[BillyB]

Now, do you want to take a shot at my question regarding polygamous marriage among consenting adults? What logical basis is there for denying polygamists the right to marry if you extend that right to gay couples?

If you see no difference between homosexuality and polygamy, perhaps there would be no reason not to legitimize polygamy. To me, there is a difference. Foremost, polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you see no difference between homosexuality and polygamy, perhaps there would be no reason not to legitimize polygamy. To me, there is a difference. Foremost, polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not.

Any fool can distinguish between homosexuality and polygamy, and as I have said repeatedly, I do not favor legalizing either polygamous or gay marriage. However, it is totally illogical to support the legalization of one and oppose the other on the basis that marriage is a basic "human right" that should not be limited to a man and a woman.

Perhaps at some future point in history, science will support your opinion that homosexuality is not a choice - but the jury is still out on that question. Even if some people are born with a gene that causes a proclivity toward homosexuality, it is obviously true that for many it is simply a lifestyle choice.

I believe that people have the basic right to enter into homosexual or polygamous relationships but I do not believe that they have the right to have the federal government institutionalize those relationships and redefine the legal definition of marriage.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yet you refuse to say what education you have? Thats a nice way to dodge a question.

My apologies, sir. I thought that your question about my education was rhetorical and an insulting one at that. Please allow me to answer your question in the spirit in which it was asked.

[INDENT]

Keep wearing your rose-colored glasses, but your "education" (do you have any?) is not shining through, and you seem to be an old traditionalist.

Yes, I have some education.[/INDENT]

Also, those countries are third-world and usually have corrupt governments.

That was MY point. People are starving in some parts of the world, not from overcrowding but from corrupt governments. There is a pretty strong correlation between political corruption and starvation. There is no such correlation between population density and starvation. Some of the most densely populated countries in the world are among the best fed and prosperous.

Yet, whether you like it or not, you should know gay marriage will eventually be passed in America.

Whether gay marriage becomes the law of the land or not will not make it right. So, what is your point?

http://www.bhookh.com/****er_facts.php

Theres the link to the site, which is from google and not some "left wing group." However, this shows that you are narrow minded. Even before providing the link, you go in to reading it with the thought that its a bogus website, with propaganda that you dont want to hear. You cant possibly get over the fact that 7000 Indians die per day from huinger, and there's not enough food in the world to feed them. Youre a Republican though, so I guess you probably think its ok.

From the FAQs for the website to which you linked (did you do any reading yourself?):

[INDENT]

02.Isn't ****er just a question of distribution?
No. Almost every location on earth can produce enough food for its population. Even India is self-sufficient in food production. In fact, government warehouses are over- flowing with unbought subsidised food. The challenge is that people cannot earn enough to buy the food that is available or the food gets destroyed before it is bought due to poor storage facilities.

[/INDENT]

Ignorance in world history? How so? You keep sending personal attacks yet when I ask about them you cant back up your reasoning, or "logic."

Very few of your posts are devoid of childish insults and you should not be surprised when people respond in kind. You attempted to change the discussion toward global over population for some reason and you did not even take time to read your own questionable source on the subject.

If you want to be treated with some respect here, then start debating like a big boy and stop labeling people racists, bigots, and homophobes simply because they do not share your opinion.

[Hoot Gibson]

The problem I have with polygamy is that it is deemed a religious practice by its procurers when in all actuality it is a cover for child sexual abuse and a haven for dirty old men.

The only time that polygamy draws media attention is when there are allegations of child abuse or child-brides involved. I have learned not to believe everything that I see on TV and not to allow myself to form prejudices based on what the media chooses to cover.

If you are from Kentucky, think of the negative images that the rest of the country usually get from national media coverage, particularly of eastern Kentucky.

I had a good friend from Mumbai (formerly Bombay) who worked in this country for six or seven years before returning home. Before he left, he emailed me a slide show of Bombay. Parts of the city are as beautiful and prosperous as any American city, but have you ever seen that side of the city portrayed in our media reports of India? About half of the programmers with whom I work are Indians and most of them will voluntarily return to India after working here for several years. Some of India's poor people are very poor and some of them are starving - but Americans really never get any balanced reporting of India.

What I am saying is that I suspect that most polygamists lead a fairly normal life other than supporting multiple spouses because I know how unfairly other religious groups and cultures get covered by our media.

[Shady Grady]

One thing is for sure. In the beginning, God created a man and a woman and their job was to produce offspring. He didn't put two men or two women in the garden. And for sure they can't produce offspring. Furthermore, he said that a man should forsake all others and cleave to the wife. Likewise for the wife to cleave unto the husband. Try as you may to make it fit an evil lifestyle, it is what it is. There is not one instance in the bible where same sex relations were approved by God. You can argue all you want that God is a loving God and that all he wants is for there to be love in the world. He is also a vengeful God that will destroy those who disobey his Word. If you don't believe that, then one day, my friend, you will. Because there is coming a day when everyone who has ever lived and will ever live will face Him.

[ukyfootball]

My apologies, sir. I thought that your question about my education was rhetorical and an insulting one at that. Please allow me to answer your question in the spirit in which it was asked.

[INDENT]Yes, I have some education.[/INDENT]


That was MY point. People are starving in some parts of the world, not from overcrowding but from corrupt governments. There is a pretty strong correlation between political corruption and starvation. There is no such correlation between population density and starvation. Some of the most densely populated countries in the world are among the best fed and prosperous.

Whether gay marriage becomes the law of the land or not will not make it right. So, what is your point?

From the FAQs for the website to which you linked (did you do any reading yourself?):

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Very few of your posts are devoid of childish insults and you should not be surprised when people respond in kind. You attempted to change the discussion toward global over population for some reason and you did not even take time to read your own questionable source on the subject.

If you want to be treated with some respect here, then start debating like a big boy and stop labeling people racists, bigots, and homophobes simply because they do not share your opinion.

I love your vague posts. "I have some education" could mean you dropped out of school in the 4th grade. Nice attempt around the question though.

So because I have childish insults that means I dont know about world history? Once again, nice "logic." (2 can play this game)

And since its apparent that the malnutrition problem deals with people not making enough money, that leads to 2 scenarios or ideals: 1). we truly are over-populated (as previously mentioned), or 2). theres a huge inbalance of wealth, which should be balanced through taxes.

[ukyfootball]

One thing is for sure. In the beginning, God created a man and a woman and their job was to produce offspring. He didn't put two men or two women in the garden. And for sure they can't produce offspring. Furthermore, he said that a man should forsake all others and cleave to the wife. Likewise for the wife to cleave unto the husband. Try as you may to make it fit an evil lifestyle, it is what it is. There is not one instance in the bible where same sex relations were approved by God. You can argue all you want that God is a loving God and that all he wants is for there to be love in the world. He is also a vengeful God that will destroy those who disobey his Word. If you don't believe that, then one day, my friend, you will. Because there is coming a day when everyone who has ever lived and will ever live will face Him.

Thanks for preaching about the Bible, but is there any other proof out there that He created Adam and Eve? I'm my own form of Christian, but come on, lets look at something thats objective.

[Shady Grady]

Thanks for preaching about the Bible, but is there any other proof out there that He created Adam and Eve? I'm my own form of Christian, but come on, lets look at something thats objective.

Well, you could trace the lineage all the way back to two people if you want. But if that is not enough, you will someday get all the proof you need. One thing is for sure. If he had created two men or two women, the human race would have ended right there. I have yet to see one woman get another woman pregnant or one man get another man pregnant. The fact that it takes a man and a woman to create an offspring should be all the proof anyone should need. I don't care how you spin it, the fact remains that it takes a male and a female. Can you provide any proof to the contrary?

[Shady Grady]

Thanks for preaching about the Bible, but is there any other proof out there that He created Adam and Eve? I'm my own form of Christian, but come on, lets look at something thats objective.

Oh, yeah, that is an oxymoron. To be a Christian means to believe in Christ. To doubt what he says as proof kinda takes the Christ out of Christian. That leaves "ian". That stands for "I am nothing" when Christ is taken out of the picture.

[ukyfootball]

Well, you could trace the lineage all the way back to two people if you want. But if that is not enough, you will someday get all the proof you need. One thing is for sure. If he had created two men or two women, the human race would have ended right there. I have yet to see one woman get another woman pregnant or one man get another man pregnant. The fact that it takes a man and a woman to create an offspring should be all the proof anyone should need. I don't care how you spin it, the fact remains that it takes a male and a female. Can you provide any proof to the contrary?

Or we could have evolved, or God could have created 20 men and 20 women. The truth is, we both arent really sure what happened. God may very well have created Adam and Eve, but nobody truly knows for sure.

[Hoot Gibson]

I love your vague posts. "I have some education" could mean you dropped out of school in the 4th grade. Nice attempt around the question though.

So because I have childish insults that means I dont know about world history? Once again, nice "logic." (2 can play this game)

And since its apparent that the malnutrition problem deals with people not making enough money, that leads to 2 scenarios or ideals: 1). we truly are over-populated (as previously mentioned), or 2). theres a huge inbalance of wealth, which should be balanced through taxes.

You asked if I had "any education," and then complained that my answer was vague. Maybe your problem with my answer stems from your intent to insult rather than obtain information with your condescending question. FYI, I have an engineering degree and currently work as a senior software architect for the US Army. In what field did you earn a degree and what is your current profession?

So, your answer to starvation is higher tax rates. Wow..how long did it take you to come up with that solution? People have starved since mankind arrived on the planet (ever hear of the Roanoke Colony?). There were ****ry people and there were starving children when thejworld's population was less than 10 percent of what it is now. It would be difficult to crowd more people into Singapore and yet nobody there is starving. Obviously, the widespread liberal notion that there are too many people on the planet cannot be supported by facts.

Liberals' answer to societal problems is always more government. Taxes rob a society of its wealth. Impose a higher tax rate on an already impoverished nation and you will get more poverty and more ****er - not less. Maybe you are one of those liberals who believe that we need a global government with a global income tax so that the entire world can be made equally miserable.

Face it, you are a liberal you are just in denial. Don't worry. As most people gain wisdom with age, they become more conservative, so there is hope for you. As for me, I have always been fairly conservative and had a good understanding of how our economy works. My first job was as a UMWA coal miner while I was still in college

[Shady Grady]

Or we could have evolved, or God could have created 20 men and 20 women. The truth is, we both arent really sure what happened. God may very well have created Adam and Eve, but nobody truly knows for sure.

There is one question I have about evolution. If mankind evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? It seems to me that when the evolution was complete, the apes would all be humans.

[Aslan]

There were 3 sources there, numbsh!t.

Lol. I saw Wiki in the link and was to lazy click it. Calm down Billy Madison!

One thing is for sure. In the beginning, God created a man and a woman and their job was to produce offspring. He didn't put two men or two women in the garden. And for sure they can't produce offspring. Furthermore, he said that a man should forsake all others and cleave to the wife. Likewise for the wife to cleave unto the husband. Try as you may to make it fit an evil lifestyle, it is what it is. There is not one instance in the bible where same sex relations were approved by God. You can argue all you want that God is a loving God and that all he wants is for there to be love in the world. He is also a vengeful God that will destroy those who disobey his Word. If you don't believe that, then one day, my friend, you will. Because there is coming a day when everyone who has ever lived and will ever live will face Him.

:Thumbs:

There is one question I have about evolution. If mankind evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? It seems to me that when the evolution was complete, the apes would all be humans.

Ah, the theory of evolution has tons of holes in it. Some scientists are switching there view of creation to Intelligent Design. Evolution is still the most popular theory though. I personally believe God created and designed everything. Maybe evolution did happen with God guiding the process.

[Matman]

There is one question I have about evolution. If mankind evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? It seems to me that when the evolution was complete, the apes would all be humans.

I think you need to go back and look closer at the theory of evolution.

[BillyB]

it is obviously true that for many it is simply a lifestyle choice.

Where's the proof for this statement?

[Hoot Gibson]

Where's the proof for this statement?

Where was the proof for your statement? You made no attempt to support your unfounded claim that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

As for proof that (at the very least) some people who engage in homosexual acts do so by choice, Exhibit A is the thousands of bisexuals in this world. If they were born with the phantom "gay gene," then how do they function as part time heterosexuals? Then there are the many, many cases of people who have claimed to have given up their former homosexual relationships to live heterosexual lifestyles. Then there are those poor souls who married and fathered children, only to abandon them later to pursue relationships with their own sex. Those people made a choice.

Now, what proof do you have that every single person who claims to be a homosexual was "born that way?"

I suspect that some people are born with a tendency that steers them toward homosexual behavior but people who insist that people's sexuality is determined with certainty at birth are just lying to themselves.

[Shady Grady]

The reason people partake in that abnormal lifestyle is because evil has always and will always be on this earth. I believe the term "reprobate" is used many times in the Bible. I guess if I decide to go rob a bank, then I was born that way. At some point in time, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. But, I guess that's the way society is now. Always someone else's fault. "I was born that way." Believe it or not, there are things that are against God's will. Based on the theory that people are born that way, then there is no wrong in the world. There will be no one in ****, because people just lived and acted in the way that God made them. It's not their fault, it's God's. Homosexuality is wrong, always has been and always will be. And people wonder why this country is in such a mess. Go back and study history. Nations that have turned their back on God have been struck down. This nation prospered for so long because we didn't allow such things to happen. The more liberal this country gets, the more evil it gets, the more we go downhill.

[OrangenowBlue]

Ignorance and stupidity is running rampant on this thread.

[BillyB]

Ignorance and stupidity is running rampant on this thread.

Amen.

[Hoot Gibson]

It seems that there are a few people posting about gay marriage who are all hat and no cattle. Where is your evidence that all gay people are "born that way," BillyB? It is much easier to make exaggerated politically correct claims than to support those claims, n'est pas? :biggrin:

[thecavemaster]

According to Christian myth, "god" makes the sun to shine on the good and evil, the rain to fall on just and unjust. This general grace of "god" does not distinguish between the gardens of Billy Graham or Hitler. The Bill of Rights is just such a "general grace" document; thus, "equal protection" should extend to gay couples, not because "god" deems it right, but because general freedoms and equalities are the "sun" and "rain" of the document. To recognize homosexuals right to marry is not a matter of endorsing anything or changing anything. It is a general principle argument supported by the green beans grown by Hitler and Graham.

[Hoot Gibson]

According to Christian myth, "god" makes the sun to shine on the good and evil, the rain to fall on just and unjust. This general grace of "god" does not distinguish between the gardens of Billy Graham or Hitler. The Bill of Rights is just such a "general grace" document; thus, "equal protection" should extend to gay couples, not because "god" deems it right, but because general freedoms and equalities are the "sun" and "rain" of the document. To recognize homosexuals right to marry is not a matter of endorsing anything or changing anything. It is a general principle argument supported by the green beans grown by Hitler and Graham.

Which of the 10 amendments to the US Constitution that constitute the Bill of Rights grant a right to a government sanctioned marriage to gay couples? Be specific please.

(If this is just a case of you making a claim that you cannot support with facts, then a simple acknowledgement will suffice.)

[thecavemaster]

Which of the 10 amendments to the US Constitution that constitute the Bill of Rights grant a right to a government sanctioned marriage to gay couples? Be specific please.

(If this is just a case of you making a claim that you cannot support with facts, then a simple acknowledgement will suffice.)

Equal protection under the law will eventually guarantee in Puritan scarred America the right of homosexuals to the protections that marriage gives in law. You really think I don't know where that is? Right? Or are we dancing to your game playing music?

[thecavemaster]

Your way of debating, Hoot, is that if the 14th Amendment, even though it is an extension of the original 10, aiming at the same goals, actually extending the obligation of rights with federal power upon the states... that's your play to make yourself feel good? holier than thou? Pathetic.

[Hoot Gibson]

Equal protection under the law will eventually guarantee in Puritan scarred America the right of homosexuals to the protections that marriage gives in law. You really think I don't know where that is? Right? Or are we dancing to your game playing music?

Answer the question. Which of the Bill of Rights give gay couples the right to a government sanctioned marriage? Here is a hint. The Bill of Rights are Amendments 1 through 10 to the US Constitution. You made the statement, now back it up.

Your strategy of typing first and thinking later is not working out so well.

[Hoot Gibson]

Your way of debating, Hoot, is that if the 14th Amendment, even though it is an extension of the original 10, aiming at the same goals, actually extending the obligation of rights with federal power upon the states... that's your play to make yourself feel good? holier than thou? Pathetic.

Another post, another dodge. Which of the Bill of Rights grant gay couples the right to a government recognized marriage? The phrase "Bill of Rights" has a very specific definition. What is pathetic is your pattern of making ignorant, false statements and then refusing to admit your mistakes. Man up and take some responsibility for your own mistakes for a change.

[thecavemaster]

Another post, another dodge. Which of the Bill of Rights grant gay couples the right to a government recognized marriage? The phrase "Bill of Rights" has a very specific definition. What is pathetic is your pattern of making ignorant, false statements and then refusing to admit your mistakes. Man up and take some responsibility for your own mistakes for a change.

Equal Protection Clause, Hoot. Why are homosexuals desiring to marry not granted the benefits of that union under the law? not recognized? The 14th Amendment has very specific language. Why is it permissable to deny Park 51, when if it was a Jewish or Christian organization it would be accepted? Bloomberg's speech favoring Park 51 is masterful and poignant and on point. He's the mayor of New York City... the closer you get to Ground Zero, the less problem the residents have with Park 51... but out in Topeka, Kansas, well that's another matter....

[Hoot Gibson]

Equal Protection Clause, Hoot. Why are homosexuals desiring to marry not granted the benefits of that union under the law? not recognized? The 14th Amendment has very specific language. Why is it permissable to deny Park 51, when if it was a Jewish or Christian organization it would be accepted? Bloomberg's speech favoring Park 51 is masterful and poignant and on point. He's the mayor of New York City... the closer you get to Ground Zero, the less problem the residents have with Park 51... but out in Topeka, Kansas, well that's another matter....

Wrong. The 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Why not just admit your mistake instead of continuing to pretend that the 14th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights?

I believe that you are confused again. This thread is about Judge Walker's decision regarding gay marriage. It has nothing to do with radical Muslims wanting to build a victory mosque two blocks from the former location of the World Trade Center, which they destroyed. Focus, man - focus. :biggrin:

[ukyfootball]

There is one question I have about evolution. If mankind evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? It seems to me that when the evolution was complete, the apes would all be humans.

If we have computers, then why do we have type writers? Everything on earth serves some purpose.

[ukyfootball]

Another post, another dodge. Which of the Bill of Rights grant gay couples the right to a government recognized marriage? The phrase "Bill of Rights" has a very specific definition. What is pathetic is your pattern of making ignorant, false statements and then refusing to admit your mistakes. Man up and take some responsibility for your own mistakes for a change.

What amendment in the Bill of Rights grants heterosexuals to a government recognized marriage?