Marriage Denied

[Dranzer]

What's next? There's already been a few steps toward pushing for polygamy. (And, by the same argument, who are we to say that every partner involved in a polygamous relationship doesn't share the same feelings that any normal couple does?) Why not lower the age of consent to 13, or even 9, like many Muslim countries? (Who are you to say that a man can't love his nine-year-old niece the same way you love your partner?) Why not push for "inter-species" marriages? (Who are you to say that I can't love this dolphin like you love another person?)

I call bullshit, immediately. First of all, homosexual marriages in the context of which you're speaking are not related to any of what the **** you just said. America isn't a muslim country, America is a freedom of religion country. Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages. Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though). Homosexuals want to be able to get married like everyone else. You want to talk of definitions and "religious sanctity," okay let's talk about it:

Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too. I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world. Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.

And sorry to sound prejudice of another prejudice, but Mississippi is full of some ****ing racists. The KKK (yet another religion associated organization) is very active in that region. Sad and ridiculous, but not surprising. It is nice to know, however, that the pastor still married them; thank God for small miracles.

[Lacquer Head]

thank God for small miracles.

lol'ed

But tbh, I don't really see a reason why polygamous marriage should be illegal.

[Sasquatch]

First of all, homosexual marriages in the context of which you're speaking are not related to any of what the **** you just said.

How are they not related? It's people who love each other, who are you to tell them that they can't get married?

Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages.

Why not?

Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though).

First off, if you're trying to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else, you're pushing it into its own corner to protect it. It is related, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

If people "love" each other, who are you to say that they shouldn't be married?

Secondly, children are exponentially more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than they are by a clergyman. I suppose that wouldn't fit into any stereotypical hatred of religion, though, so it's too inconvenient for you to bring up.

Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too.

"LOL" is commonly used now -- just like "google" -- so it only made sense to include it in the dictionary. "Gay" has been adopted by homosexuals because they decided that they didn't like "queer" anymore -- just like how people have changed the definition of "homophobe" from "somebody who has a fear of homosexuals" to "somebody who doesn't support special rights for homosexuals".

I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world.

Religion has been used as motivation for some bad things, and also for many good things. The most destructive regimes of the last century were Atheistic. Look at the best and worst people in history. Some of the best: Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Dalai Lama ... all religious. Some of the worst? Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... none religious. To say that religion in general has been the "root" of evil makes about as much sense as saying that national pride is the "root" of wars. It has been used as such, but is in no way their purpose.

Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.

So what's your reasoning behind denying other people the same "right"?

It isn't a choice. You do not choose your sexual preference. You can choose however, to be repressed and ignore it. But that isn't healthy is it.

There is absolutely no evidence of any physical or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in nature.

So is murder and cannibalism. I like to think that we're a bit better than simple animals.

Dwarf chimpanzees are one of the closest genetic relatives to humans and they are all bisexual. The younger ones even have oral sex with the older chimpanzees. Lions are homosexual. The male lions will have sex with each other to create a better bond in the pack.

Male lions prettymuch rape other male lions to assert their dominance.

A friend of mine used to have a dog that humped everything. Couches, legs, other dogs, stuffed animals ... cats ... the stump in his backyard ... everything. With the argument of, "well, animals do it, so it must be alright for humans to do it", morality and ethics go out the window, right along with decency. So if you happen to be walking by a park one night and see a guy givin' it to a bench, just know that it's completely natural and you shouldn't judge him.

Never underestimate the power of denial, as we can see with Sasquatch over and over and over....

Awwwww, somebody doesn't like me ... They even ignored me after I helped themselves prove to be a complete and utter moron on a different subject (and before realizing how "ignore" works) ... What am I going to do with my life, now that an anonymous child on an internet gaming forum doesn't like or agree with me? Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?

Watch the video coverage at least, do a bit of research for yourself and post some findings(the "entire thing" involves more than just their word. Why do you troll with extreme bias so frequently?.)

I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.

That would be like making up a story about me hitting you in a bar, and then telling all of your friends about it. Then reporting it to the media. But the media doesn't interview me, the bartenders, or anybody who was at the bar at the time the attack supposedly happened, they just ask your friends about it, even they don't know anything except what you told them.

Sassy whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You presume this couple is lying but it's your word against theirs when it boils down to it.

You tell me -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? This couple comes out with a story -- a story that goes against conventional knowledge, that surprises everybody with any experience in that church. A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.

It's their word against common sense. They made the accusation, and the pastor (and the church) are innocent until proven guilty.

[RagnaToad]

There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

When did you decide to become straight?

I'm actually surprised about some things of your post I agree with. What is going on.

[Sasquatch]

When did you decide to become straight?

I didn't have to decide, it's only natural. Or, you could say that I "decided" to be straight at about the same time I "decided" that I wasn't attracted to children, or animals, or car tailpipes.

I acknowledged I was wrong and in my wording and restated it adding "Presidents that have never served in cabinet" but you chose to exclude that.

Actually, you didn't, and even if you did, you would have still been wrong. Whoops.

Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.

When did the church admit to it happening? That wasn't in the article you posted.

Your first argument is that it prevents reproduction, so it can't be genetic, because naturally, genetic traits tell us to reproduce. All of this is true, but it doesn't prove your point. Since many gay couples resort to surrogacy to have children, then it could indeed be genetic, being as they still have a natural tendency to reproduce.

Homosexual adoption is much more common than surrogacy, but the fact remains that acting solely upon homosexuality prevents the passing of genetic material. As such, the only way for it to occur naturally would be as a genetic mutation -- a genetic abnormality, a genetic defect, whatever you'd like to call it.

Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.

You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".

And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.

"Whether they actually did anything or not, they're still at fault"? So much for withholding judgement until facts come out, I suppose. You are believing the story of one couple, without any evidence or supporting arguments to back it up, that goes against the opinions of everybody who has had anything to do with this church.

If everyone is heterosexual, why would they WANT to start having relationships with other men? Explain this to me, for I do not understand it what so ever. The way sexual identity starts out, you have a predisposition to be homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between, gay and straight are hardly effective terms anymore.

Why would they want to start having sexual relationships with children, or animals, or dead people? Some people want that sort of thing.

A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.

A century or two ago, interracial marriages weren't allowed on the grounds that anybody wanting to marry somebody of a "lesser" race is basically out of their mind, and the partner of the "lesser" race didn't have the mental capacity to choose to be married. Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Present day, we have plenty of people -- including some who have posted in this forum -- who believe that a child of nine or two is mature and intelligent enough to choose a partner for a sexual relationship. Hell, the age of consent in some countries is as low as nine years old. Most countries have an age of consent of between 14-16, and even some first-world countries have an age of consent at 13.

When you start declaring that some people are able/allowed to consent and some aren't, you get into a huge gray area.

Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?

Why should a sexual perversion be treated the same as a natural relationship? Whether it's the same "status", or tax breaks, or whatever.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.

[Lacquer Head]

You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".

Sexual identity isn't as simple as that. It's NOT completely an instinct, the desire for sex is though. Part of it is due to genetic tendencies, but the rest is due to experiences you have growing up and well into life. You can start out heterosexual, just into straight up sex, but various experiences in life can change that.

What Determines Sexual Orientation? - For Dummies

Read that and you might get a slight understanding. Maybe after that you should put in some REAL research instead of believing what your homophobic parents believe.

Why would they want to start having sexual relationships with children, or animals, or dead people? Some people want that sort of thing.

Yes, because that is their SEXUAL IDENTITY. You just contradicted everything you have said lol Acting on your sexual desires is a choice, having them is not. If you WEREN'T gay, you wouldn't WANT to have gay sex.

A century or two ago, interracial marriages weren't allowed on the grounds that anybody wanting to marry somebody of a "lesser" race is basically out of their mind, and the partner of the "lesser" race didn't have the mental capacity to choose to be married. Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Present day, we have plenty of people -- including some who have posted in this forum -- who believe that a child of nine or two is mature and intelligent enough to choose a partner for a sexual relationship. Hell, the age of consent in some countries is as low as nine years old. Most countries have an age of consent of between 14-16, and even some first-world countries have an age of consent at 13.

200 years ago we kept african americans as slaves because they were thought to be inferior. Your point? Homosexuality was THOUGHT to have been a mental disorder til an understanding of sexual orientations was developed. As for the age of consent issue, it's a bit more complex and deserves its own thread, if you wanna start it, I'll go there, for now, it's off topic lol

When you start declaring that some people are able/allowed to consent and some aren't, you get into a huge gray area.

Consent is based on mental capacity. Children, mentally ill and disabled people don't meet the criteria to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Thus their lack of consent. Some one who has a different sexual identity than most have the ability to consent.

Why should a sexual perversion be treated the same as a natural relationship? Whether it's the same "status", or tax breaks, or whatever.

What you see as perversion, others see as love. Are you trying to say that all marriages are based on love and none on perversion, tax breaks or citizenship? Regardless if it IS just a perversion, that doesn't make a difference what so ever.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and philias are philias. Fetishes as some people call them. You can be Gay, straight or bisexual and be a pedophile. Pedophilia and zoophilia aren't all encompassing attractions.

[Sasquatch]

Sexual identity isn't as simple as that. It's NOT completely an instinct, the desire for sex is though.

It's not a desire for sex, it's a desire for reproduction. Carrying on the species, and all that.

What Determines Sexual Orientation? - For Dummies

Read that and you might get a slight understanding.

That basically says, "we don't really know".

Maybe after that you should put in some REAL research instead of believing what your homophobic parents believe.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and quit projecting and making stupid assumptions.

Yes, because that is their SEXUAL IDENTITY. You just contradicted everything you have said lol Acting on your sexual desires is a choice, having them is not.

So ... you're saying that wanting to have sex with a child or an animal is perfectly fine and natural, because that's somebody's "sexual identity"? ... You serious?

Consent is based on mental capacity. Children, mentally ill and disabled people don't meet the criteria to fully understand the consequences of their actions.

And, as has been mentioned, it wasn't until about forty years ago that homosexuality stopped being called a mental disorder -- thus, a homosexual wouldn't have been able to give consent, as their mental handicap would make them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. We believe the same of children now -- that their immature minds make them incapable of understanding the consequences of a sexual relationship -- and we still have many people who argue against it.

Some one who has a different sexual identity than most have the ability to consent.

What of a child with a sexual identity that makes them sexually active at a younger age than most? Do they have the ability to consent?

What you see as perversion, others see as love. Are you trying to say that all marriages are based on love and none on perversion, tax breaks or citizenship?

Of course not. Quite a few are based on stupidity.

Regardless if it IS just a perversion, that doesn't make a difference what so ever.

Unless we give one sexual perversion special rights that we refuse to allot to other sexual perversions.

You never did any research on the subject like requested at least twice.

You attempted to present an argument (burden of proof falls on you), and then refused to present requested evidence.

Nowhere yet posted has the pastor, the church, or the rest of the clergy come out and said, "we refused to marry them in this church because they are black". The only people who have made that claim are the couple themselves.

You pick one thing you want to comment on and dissect it but you lack the capability of ingesting all the information put in front of you.

If you believe that I have missed something (that you have actually presented) or that I have taken anything out of context and manipulated it to address it in a different context, please point it out and I will correct myself.

Anywho, my question to everyone is: What are homosexuals doing in bed that is so revolting to people? Oral sex? Anal sex? Really? Is this the Dark Ages where you are only allowed to do it missionary position?

I don't care what they do in bed. Most people don't. I believe it's immoral, but I also believe that the government shouldn't regulate it.

You know what it is? I think there is a tinge of jealousy. They do the things in bed you wished your straight significant other would do for you...

You're not serious with the "anybody who disagrees with homosexuality must be homosexual themselves" line, right?

Just because a child isn't your blood doesn't mean it's not your child.

Of course. And the other way around -- on the same kind of note, I will refer to my biological mother as either her name or "my biological mother", because she is not and has never been a "mom". Many step-parents are called "mom" or "dad" because they have acted more as a parent-figure than the biological parent.

However, that doesn't change the fact that adoption does not pass on genetic material. Hence, homosexuality cannot be genetic, since acting upon it would prevent the passing of genes.

Nobody is born with a desire to reproduce. I didn't open my eyes as a baby and think, "Hey, this chick next to me in the awesome diaper is hot. I should have a baby with her."

It isn't present exactly when we are born, but we develop it naturally. Just like we don't know how to walk (or even crawl) when we are born, how to recognize facial expressions and voice inflections, what "competition" is, stuff like that ... but we develop it naturally anyway, without being taught.

You want somebody to tell you the difference between two people of the same sex, who are in love and in a consenting relationship, to that of perverts who sexually abuse children and animals? I am honestly dumbfounded by the stupidity of this statement.

I didn't mention child molestation or bestiality, I said pedophilia and zoophilia. Likening pedophilia to child molestation would be like ... likening heterosexuality to rape.

You're ridiculous, and completely impossible. Tell Dan Cathy I said hi.

Unfortunately, there's no Chick-Fil-A around here, or I would support their right to free speech.

[Joxsjua]

You attempted to present an argument (burden of proof falls on you), and then refused to present requested evidence.

Nowhere yet posted has the pastor, the church, or the rest of the clergy come out and said, "we refused to marry them in this church because they are black". The only people who have made that claim are the couple themselves.

If you believe that I have missed something (that you have actually presented) or that I have taken anything out of context and manipulated it to address it in a different context, please point it out and I will correct myself.

I posted it twice now.. I'm going to insinuate brain-damage or the 1600's definition of retardation "Idiot." At what point when the pastor said "I was avoiding conflict" or the member's "I'm appalled at those people" didn't convince you?!

you demand them to speak this robotanese language but no one will ever dumb themselves down to your level.

at this point kiddo, I will never have to past reference your worth and intentions. "You will never, and I quote, admit defeat."

[Clint]

However, that doesn't change the fact that adoption does not pass on genetic material. Hence, homosexuality cannot be genetic, since acting upon it would prevent the passing of genes.

Heterosexuality also cannot be genetic then, seeing as how many couples either don't want kids, or would rather adopt than get pregnant.

You seem to keep forgetting that humans act less on natural instinct, and more on whatever the hell they want to do. Simply because somebody doesn't want kids, or is simply attracted to the same sex and therefore has difficulty passing on genes of their own, does not make that person a genetic mutation.

It isn't present exactly when we are born, but we develop it naturally ... without being taught.

Homosexuals develop their attraction to the same sex naturally as well. I didn't wake up one morning and decide, "Hey, I want to be gay." It doesn't work like that, and no matter how much you try to argue this point, the fact of the matter is, you're wrong.

I didn't mention child molestation or bestiality, I said pedophilia and zoophilia. Likening pedophilia to child molestation would be like ... likening heterosexuality to rape.

Pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Zoophilia is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals. So yes, you did in fact mention child molestation and bestiality. Don't be stupid. I don't play silly games.

Unfortunately, there's no Chick-Fil-A around here, or I would support their right to free speech.

You would support their right to hate speech. Ridiculously, hate speech is protected by the first amendment, but that doesn't make anybody who says it or supports it any less retarded.

The fact of the matter is, I was referring to you as a bigot without ever saying the word, but obviously you're too dense to grasp that concept. Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Say hello to Fred Phelps for me.

[Lacquer Head]

It's not a desire for sex, it's a desire for reproduction. Carrying on the species, and all that.

Desire for sex =/= desire for reproduction. Release of endorphins blah blah drugs.

That basically says, "we don't really know".

I said it's a good place to start. It still doesn't suggest it is a choice.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and quit projecting and making stupid assumptions.

lolwut? Now I KNOW you're a troll.

>Accuses others of making stupid assumptions
>Pulls everything out of his ass

So ... you're saying that wanting to have sex with a child or an animal is perfectly fine and natural, because that's somebody's "sexual identity"? ... You serious?

Thoughts don't hurt people, actions do. Still not on topic though.

And, as has been mentioned, it wasn't until about forty years ago that homosexuality stopped being called a mental disorder -- thus, a homosexual wouldn't have been able to give consent, as their mental handicap would make them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. We believe the same of children now -- that their immature minds make them incapable of understanding the consequences of a sexual relationship -- and we still have many people who argue against it.

Are you SUPPOSED to have a point here?

What of a child with a sexual identity that makes them sexually active at a younger age than most? Do they have the ability to consent?

hurrdurr lack of understanding. they can still be sexually active, but with most things, their understanding is limited.

Of course not. Quite a few are based on stupidity.

So do you feel they should be illegal as well?

Unless we give one sexual perversion special rights that we refuse to allot to other sexual perversions.

There you go throwing around terms you don't understand again. "Sexual perversion" isn't a term for anything, stop using it. All people of all sexual orientations SHOULD be given equal rights.

You attempted to present an argument (burden of proof falls on you), and then refused to present requested evidence.

I've seen sufficient evidence supported by everyone BUT you. The burden of proof is purely on your shoulders. You're making baseless accusations in debate thread and have no intentions of taking it seriously, I'm honestly confused as to why your posts haven't been deleted. Not for your stance, but for your ignorance.

Nowhere yet posted has the pastor, the church, or the rest of the clergy come out and said, "we refused to marry them in this church because they are black". The only people who have made that claim are the couple themselves.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/2...yssey=nav|head

<3

I don't care what they do in bed. Most people don't. I believe it's immoral, but I also believe that the government shouldn't regulate it.

The christian belief is that sex before marriage and masturbation is a sin.

However, that doesn't change the fact that adoption does not pass on genetic material. Hence, homosexuality cannot be genetic, since acting upon it would prevent the passing of genes.

Then genetic risks for disease must not be genetic either, since they tend to **** you up or kill you.

I didn't mention child molestation or bestiality, I said pedophilia and zoophilia. Likening pedophilia to child molestation would be like ... likening heterosexuality to rape.

Holy shit, I actually agree with you.

Unfortunately, there's no Chick-Fil-A around here, or I would support their right to free speech.

Personally, I find people that are getting upset over Chik Fil A are just hypocrites. If you dislike their views, ignore it. Trying to push your views on them is the same thing as what they're doing. Just stay away from the restaurant and live your ****ing life.

Pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Zoophilia is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals. So yes, you did in fact mention child molestation and bestiality. Don't be stupid. I don't play silly games.

Zoophilia is the attraction, bestiality is the action. True psychological (lolpsychology) study on paraphilias is more limited than it seems. Pedophila and zoophilia aren't as exclusive or primary as people seem to think. Most people still enjoy healthy sex lives and never stray into abuse, because at the end of the day, most people know rape is bad.

Bestiality is ba-a-a-a-a-ad.

[Joxsjua]

Actually, you didn't, and even if you did, you would have still been wrong. Whoops.

I did and when I wrote that there was a "?" at the end of the sentence.

When did the church admit to it happening? That wasn't in the article you posted.

To answer your question earlier, this is what I meant by when I said "Never underestimate the power of denial, as we can see with Sasquatch over and over and over...."

You never did any research on the subject like requested at least twice. I even did it for you with a second posted hyperlink that you refuse to acknowledge. A better way to debate would be to provide evidence of along with your counter arguments instead of blinding saying "NO" and go into a metaphor taking the conversation in erratic directions.

Debates with you turns into your use of personal interests, beliefs and passive aggressive responses instead of, solid fact finding and observing the picture as a whole.. You pick one thing you want to comment on and dissect it but you lack the capability of ingesting all the information put in front of you. You habitually make these poor/sociopathic tendencies and avoid the educational-route altogether.

[Merlin]

Debates with you turns into your use of personal interests, beliefs and passive aggressive responses instead of, solid fact finding and observing the picture as a whole..

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.

Nobody needs to tell you what to believe or hand-hold you to an alternate frame of mind. All people can do is provide information for you to read through. You must make the decision on your own as to whether you will accept that information or deny it.

Anywho, my question to everyone is: What are homosexuals doing in bed that is so revolting to people? Oral sex? Anal sex? Really? Is this the Dark Ages where you are only allowed to do it missionary position? You know what it is? I think there is a tinge of jealousy. They do the things in bed you wished your straight significant other would do for you...

What people do in bed is none of your business. The human species is overpopulated as it is, so if some of them don't want to do their "christian duty" and shotgun blast their seed across the world than more power to them I say. I see no reason to block them from getting married on the grounds that they cannot reproduce. With that frame of mind, anyone who is sterile should be forbidden from getting married. Oh wait... that's different.

[Xanatos]

It took me like five minutes to make it, hope you like it Sassy...

[Clint]

Homosexual adoption is much more common than surrogacy, but the fact remains that acting solely upon homosexuality prevents the passing of genetic material. As such, the only way for it to occur naturally would be as a genetic mutation -- a genetic abnormality, a genetic defect, whatever you'd like to call it.

Fantastic. Adoption is a wonderful thing, and is a perfect example of a homosexual couple's desire to reproduce. Since neither of them can get pregnant, resorting to adoption is the next natural choice. Just because a child isn't your blood doesn't mean it's not your child.

Homosexuality is as much a genetic trait as heterosexuality. If it weren't, then homosexuals wouldn't feel the need for adoption or surrogacy.

You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".

Nobody is born with a desire to reproduce. I didn't open my eyes as a baby and think, "Hey, this chick next to me in the awesome diaper is hot. I should have a baby with her." Children are asexual pretty much up until puberty, at which point, the child either has a natural sexual attraction towards the opposite sex, or a natural sexual attraction towards the same sex.

Homosexuality isn't a choice. If it were, then I could just say that I'm gay, and then go have sex with some guy.

So much for withholding judgement until facts come out, I suppose. You are believing the story of one couple, without any evidence or supporting arguments to back it up, that goes against the opinions of everybody who has had anything to do with this church.

I'm giving the couple the benefit of the doubt. I tend to do that. I'm also giving the church the benefit of the doubt. I never stated that they were guilty. I merely stated that at the moment, they're at fault until they clear their name. I don't pick sides.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.

You want somebody to tell you the difference between two people of the same sex, who are in love and in a consenting relationship, to that of perverts who sexually abuse children and animals? I am honestly dumbfounded by the stupidity of this statement.

Okay, one is natural, and the other two are ****ing sick.

You're ridiculous, and completely impossible. Tell Dan Cathy I said hi.

[Joxsjua]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch View Post
So much for withholding judgement until facts come out, I suppose. You are believing the story of one couple, without any evidence or supporting arguments to back it up, that goes against the opinions of everybody who has had anything to do with this church.

*2nd time I've had to post this*
Quotes from the pastor and church member admitting to the event. SBC Condemns Church's Refusal to Marry Black Couple.

[Joxsjua]

Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?

I acknowledged I was wrong and in my wording and restated it adding "Presidents that have never served in cabinet" but you chose to exclude that. Why are you trolling so hard?

I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.

Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.

[Clint]

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

So let me get this right. You have two arguments to state that homosexuality is a choice, instead of something that's natural.

Your first argument is that it prevents reproduction, so it can't be genetic, because naturally, genetic traits tell us to reproduce. All of this is true, but it doesn't prove your point. Since many gay couples resort to surrogacy to have children, then it could indeed be genetic, being as they still have a natural tendency to reproduce.

Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.

So, I've pretty much proved that homosexuality is not a choice. Debate on this matter closed, Sassypants.

A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.

And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.

[Lacquer Head]

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

If everyone is heterosexual, why would they WANT to start having relationships with other men? Explain this to me, for I do not understand it what so ever. The way sexual identity starts out, you have a predisposition to be homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between, gay and straight are hardly effective terms anymore. There are some people that are COMPLETELY heterosexual, and some homosexual. Everyone falls somewhere between the two. But as we grow up, certain things in life affect our sexuality. Be it minor fetishes to changing stuff big time, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is no reason NOT to allow these marriages. As for polygamy, I haven't done any research on this subject, as for something like marriage with children, the issue is consent. A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.

Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?