David Tyree is a moron

[infrared41]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Assuming for a second that your logic isn't utter bull- , I have to ask. Why would anyone "choose" to do something that is going result in, among other things, being discriminated against, possibly being beaten, being called awful names, possibly being ostracized by their family and friends, and finally, being subjected to the kind of idiotic rhetoric we've seen in threads like this one? Maybe you can explain the psychology behind such a "choice" because I gotta be honest here, why anyone would willingly "choose" such a path simply escapes me.

Also, "Pro-Homosexual supporters?"

[Sport]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

IVF isn't "reproduction"? Sperm donors and surrogates aren't "reproduction"?

And as I said, there's the talking point in action.

I think that what he was getting at is that in theory a man and woman can have sex and produce a child. However it is not possible for two men or two women to have sex and produce a child.

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

God, I need to get out of this state.

You haven't proven anything. Just because you've thought about something doesn't mean it's the right answer.

Of all the gay people I know, not one of them chose to be gay. For most, it was an incredibly difficult and arduous journey towards acceptance of themselves. Most aren't the type of people that would choose to be something that ostracizes them from society. That doesn't sound like a choice to me, but you know, I've actually talked to them about it.

I've thought about it logically too and have determined that homosexuality is how some people are made. For me, there's too much evidence both anecdotally and scientifically to believe otherwise. That's my logic.

Didn't we have a massive, similarly prejudiced thread towards the end of last summer as well?

[IceCap]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Assuming for a second that your logic isn't utter bull- , I have to ask. Why would anyone "choose" to do something that is going result in, among other things, being discriminated against, possibly being beaten, being called awful names, possibly being ostracized by their family and friends, and finally, being subjected to the kind of idiotic rhetoric we've seen in threads like this one? Maybe you can explain the psychology behind such a "choice" because I gotta be honest here, why anyone would willingly "choose" such a path simply escapes me.

Also, "Pro-Homosexual supporters?"

You know 'red, the atheists, Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, and assorted brown people that hate America.

Speaking of which, you need to come to the meetings more often.

[rams80]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Assuming for a second that your logic isn't utter bull- , I have to ask. Why would anyone "choose" to do something that is going result in, among other things, being discriminated against, possibly being beaten, being called awful names, possibly being ostracized by their family and friends, and finally, being subjected to the kind of idiotic rhetoric we've seen in threads like this one? Maybe you can explain the psychology behind such a "choice" because I gotta be honest here, why anyone would willingly "choose" such a path simply escapes me.

Also, "Pro-Homosexual supporters?"

You know 'red, the atheists, Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, and assorted brown people that hate America.

Speaking of which, you need to come to the meetings more often.

Don't forget the artists!

[IceCap]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Assuming for a second that your logic isn't utter bull- , I have to ask. Why would anyone "choose" to do something that is going result in, among other things, being discriminated against, possibly being beaten, being called awful names, possibly being ostracized by their family and friends, and finally, being subjected to the kind of idiotic rhetoric we've seen in threads like this one? Maybe you can explain the psychology behind such a "choice" because I gotta be honest here, why anyone would willingly "choose" such a path simply escapes me.

Also, "Pro-Homosexual supporters?"

You know 'red, the atheists, Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, and assorted brown people that hate America.

Speaking of which, you need to come to the meetings more often.

Don't forget the artists!

How could I have forgotten?

[DEAD!]

And besides, who here has ever suggested that all Democrats are always on the right side of every issue? That's silly.

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

you've offered no such "proof."

In fact, you keep talking about "science" and "logic" without any evidence that you're using either. Please show your work.

... are you talking about VISUAL evidence?

No, I'm talking about a coherent argument.

You can't just say "my opinion is logical!" without explanation. Show the steps which led you to arrive at your conclusion.

For example, when I say that marriage is a Constitutional right, and that there is no legitimate reason to deny gay couples their right, I can cite Scalia's own dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where the Justice said the sane thing. Back up your conclusions.

Then again, you made the claim that homosexuality is "not natural" without bothering to explain why then it is found in... Nature.

... oh, uh, I wasn't expecting a SERIOUS response...

.. for the record, I don't care if a person is "born" or "choose" or even "evolve" to be gay. In my opinion, that argument should have no relevance on whether gay marriage is a right or not.

[Viper]

.. for the record, I don't care if a person is "born" or "choose" or even "evolve" to be gay. In my opinion, that argument should have no relevance on whether gay marriage is a right or not.

This.

Even social conservatives don't really care how someone arrives at homosexuality. Their issue is with how homosexuality manifests itself (as same-sex behavior), and how compatible that manifestation is with a healthy society (by their estimation, not at all). By their reasoning, even if someone is born gay, that merely makes it akin to being born, say, a meth addict or a vampire.

My problem with social conservatives here isn't that they're wrong about how gay people get to be gay - the answer to that's not as cut-and-dried as anyone on either side would have us believe. My problem with them is that their argument of gay behavior as this huge burden on civilization is severely overblown.

[Gothamite]

Ah, I don't think they really believe that anyway. It's about controlling behavior that they don't personally like.

And most social conservatives think they don't know any gay people, which makes it much easier to strip them of their civil rights. The more gay people you know, the more you realize that they're just like everyone else, and the harder it is to legislate against them.

[Cosmic]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

IVF isn't "reproduction"? Sperm donors and surrogates aren't "reproduction"?

And as I said, there's the talking point in action.

I think that what he was getting at is that in theory a man and woman can have sex and produce a child. However it is not possible for two men or two women to have sex and produce a child.

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

OK, so now we're defining marriage by the production of children by only the two spouses with no outside help? So this eliminates women or men who are infertile from being married to anyone because it is unlikely or impossible that they will produce children? How about women past menopause? They certainly will not be birthing any more children, so why should they be allowed to marry? Should women past the age of 35 or 40 not be allowed to marry because by that point, the chances of severe birth defects for any future children go way up? Adoptive parents are not beneficial to society?

How about people who enter into a marriage mutually agreeing that they don't want kids? Why should they be allowed to marry? Should we dissolve marriages where the man and woman haven't had sex in five years? Ten years?

One of your arguments was that if everyone were homosexual, the world's population numbers would suffer greatly. The total fertility rate is a statistic that attempts to estimate the average number of children a woman can expect to have over her lifetime. Any less than two and you are not even replacing you and your spouse in the population. A general trend has been seen that as a country industrializes, the total fertility rate drops. In many countries now, it is below two. A smaller youth population will eventually be forced to take care of a large elderly population. Some places have sweetened the incentives for having kids to entice people to have more. Clearly those people should not have been married if they could not even replace themselves!

[Lights Out]

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

Assuming for a second that your logic isn't utter bull- , I have to ask. Why would anyone "choose" to do something that is going result in, among other things, being discriminated against, possibly being beaten, being called awful names, possibly being ostracized by their family and friends, and finally, being subjected to the kind of idiotic rhetoric we've seen in threads like this one? Maybe you can explain the psychology behind such a "choice" because I gotta be honest here, why anyone would willingly "choose" such a path simply escapes me.

Also, "Pro-Homosexual supporters?"

You know 'red, the atheists, Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, and assorted brown people that hate America.

Speaking of which, you need to come to the meetings more often.

Don't forget the artists!

And us "radical," "anti-American" libertarians!

[Gothamite]

OK, so now we're defining marriage by the production of children by only the two spouses with no outside help? So this eliminates women or men who are infertile from being married to anyone because it is unlikely or impossible that they will produce children? How about women past menopause? They certainly will not be birthing any more children, so why should they be allowed to marry? Should women past the age of 35 or 40 not be allowed to marry because by that point, the chances of severe birth defects for any future children go way up? Adoptive parents are not beneficial to society?

such is the twisted logic of the National Organization for Marriage - only biological parents are "real" parents.

[nash61]

Okay, I'm finally going to jump in here.

If you have two gay parents, then would a straight child feel like an outsider because he's "different" in his own home? (much like a gay child with straight parents)

Also, if a child has two fathers, who is going to "be his mother"? Where is he going to get the love, guidance, care, etc, that only a mother can give? Same thing goes the other way with two mothers.

[Sport]

Okay, I'm finally going to jump in here.

If you have two gay parents, then would a straight child feel like an outsider because he's "different" in his own home? (much like a gay child with straight parents)

Also, if a child has two fathers, who is going to "be his mother"? Where is he going to get the love, guidance, care, etc, that only a mother can give? Same thing goes the other way with two mothers.

I know someone with two moms and it was never an issue of feeling like an outsider. He loves his parents just like I love mine. They understand being different and accept him for who he is.

Single parent households also say hi. Men are capable of teaching love guidance and care. Women are capable of being good parents as well. In a lot of cases, gay parents make better parents than "Tommy and Jill" because they had to go through adoption screening whereas all dumbass drunk tommy had to do was prematurely blow inside Jill.

Plenty of people have grown out of two parents of the same sex or single parent households and turned out just fine. You don't need a traditional mom and dad to be a normal member of society.

Actually, most serial killers come from "traditional" households.

[Gothamite]

The same "kids will feel different" arguments were made against mixed-race marriages, and are as silly now as they were then.

The only thing kids really need is a loving home. Be it from one parent, mixed-sex parents or same-sex parents, adoptive parent(s) or birth parent(s), the details are trivial so long as the kids are loved and supported at home.

As if this had anything to do with marriage.

[infrared41]

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

God, I need to get out of this state.

It's embarrassing isn't it? I think McCarthy will agree with me when I say that ESTONES6 does not represent the views and opinions of all Ohioans; just most of them. It's wasn't enough that this guy made us all look like idiots after the Lebron fiasco last year; now he has to weigh in on this?

[Sport]

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

God, I need to get out of this state.

It's embarrassing isn't it? I think McCarthy will agree with me when I say that ESTONES6 does not represent the views and opinions of all Ohioans; just most of them. It's wasn't enough that this guy made us all look like idiots after the Lebron fiasco last year; now he has to weigh in on this?

It is embarrassing. What's weird is that Columbus held their massive Gay-pride parade today. (I thought about going down, but it was raining cats and dogs) I don't know how this city became a safe-haven for the gay community smack-dab in the middle of this historically close-minded state.

I've also heard Cleveland, believe it or not, is pretty gay friendly, though I haven't seen much evidence of that.

[Eye]

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

God, I need to get out of this state.

It's embarrassing isn't it? I think McCarthy will agree with me when I say that ESTONES6 does not represent the views and opinions of all Ohioans; just most of them. It's wasn't enough that this guy made us all look like idiots after the Lebron fiasco last year; now he has to weigh in on this?

It is embarrassing. What's weird is that Columbus held their massive Gay-pride parade today. (I thought about going down, but it was raining cats and dogs) I don't know how this city became a safe-haven for the gay community smack-dab in the middle of this historically close-minded state.

I've also heard Cleveland, believe it or not, is pretty gay friendly, though I haven't seen much evidence of that.

I'd reckon Cleveland would have to be gay friendly, considering they are hosting the 2014 Gay Games.

Marriage should be for everyone, no matter the genders.

[ESTONES6]

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

God, I need to get out of this state.

It's embarrassing isn't it? I think McCarthy will agree with me when I say that ESTONES6 does not represent the views and opinions of all Ohioans; just most of them. It's wasn't enough that this guy made us all look like idiots after the Lebron fiasco last year; now he has to weigh in on this?

As I recall... the only "LeBron fiasco" contribution I made was calling him LeBum once... maybe twice. I was actually one of the few Clevelanders who said his departure really doesn't affect my life. I also was one of the few Clevelanders who also said that sure people will be bitter, but at what point do you brush yourself off and get on with life?

[Rockstar Matt]

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

What are your reasonings? Are they religious? For ages now, people get married who aren't following a religion that says a marriage is only between a man and women. I mean, marriage used to be strictly a religious ceremony, but now it's not. So, who are to tell two people who love each other that they can't be married because they both happen to be of the same gender? It's the same ludicrous thinking that decades ago, a black man and a white women couldn't get married. Again, who are we to stay they can't be married because is makes us feel uncomfortable. It's incredibly messed up.

[Drakonius26]

I cannot honestly believe we have over 7 pages dedicated to this stupid subject, because some dumb-ass athlete, who caught a couple of passes in the Super Bowl voiced his opinions about the GLBT community.

I always find it amusing how people will voice their opinion about how his opinion is wrong and shouldn't be acknowledged, and the kind of slippery slope that is between freedom of speech and a fascist society that claims to embrace diversity, yet if you disagree with me it's off to the theoretical showers with you.

David Tyree is a black man who doesn't like that part of society, and there are others who share his opinion, as well as there are other people who don't share his opinion... get used to it. Personally, I don't give a what you do in the bedroom, I just don't have to slam another persons opinions to try and feel better about myself.