Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[HST1948]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era.  

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

I don't think scientifically that gay adoption is even necessary.  A straight couple usually adopts if the woman or man cannot have children.  But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.  Also, it is possible for single individuals to adopt or serve as foster parents, or even adopt relatives.  

Lol. It seems that your understanding of reproduction is even worse than your understanding of the evolutionary theory.

And I agree with Mikado's statements.  There are plenty of children who would be better of to be placed in a stable household through adoption and loved , even if the adoptive or foster parent(s) is (are) gay.

If a gay man can produce sperm and a gay woman has a functioning uterus, they are biologically able to have children, they just choose not to biologically get pregnant with the opposite gender, so they are not adopting out of necessity but out of choice.  But there is nothing currently preventing any person from adopting children, gay or straight.

Actually many states have laws preventing gay people from adopting children. Gay adoption is legal in 20 states and D.C, illegal in 5, and the remaining 25 states have ambiguous laws regarding gay adoption or have not addressed the issue. In addition some states have also outlawed single people from adopting children. So yes, there is something currently preventing any person from adopting children.  

[HST1948]

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  

Evolution is scientific fact, just like Newtonian physics (with relativistic qualifications), the gas laws, and the atomic theory of matter. Science has no moral lessons to teach. Science can tell one the effects of giving a cyanide pellet to a victim; morality tells one not to commit murder.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible to have an atheist marriage. Think of this: no Commie state, however militant its official atheism, ever outlawed marriage. The rest says much about your prurient interest in sex.

By the way -- many marriages are done in which there is no possibility of any pregnancy, In fact there is much sex that can never result in a child. Do you have problems with marriages involving the elderly, let alone elder sex?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage has values other than legal formalities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In view of AIDS, promiscuity among gays has become a dangerous habit. Lesbians seem to have very low rates of AIDS. But let us remember -- few jurisdictions have decided that marriage is a good way of promoting monogamy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullhist! Birth control can lead to more sex and hence a stronger personal bond within a couple.

Marital infidelity can wreck a marriage. But I have seen other causes, like spousal abuse and "mental cruelty". Some marriages are mistakes from the start, which relates heavily to people getting married in their teens. I have known this one:

"We are having financial problems and you are spending money on... a boat? a motorcycle? camping gear? an expensive hobby? expensive jewelry? You ask me to make sacrifices, yet you can't think of anything more than that damned piano?

 

I don't really understand why a couple needs to government protection to enforce monogamy in their relationship.  Are you afraid the other person will cheat so you require a marriage certificate?  Monogamy is a choice between 2 consenting adults, regardless of what the government says.  Two non-married adults can be in a committed monogamous relationship for their entire lives.  I just don't think the government is needed to enforce monogamy.  Humans have plenty of free will to decide if they want to be monogamous.

I don't think gay marriage solves anything in the gay community.  It may make some weak willed gay people monogamous because now they have a legal contract.  But I think the prevalence of STD in the gay community is alarming and a potentially dangerous epidemic that shouldn't be promoted.  

Straight marriage is a legal necessity when it comes to economic matters of child support and spousal support.  In the event of pregnancy, most fathers feel the need to economically support the well being of the mother and child, and legally claim financial responsiblity.

Your right, government doesn't need to enforce a couples monogamy through marriage, but that has nothing to do with the reason for gay people getting married. Like other marriages, gay marriage is, in one sense, a certification of a commitment that two consenting people have made to one another.  

You are acting like the gay community is the only group that has a problem with STD's.  One in two straight Americans will have an STD by the time they are 25 (more than the % of Americans who have college degrees). And in fact the lesbian community has a lower prevalence of STD's than the general population.

Gay marriage is a legal necessity for the same reason. If a gay couple adopts a child (in one of the 20 states where they are allowed to) the economic matters of child support and spousal support still apply. In addition gay marriage is a necessity for couple to be able to visit each other in the hospital, receive health insurance benefits from their partner (for example my father's employer doesn't provide health insurance by my mother's does and she can therefore put him on her policy from work), and a whole litany of other benefits that are people can only get if they are married.      

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

[milhouse24]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era.  

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

I don't think scientifically that gay adoption is even necessary.  A straight couple usually adopts if the woman or man cannot have children.  But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.  Also, it is possible for single individuals to adopt or serve as foster parents, or even adopt relatives.  

Lol. It seems that your understanding of reproduction is even worse than your understanding of the evolutionary theory.

And I agree with Mikado's statements.  There are plenty of children who would be better of to be placed in a stable household through adoption and loved , even if the adoptive or foster parent(s) is (are) gay.

If a gay man can produce sperm and a gay woman has a functioning uterus, they are biologically able to have children, they just choose not to biologically get pregnant with the opposite gender, so they are not adopting out of necessity but out of choice.  But there is nothing currently preventing any person from adopting children, gay or straight.

Actually many states have laws preventing gay people from adopting children. Gay adoption is legal in 20 states and D.C, illegal in 5, and the remaining 25 states have ambiguous laws regarding gay adoption or have not addressed the issue. In addition some states have also outlawed single people from adopting children. So yes, there is something currently preventing any person from adopting children.  

I'm not sure if there is a backlog of orphans waiting for adoption or foster kids.  But my basic premise is that a gay person can still biologically have children with the opposite gender provided they are medically able to have functioning parts; they just choose not to have any biological children.  But I think with adoption its also been ruled that biological sperm donors need to pay child support in the event the gay couple divorces.  A gay couple or single person can also have a private adoption through another straight couple, I don't believe there is a law preventing a person from accepting an adoption if the child is directly given to them.  I just think there are ways a gay person can obtain a child if they really want one.

[milhouse24]

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  

Evolution is scientific fact, just like Newtonian physics (with relativistic qualifications), the gas laws, and the atomic theory of matter. Science has no moral lessons to teach. Science can tell one the effects of giving a cyanide pellet to a victim; morality tells one not to commit murder.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible to have an atheist marriage. Think of this: no Commie state, however militant its official atheism, ever outlawed marriage. The rest says much about your prurient interest in sex.

By the way -- many marriages are done in which there is no possibility of any pregnancy, In fact there is much sex that can never result in a child. Do you have problems with marriages involving the elderly, let alone elder sex?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage has values other than legal formalities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In view of AIDS, promiscuity among gays has become a dangerous habit. Lesbians seem to have very low rates of AIDS. But let us remember -- few jurisdictions have decided that marriage is a good way of promoting monogamy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullhist! Birth control can lead to more sex and hence a stronger personal bond within a couple.

Marital infidelity can wreck a marriage. But I have seen other causes, like spousal abuse and "mental cruelty". Some marriages are mistakes from the start, which relates heavily to people getting married in their teens. I have known this one:

"We are having financial problems and you are spending money on... a boat? a motorcycle? camping gear? an expensive hobby? expensive jewelry? You ask me to make sacrifices, yet you can't think of anything more than that damned piano?

 

I don't really understand why a couple needs to government protection to enforce monogamy in their relationship.  Are you afraid the other person will cheat so you require a marriage certificate?  Monogamy is a choice between 2 consenting adults, regardless of what the government says.  Two non-married adults can be in a committed monogamous relationship for their entire lives.  I just don't think the government is needed to enforce monogamy.  Humans have plenty of free will to decide if they want to be monogamous.

I don't think gay marriage solves anything in the gay community.  It may make some weak willed gay people monogamous because now they have a legal contract.  But I think the prevalence of STD in the gay community is alarming and a potentially dangerous epidemic that shouldn't be promoted.  

Straight marriage is a legal necessity when it comes to economic matters of child support and spousal support.  In the event of pregnancy, most fathers feel the need to economically support the well being of the mother and child, and legally claim financial responsiblity.

Your right, government doesn't need to enforce a couples monogamy through marriage, but that has nothing to do with the reason for gay people getting married. Like other marriages, gay marriage is, in one sense, a certification of a commitment that two consenting people have made to one another.  

You are acting like the gay community is the only group that has a problem with STD's.  One in two straight Americans will have an STD by the time they are 25 (more than the % of Americans who have college degrees). And in fact the lesbian community has a lower prevalence of STD's than the general population.

Gay marriage is a legal necessity for the same reason. If a gay couple adopts a child (in one of the 20 states where they are allowed to) the economic matters of child support and spousal support still apply. In addition gay marriage is a necessity for couple to be able to visit each other in the hospital, receive health insurance benefits from their partner (for example my father's employer doesn't provide health insurance by my mother's does and she can therefore put him on her policy from work), and a whole litany of other benefits that are people can only get if they are married.      

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity. 

I think its kinda scammy to get health care benefits based on marriage but its up to the HMO's to decide.  I think the reason wives got health insurance is because in the past they were not working or did not have full time jobs.  The wives needed the health insurance because they were home raising children.  Like in the Adam Sandler movie, its a ridiculous premise for a gay couple to get married for health insurance or other financial benefits.  But universal health care would make that a moot point.

[Joe Republic]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

[The Mikado]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

[HST1948]

I'm still not getting Milhouse's reasoning for why it is so necessary for everyone to biologically reproduce. His argument that reproduction by everyone is an evolutionary necessity is unfounded.  Evolution ONLY studies the population who are passing on their genetic information between generations and since gay people are generally not reproducing, the study of evolution does not concern itself with them.  Also, he is applying a scientific theory to a moral issue. As has long been established by the scientific community that theories and scientific laws do not address moral issues. In addition evolution, as said by Darwin himself, is only the observation "random" occurrences and natural instincts. These natural "evolutionary" instincts to not translate into some moral responsibility to reproduce.  Evolution will occur just as it has for the last 3 billion years whether the 3% of the population that is gay procreates or not.        

Secondly, in reference to Milhouse's point the the government doesn't need to enforce monogamy, he is right.  But, I NEVER said that it was a necessity.  Receiving a marriage certificate is not a necessity... for anyone... but it is something that people want as a sign and celebration of their commitment to one another.  This has nothing to do with the government certifying or enforcing monogamy.  This is about two people wanting to be treated equally under the law despite their sexuality.  Why should gay people who vote, are CITIZENS, pay taxes, and have the same jobs as straight people be denied any rights that their other citizens have.  And yes, the courts agree, that marriage is a civil right.

But, alas I am staring to fell better because every statement that Milhouse has made so far is an argument against all marriages, not just gay marriage.

[Badger]

Why do I suspect CJK and Millhouse will be exchanging PM's to "get together" some weekend and "further discuss" their shared concern over the homosexual agenda?

[milhouse24]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

[milhouse24]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

[milhouse24]

I'm still not getting Milhouse's reasoning for why it is so necessary for everyone to biologically reproduce. His argument that reproduction by everyone is an evolutionary necessity is unfounded.  Evolution ONLY studies the population who are passing on their genetic information between generations and since gay people are generally not reproducing, the study of evolution does not concern itself with them.  Also, he is applying a scientific theory to a moral issue. As has long been established by the scientific community that theories and scientific laws do not address moral issues. In addition evolution, as said by Darwin himself, is only the observation "random" occurrences and natural instincts. These natural "evolutionary" instincts to not translate into some moral responsibility to reproduce.  Evolution will occur just as it has for the last 3 billion years whether the 3% of the population that is gay procreates or not.        

Secondly, in reference to Milhouse's point the the government doesn't need to enforce monogamy, he is right.  But, I NEVER said that it was a necessity.  Receiving a marriage certificate is not a necessity... for anyone... but it is something that people want as a sign and celebration of their commitment to one another.  This has nothing to do with the government certifying or enforcing monogamy.  This is about two people wanting to be treated equally under the law despite their sexuality.  Why should gay people who vote, are CITIZENS, pay taxes, and have the same jobs as straight people be denied any rights that their other citizens have.  And yes, the courts agree, that marriage is a civil right.

But, alas I am staring to fell better because every statement that Milhouse has made so far is an argument against all marriages, not just gay marriage.

Marriage was started as a religious ceremony, not a government ceremony, to protect the chastity of the woman until marriage and future childbirth.  It became a legal entity to allow for land ownership and inheritance to children.  I don't even believe humans are meant to be monogamous for their entire lives.  Marriage is outdated and no longer necessary to anyone.  Unless perhaps, gay people are waiting until marriage to have intercourse or to deposit the male sperm in the female egg.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Six pages of trolling, soon to be seven.

[King]

Six pages of trolling, soon to be seven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqUipinDyw

[TheGlobalizer]

The Republican Party is so wrong on this issue, I don't even know where to start.

[Badger]

The Republican Party is so wrong on this issue, I don't even know where to start.

Vote Democratic?

[TheGlobalizer]

The Republican Party is so wrong on this issue, I don't even know where to start.

Vote Democratic?

Or support the candidate below?  ;-)

After all, it's not like Obama has exactly been a great friend to the GLBT community.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Republican Party is so wrong on this issue, I don't even know where to start.

Vote Democratic?

Or support the candidate below?  ;-)

After all, it's not like Obama has exactly been a great friend to the GLBT community.

You take what you can get when it comes to the Presidency. If the President were a Republican, the Matthew Shepard Act and DADT repeal would not have been signed into law. Plus in the long term, Obama is going to appoint Supreme Court justices that will be more favorable to an eventual striking down of DOMA and/or legalization of marriage equality.

[CJK]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

[Badger]

Kid, you are so deep in the closet you couldn't find your way out with a flashlight and compass.

[Mopsus]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

You speak as if population growth should be the ultimate priority of a society, above even human happiness. If this is indeed the case, there are more important steps that can be taken than stopping the 'homosexual agenda': legalizing polygamy and marital rape, lowering the marriage age to 13, restricting or eliminating access to birth control and prevention, and forbidding women from receiving an education or working outside the home, just to name a few. Why don't you spend more time talking about these very important issues?

[The Mikado]

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Again, you reinforce my sig.

Darwin and his successors never intended to put that tinge of moralizing into the statement that beings have the desire to pass their genes on, and, in fact, survival of the fittest presupposes that quite a few people are not said fittest and will not pass their genes on.  Survival of the fittest is supposed to be a description, not a moral judgment.  It doesn't make you "right" if you do breed or "wrong" if you don't.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OMG! TEH HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY IS COMING FOR YOU!

[Likely Voter]

OMG! TEH HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY IS COMING FOR YOU!

Yes but it will be very tastefully decorated.
 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I can't believe anyone is still taking this guy seriously.