Homosexual Penguins

[A Black Falcon]

Our argument that homosexuality is fundamentally different from heterosexuality doesn't seem to matter. Why should yours?

You don't have any good reasons why homosexuality is fundamentally different.

Because they don't fit the rules. Tough shit. There are a lot of people who can claim the same thing. It doesn't mean we should change the rules to suit them.

Besides, with the liberal assault on Christianity in America, I beg to differ considerably. How liberals feel that any sight of God or Christ in any public place is violating some questionable church-and-state statute, and is inherently offensive to anyone who doesn't follow Christ's teachings.

We're told that if we don't like legal gay marriage to ignore it. Why can't people do the same for Christ? No, instead you mobilize the ACLU and whitewash every trace dry. For the sake of not offending someone. Yet, you are perfectly okay with offending a lot of people by further trashing what was once the most sacred bond human beings could share... before you first got your hands on it.

The ACLU is nonpartisan. And I don't tell you to stop believing what you believe... or to not go to church... that's what you are doing with homosexuals...

The early volunteering was much more a matter of state (or they would consider, national) pride. There were very few confederate soldiers who gave a damn outside of society what happened with the slaves.

You don't seem to know your history very well... I guess you missed the movie "Gangs of New York"?

No. Life isn't fair. What's right is more important than what's fair.

What's right usually is what's fair. Fair is the goal. It's probably impossible to reach, but we should try as hard as we can to get there.

If it makes them happy, it's discrimination to disallow it! Your logic at work!

You are ignoring what I am saying. It is unfair for the wives in a polygamous relationship. Marriage is an equal partnership and two or more women is inequality. There is nothing like that for homosexuality.

I disagree. At best, it would just make the problem numerically larger. At worst, it would excaberate it.

It would make it smaller or stay the same. Sure, divorces would rise, but that's just because now it doesn't take a divorce for a homosexual couple to seperate... the fact that it would would probably keep more of them together. So the overall rate would fall even if the numbers rise some.

No, I beleive your exact words were: "Makes arguements that it's anything other than natural sound even more absurd than they already do."

That sounds like you thought you found a bit of proof.

And those words are still absolutely correct.

Medically, things are better now. Socially, things are far, far worse.

Forced submission to societal expectations when that is not your best course in a better world is not good. That is what you advocate and it is wrong.

You're deluded if you think homosexuality is a zero-choice behavior. There is no such thing.

Oh, you can choose to ignore it, as I said, but the feeling, if you look, is unchangable. If you're homosexual there isn't anything you can do about it.

How? Explain yourself.

Too stupid for words... public exposure versus homosexuality? They have almost nothing in common.

Give me a reason why this would be wrong ? After all are only crime is being different.

One, nonexistant things aren't people. Two, we'll have to deal with that in the future.