It's a bad assumption for you to make if you think I don't know any. There are people out there in the same situation who overcame their sexual confusion.
Just like the Bob Blackford short story I listed in post 604, which is the story of a man who struggled for years, married, then experienced a three-year homosexual affair; and then Bob overcame his sexual confusion and is strictly heterosexual now. I encourage you to checkout his video.
There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable. I say that for a specific reason and it's not because of hatred for anybody. You're asking who's threatened by same-sex marriage yet you consistently run away from questions that are merely taking your worldview to its logical conclusion.
Considering that I started this thread with a question that has turned into something else entirely, your comments are rather amusing!
Why stop at a marraige of two? Why not three, four, five? Why not between brothers? Sisters? Father and son(s)? Fathers(s) and son? Father and daughter? Grandparents and grandchild? As long as they're adults, why not? Is the American Family (your term) ready for that? Are you? Is that a good environment to promote and celebrate for children?
Those types of questions are certainly not off topic. You can attempt to say the thread has turned into something else entirely but you would be wrong, and the record demonstrates just that.
I can't fight your battles for you - You're the one running away from the logical conclusion of your arguments. If you don't like the heat, try answering some questions.
In post 599 you said:
And in other posts you've used the word hatred, all quite inappropriately if you actually understood what I've been saying.
- many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings
- They may listen to your rants about gays
- your thinly veiled disgust and revulsion for EVERYONE different from you.
You also said: In other words, their audience concentrates on the tone with which they present their arguments more than the specific content of their ideas.
Are you going to try to put your other foot in your mouth now, or are you going to wipe the egg off your face first?
The above and more (a lot more) can be found in my FreeRepublic profile.
many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings
They may listen to your rants about gays your thinly veiled disgust and revulsion for EVERYONE different from you.
And in other posts you've used the word hatred, all quite inappropriately if you actually understood what I've been saying.
Are you going to try to put your other foot in your mouth now, or are you going to wipe the egg off your face first?
You and I apparently have a different understanding of appropriate language and etiquette to use in debates. The quotations of mine that you cited have no relevance until they are placed in the overall context of what has transpired during the previous 600 messages.
I will try one more time to clarify this matter.
1. I began a thread by asking a perfectly reasonable question. When I originated the thread I entered a single keyword i.e. "same-sex marriage"
2. Within a very short time, numerous messages were posted which used hostile language. This type of language is NOT used by persons who wish to engage in friendly discussion or to respectfully consider another point of view. [To refresh your memory, among the terms used were: mentally ill, evil, revolting, putrid, sickening, filthy, vile, immoral].
In addition, numerous vulgar and hateful keywords were added by persons reading the thread.
Obviously, if you characterize a person or position using those terms, there is nothing whatsoever to consider or discuss. The issue has already been permanently decided. Nobody elevates anyone described in those terms to the status of a decent human being. Instead, the entire purpose of such caustic language is merely to demonize an opponent and portray him/her as low-life sub-human scum who has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion.
3. Then PERSONAL ATTACKS on me commence. Why? Is the quality of your evidence or logic so poor that it requires such attacks? By contrast, some folks submit perfectly reasonable and civil comments (such as wmichgrad, message #36).
4. After an accumulation of vituperative remarks from various people, I respond by describing the language as "hateful" and I point out that such language is welcomed only by persons who seek to evoke fear, disgust, hatred, or revulsion toward other human beings.
Since you have never once criticized anyone for using such language or debate tactics and you frequently play the role of the injured party --- I must conclude that you find such language and behavior normal and acceptable.
Finally: may I share a personal observation? And I mean this sincerely.
I very much want to encourage you to continue to express your views on this subject in precisely the same manner that you have evidenced thus far. While abhorrent to me personally, it will nevertheless illustrate the quality of mind, spirit, and values underlying your argument.