Obviously we disagree that it's only a matter of semantics.
No, because you limited the entire argument by giving your set-in-stone definition of marriage when that definition is already invalid in a few states. For the sake of the discussion, can you be objective and take into account that marriage isn't what it was a decade ago? I understand how you feel, but things have changed.
True. There will be a limited amount of data.
Then why make such a claim based on a limited amount of data? I'm confused.
If we can't agree on the basics of what defines natural then there is really no point in a conversation. Biologically speaking, homosexual activity is unnatural. When you have an example of gay sex producing viable offspring let me know.
On the contrary, I think that's the entire point of this conversation. That is, unless you're incapable of debating with people who oppose your ideals (which would be tragic on a public forum).
Are we talking about homosexual activity here? Because in this specific part of my post, I was talking about marriage. You seem to think a legal and/or religious ceremony is natural, when it is clearly man-made. Animals have been studied engaging in both multiple partners and homosexual activity, and animals tend to exhibit natural behavior far more than us pesky humans. Animals have also proven that marriage isn't an essential building block is procreation.
As I said earlier, you are making marriage into a far bigger deal than it should be, much like the government.
The failures within natural marriage aren't a justification for homosexual marriage. The argument doesn't follow.
It's like saying, "don't support slavery, don't own one."
The validation of a behavior (that you don't agree with) isn't a justification to prevent it either, Roust.
Sure, it's absurd to think that sodomy isn't an issue. ?? Really?
You challenged me on stats. I'd sure like to see you define 'common' and find something to support that anal sex is 'common,' although nothing would surprise me. Still, even if every natural marriage were engaged in such, it wouldn't change the argument. It would still be dangerous and unnatural. But, then if you take any ethical stand on sexual behavior you are evil and a hate monger.
Quick side note before I continue:
You've put words in my mouth about 4 times in this post, and I'm already seeing the 5th occurrence. Are you here to debate or are you here to spill out grandstand posts that are too long for anyone to put forth the time to comprehend? You can either discuss the things I post, or you can just walk away. I won't waste my time debating someone who is fabricating notions on my side (that are easy to criticize, I might add... this is almost flattering).
I didn't say sodomy wasn't an issue. I stated that it isn't the go-to form of sexual intercourse between homosexual couples as you seemed to imply (hence you labeling it as 'gay sex,' which is absurd). I've not once stated that you are a hate monger, so please try and stay on track and be mature about this. Fact remains, you implied that sodomy was common among gay couples when it is not. I didn't challenge you on stats earlier. I said it there was limited data to support your claim, to which (oddly enough) you agreed.
This isn't just some half cocked opinion. Over the years I've read a great deal of propaganda from the LGBT community. And it is most certainly to demonize anyone or any group that takes an ethical position on this lifestyle and to attempt to normalize their behaviors among the population. Your comments only confirm that it's working.
It's funny, because I've read my fair share of propaganda from the Christian and Islamic communities demonizing the entire lifestyle,
and it hasn't been spewed by anyone else. It's funny though, because I don't think that all Christians and Muslims feel that way. It's this ***** little concept of having an open mind.
So, in addition to putting words in my mouth, you call me a victim of propaganda for having a different opinion than you? Dude, I'm saying this with at least a modicum of respect, stop being a dick. You're basically calling me mindless, an intellectual husk, or otherwise stupid. I've already typed out this whole post, so I'll go ahead and finish it, but I'm done discussing this with you. Again, you're being a dick.
So? I can simply say the inverse regarding your comments.
No, because all heterosexual couples have always had access to those benefits. It doesn't fit.
Why don't you check out their literature, platform and agenda over the past 20 years.
I prefer my opinions to be organic and taken from the general from-the-horse's-mouth perspective. Propaganda usually has the loudest voice and most exposure, and I'm not going to fall victim to it. It's funny you've accused me of such, now that I've read your last tidbit.
