.

Gato, don't you know.."Majority Rules" is on the way out.
It's PC, and who can holler the loudest now. (Democracy is dieing because of it)

 

[HomeLAN]

It wasn't a personal attack, but a very apt description. You keep claiming I said something that I never did, and refuse to point it out, so that makes you either blind or ignorant. Take your pick, or point it out.

Sure as hell sounds like a personal attack to me. Cut it out.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato, don't you know.."Majority Rules" is on the way out.
It's PC, and who can holler the loudest now. (Democracy is dieing because of it)

It's not dying. A few people are trying to kill it based upon selfishness and greed, but there's life in the old beast yet...people are getting tired of it, and the pendulum is slowly swinging back...

 

[MrBishop]

Again...not the main issue. Just because flavio wants to turn this choice issue into a race issue, it doesn't make it so.

The issue is personal choice vs. the majority in relation to marriage (touches on religion) and the privaleges given to couples who wish to marry.

You were looking for a human parallel...I'm giving you one.

It was those couples personal choices to marry outside of their race, the majority (especially the moral majority) were against it because it would be to the detriment of society as a whole. The full privalege of marriage in heterosexual couples was denied to those who 'chose' to fall in love with someone outside of their race...who 'chose' to not follow the norm.

They had the same privalege as other couples...that is: You are accorded the privalege to marry anyone you wish so long as that person is of the same race as you (and of the opposite gender *I add this even though it was assumed).

Hence the parallel and MY reason for bringing it up. It is the closest that I can come to the issues currently facing same-sex couples.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The issue is personal choice vs. the majority in relation to marriage (touches on religion) and the privaleges given to couples who wish to marry.

You were looking for a human parallel...I'm giving you one.

It was those couples personal choices to marry outside of their race, the majority (especially the moral majority) were against it because it would be to the detriment of society as a whole. The full privalege of marriage in heterosexual couples was denied to those who 'chose' to fall in love with someone outside of their race...who 'chose' to not follow the norm.

They had the same privalege as other couples...that is: You are accorded the privalege to marry anyone you wish so long as that person is of the same race as you (and of the opposite gender *I add this even though it was assumed).

Hence the parallel and MY reason for bringing it up. It is the closest that I can come to the issues currently facing same-sex couples.

That whole statement boils down to one thing..."The niggers got it, so we deserve it, too." Why do you think I deny that as a valid argument? Besides...homosexuals don't breed as a rule. By that token, they can't 'pollute' the 'race'. Your argument is not valid.