[bird]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

When you accept abnormal behavior as normal behavior moral values decline. Social stigma is a good thing.

Good point. When do we start stigmatizing people who stuff their face with greasy processed fast food?

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

The problem with gays is that they're not content with keeping things private.

Could you possibly make a more ridiculous generalization?

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by bird

What I have always said is that churches can define marriage however they like. The Mormons certainly do.

My only concern is the social contract that the government calls marriage. I'd love it if we could shift the lexicon so that "marriage" would mean a church ceremony, and "civil union" would reflect the government's recognizance of a social contract between two people - be they opposite sex or same sex. But that's not what the box says on my tax return.

Somewhat agree...haven't totally worked it out in my own head. You're good with, gays = civil union...straights = marriage ? Can you convince the gays?

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by bird

Good point. When do we start stigmatizing people who stuff their face with greasy processed fast food?

Could you possibly make a more ridiculous generalization?

I thought we already did.

Generalization??? Sorry, hoss...that's spot on.

[bird]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

Somewhat agree...haven't totally worked it out in my own head. You're good with, gays = civil union...straights = marriage ? Can you convince the gays?

No need to think about it. I've worked it out for you. Government = civil union, church = marriage.

My wife and I were married in a church and we had it recognized legally as well. Therefore we have both.

The gay people I know couldn't care less about the terminology. They'd just like the same right to legally recognize their union and receive the benefits and protections that come with it. The term "marriage" only comes up because that's the term the government currently uses.

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

I thought we already did.

Once we make laws prohibiting fat people from fast food restaurants, then we'll talk. Eating enough to be twice your ideal body weight is abnormal behavior.

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

Generalization??? Sorry, hoss...that's spot on.

Yes...it's amazing how others' gut-feeling generalizations make them bigots. Yet somehow, your absurd generalization is a stone-cold fact. In your own mind. Do you host your own talk show? You should.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by bird

I'm good with government = civil union, church = marriage.

My wife and I were married in a church and we had it recognized legally as well. Therefore we have both.

Good deal. We both not only support the CEO of CFA in his free speech, we support his beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman!

Why didn't you just say that to begin with? :cool:

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

When you accept abnormal behavior as normal behavior moral values decline. Social stigma is a good thing.

Morals are only relative to those seeking a 'new understanding.' The problem with gays is that they're not content with keeping things private.

Freeing a slave was abnormal behavior 150 years ago. If this is your definition, I hope morals continue to decline as quickly as possible.

[Grantland]

[quote=bird;5337913]Good point. When do we start stigmatizing people who stuff their face with greasy processed fast food?

Hilarious, you want to stigmatize a person for eating a Big Mac, and turn around and rationalize someone else shoving a Peter, Paul, or Mary down their pie hole
"Almond Joy has nuts Mounds don't"

Lets be clear here this isn't about; Love, Marriage,the Church. This is about benefits, and co-opting of an institution solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits. This is just an act of selfishness and greed and laziness. If you believe you should have similar benefits go change peoples minds about why you should have them. instead of trying to destroy something that out-dates all major religions and forms of current governments. Marriage benefits were fought for, go fight for your civil union benefits and do it on the merits of a civil union. Remember single people don't get the same benefits as married couples so why should same sex couples.

I have the bucket ready for your tears.

[bird]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

Good deal. We both not only support the CEO of CFA in his free speech, we support his beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman!

Why didn't you just say that to begin with? :cool:

If you read through my comments, you'd know that I would never be critical of his right to free speech. I support everyone's right to make an idiot out of himself.

And I will be absolutely opposed to any legal effort to bar CFA from anyplace due to Cathy's comments (which didn't address same-sex marriage).

Where you're wrong is that I do not define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What I've clearly said is that if I would prefer the term "marriage" to refer to a church or faith-based ceremony, and that each church or faith can define marriage however it chooses as long as it violates no other laws.

[bird]

Grantland, I'll try to address these last few comments, but overall I've been ignoring you mainly because, frankly, your posts have become more and more incoherent.

Originally Posted by Grantland

Hilarious, you want to stigmatize a person for eating a Big Mac, and turn around and rationalize someone else shoving a Peter, Paul, or Mary down their pie hole
"Almond Joy has nuts Mounds don't"

Yes. Obesity has had astronomical financial impact on our health care costs. Two dudes shacking up hasn't.

Originally Posted by Grantland

Lets be clear here this isn't about; Love, Marriage,the Church. This is about benefits, and co-opting of an institution solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits.

Heterosexuals have been doing a great job of co-opting the institution of marriage for centuries. Why not let homesexuals join the fun?

Originally Posted by Grantland

This is just an act of selfishness and greed and laziness.

You sound like my (opposite gender) wife.

Originally Posted by Grantland

If you believe you should have similar benefits go change peoples minds about why you should have them. instead of trying to destroy something that out-dates all major religions and forms of current governments. Marriage benefits were fought for, go fight for your civil union benefits and do it on the merits of a civil union. Remember single people don't get the same benefits as married couples so why should same sex couples.

Single heterosexual people are simply not exercising their right to the legal benefits of a marriage. They're free to anytime they like. Homosexual people are not, unless you'd like them to marry someone of the opposite gender, further co-opting the concept of marriage.

But overall, I'd be perfectly happy for government to get out of the marriage business.

Originally Posted by Grantland

I have the bucket ready for your tears.

Only women and gay men cry.

[BradleyJaguars]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

Show me one.

You posted a number no credible source would agree with, the burden of proof is yours.

[NapRover]

1.7%
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_846348.html

[BradleyJaguars]

What a silly way to categorize.

Hint to Mr. Gates, if you have sex with someone of your own gender, you are either homosexual or you are bisexual.

My last post, as written, stands as correct. No credible source.

[bird]

Well that link says that 19 million people in the US have engaged in sex with someone of the same sex. While we can debate exactly what makes somebody LBGT, that's 8.2% of the adult population who has participated in "abnormal behavior".

The number is not really important. Even if it's one percent, that's over 2 million people. During a dry spell after college, I could barely classify myself as heterosexual. Nosexual was more like it.

[Grantland]

No bird you understood all of my post your just tired of me telling you the same thing over and over.

I'll dumb this down for you. a person has a right to choose to put what ever food they desire into their mouth its their choice. It is the same situation for a person whom decides to choose to have sex with a partner of the same sex, it is a choice. I find it very hypocritical of you to condone one person choice and condemn another's. aside note 55% of all reported HIV cases come from Male on Male sex, so there are health care cost associated with two dudes shacking up.

You can't co- opt something when you are the definition of that something (Marriage = Man + Woman)

So, she is the brains of the outfit.


[

Talk about incoherent would you like to go back and finish that thought.

I'm not convinced that would make you happy, but you say it will so I will leave it at that

Were all those people in New York on 9/11 women or gay. I'm going to accept you were just trying to be funny here.

I'm not trying to keep people from living their life the way they see fit. I just don't support the militant efforts to force a change in the definition of marriage.

[NapRover]

Originally Posted by BradleyJaguars

What a silly way to categorize.

Hint to Mr. Gates, if you have sex with someone of your own gender, you are either homosexual or you are bisexual.

My last post, as written, stands as correct. No credible source.

Hint to BradleyJaguars: unless you go around and ask every person on earth to come clean and file an affidavit as to their sexual orientation, it's pretty much anybody's guess. The media would have us believe 50% of us are LGBT. The number is probably closer to 2%. I'm sure if you think it's 25%, you can search until you find a link that agrees. That was the first link that came up when I searched. Seemed credible to me. Adios!

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by NapRover

Hint to BradleyJaguars: unless you go around and ask every person on earth to come clean and file an affidavit as to their sexual orientation, it's pretty much anybody's guess. The media would have us believe 50% of us are LGBT. The number is probably closer to 2%. I'm sure if you think it's 25%, you can search until you find a link that agrees. That was the first link that came up when I searched. Seemed credible to me. Adios!

Excellent. You are absolutely correct with the 'anybody's guess' particularly when the water gets muddy by the silly LGBT criterion and curiosity encounters. I won't quibble with your 2%, I believe it's closer to 1%, however MOST credible studies put the number between 1 & 2 and on that we can agree.