“If you saw the neighbor boy trying to mate with a knothole in the fence, or his cat, you’d scream and demand that he get therapy. But if he tries to mate with the anal canal of another male, it’s OK. Trying to mate with another male’s anal canal is as insane as trying to mate with a knothole or cat. What kind of baby are they trying to produce.....a pencil?”
Frankly, arguments like these are not helping. First, they will point out that animal sex is different than human. Second, since you are too fixated on the anal part, which will be ridiculed. Third, you assume sex is about “producing” babies, which will get your labeled as a nut, fair or not.
I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.
First, my name’s not Frank.
Did you even read what you wrote?
Whether you are a Christian or an atheist, what is the purpose of sex if it isn’t to produce babies?
I didn’t write about animal sex. I wrote about human/animal attempted mating.
“You are too fixated on the anal part” - That’s really a pathetic effort.
“You assume sex is about producing babies” - Where did you go to school that you do not know this?
“Ron Paul”? He doesn’t have the brains that God gave gophers.
You have written a lot without making any counter-arguments, or, really, saying anything.
Attempting to mate with a man’s anal canal is insane. Defending insanity is a losing argument.
26 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:00:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by spintreebob: “jobs, taxes, jobs, spending, jobs, borrowing, jobs, regulation. That is what the GOP should campaign on. Contraception, gay marriage, global warming, war in the Sudan, polar bears and baby seals are distractions we should not get into either pro or con.”
30 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:05:32 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by pieceofthepuzzle: “I agree that the GOP should not debate this issue. They should say, that there are very important public issues that need to be addressed (e.g. economy etc.) and that the private sexual lives of American citizens is not an issue for the government or politicians. They should then point out that the gay marriage issue appears to be an attempt of some to make a private issue into a political one, and to get government involved in peoples private lives.”
No, no, a thousand times no!
This is not a distraction; this is a central point on which conservatives are still the majority and on which we can win votes from socially conservative Democrats. What just happened in North Carolina or (earlier) in California to cause us to think campaigning against gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans?
The reason for doing so, however, is not pragmatic politics.
Marriage is not a sexual and economic choice between two people. It is the foundation of cultures which transmit values from one generation to another.
The fact that we **CONSERVATIVES** are even thinking about conceding this argument shows how far we have fallen as a society. Conservatives are not libertarians. There is a difference.
Ron Paul is dishonest. He is entirely pro-homo agenda. He is one of the 5 Rs who voted to force faggots in the military. And marriage has always been recognized by the state. To pretend that the state should not recognize marriage at all is childish anarchy.
Frankly, sugar, none of YOUR arguments hold water, with us, or with the electorate. Gay sex is equivalent to animal sex; it's anal, that's all it is; yes, sex IS about producing babies, and NO, we are not Paul supporters..
Like most of Ron Paul's ideas, it makes no practical sense. All those issues of adoption, hospital visitation, privacy, what happens to assets in divorce, child custody, etc., would still need to be handled by law. At best your plan would result in equal civil unions being created for any kind of couple, probably even incestuous relationships if they wanted it. Otherwise the "civil union" law would need to say it only applies to heterosexual couples, in which case we're back to the same old debate and we just have to "hope" people don't keep calling it marriage just because it's an easier term to use.
Actually, it seems obvious that it is the faggots/perverts who are "fixated on the anal part." Normal humans are quite repelled by the idea of Mr. Happy roaming the Hershey Highway. But you knew that.
blueunicorn6:
Way to go! High fives!!!
Ron Paul is wrong. What Ron Paul advocates is a government that abdicates its role to maintain social order premised upon inalienable truths. Ron Paul seeks marriage anarchy much like Libertarians seek a morally devoid anarchy unencumbered by any social order.
The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...