Comments on: King: Same-sex marriage a ‘socialist concept’

By: onanov

onanov — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:55:37 +0000

Ask your priest :-) He might know more than me.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:47:38 +0000

Can't bring yourself to discuss the natural outcomes of promiscuous sex? Too bad.

By: onanov

onanov — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:23:55 +0000

And aside from this your opposition to same sex marriage would indicate that you aren't really a supporter of monogamy after all. Right? Does it actually give you comfort to know that two persons of the same sex would actually be sexually faithful to each other? Just to remind you, this is you, isn't it?

http://www.daylife.com/photo/04wo98P7TI36o

By: onanov

onanov — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:16:44 +0000

The problem is, Peggy, that your goal to get government involved in the decisions of individual Americans is a very slippery slope. Aside from that, it's counterproductive–where your way is taught–my home states of Georgia and Alabama, for instance (places where abstinence education rules the day) unplanned pregnancies, divorce, std rates, HIV, etc., are rising rapidly and in fact out of control. Places that don't adopt these policies (like Massachusetts, for instance and to a lesser extent here in Iowa) have either steady or declining rates for all these. Religiosity just keeps people fat, dumb, diseased and pregnant. Perhaps this is Steve King's natural constituency–there are more politicians down there like him than there are up here.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:04:38 +0000

You're wrong again. If the state (taxpayers) is footing the bill for people's behavioral consequences, or telling them how to live to avoid such consequences, then everything is on the table, including homosexuality. No religion involved...that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Oh, and the difference between you and an ape is that you have free will and reasoning. You can deduce that your actions may cause you trouble down the road and choose not to take your pants off.

Gotta' run.

By: onanov

onanov — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:53:25 +0000

Sorry, but I know that religion drives your politics–not nature; and you don't get to dictate what we talk about anyway. If we were talking about nature, we'd be talking about the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature outside of primates. As far as the “pros and cons” of promiscuity that's only a debate you can have with yourself and your religion. That ideal concept of monogamous marriage, for better or worse, isn't one that's been around all that long if you go back and study the history of marriages anyway.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:42:02 +0000

I don't want to talk about religion. Let's stick to nature.

List the pros and cons of sex within the confines of heterosexual marriage, and then the pros and cons of promiscuity, gay or straight.

By: onanov

onanov — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:55:37 +0000

Ask your priest :-) He might know more than me.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:47:38 +0000

Can't bring yourself to discuss the natural outcomes of promiscuous sex? Too bad.

By: onanov

onanov — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:23:55 +0000