I hope you have a good answer ready for why you eat shrimp, or at least don't think it's immoral to.

The answer is readily available via a simply web search.

Here is one example for starters:

http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-eating-shrimps-is-not-like-homosexuality/

bman->"they can privately enter a gay relationship without interference from society."

KAK1958-> Not sure what "privately" enter means...like no-one else would know about it? When I think privately entering into relationships, I think illicit affairs.

I noted before that a private relationship is one not formally recognized by government.

That does not exhaust the meaning of "private" though.

While a gay sexual relationship is no longer illegal, its still immoral.

If gays openly declare their relationship they defy public morality and invite open moral rebuke and public rejection.

In effect, they contribute to the rejection gay teens perceive coming from society, as well.

An open and notorious gay sexual relationship or gay marriage displays a determined disrespect for social and religious morality that gay pride marches represent.

Public pride about immoral behavior should not be viewed as something to celebrate.

When exactly did Dan Savage "issue [a] debate challenge"?

Knowing Brian, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he showed up at a gay bar in the Castro with no moderator, podium security, or ground rules

I know who my money is on in any case

Quick! Pass it on to Mr. Savage!

I am sure he will fasten onto it like white on rice

Quick! Pass it on to Mr. Savage!

I am sure he will fasten onto it like a chicken on a June bug

I mean why say "you name the time and the place" if you would back out if the time and place are not what you wish?

KAK1958->Not sure what "privately" enter means...

I was thinking mainly of the Lawrence case there.

It said, " The present case does not involve... whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

A private relationship is one not formally recognized by government.

Since gays have that option they are not compelled to enter the "fake it" scenario you described, which was merely a false dilemma.

Not sure what "privately" enter means...like no-one else would know about it? When I think privately entering into relationships, I think illicit affairs.

There is nothing more gay couples would like than to not have interference from society. Just give them the same rights as married couples since they're already living like married couples anyway.

You act like it some modern-day, liberal Hollywood conspiracy.

There is no such thing as a "Gay." These miscreants know that they have no credibility as they are, so they refeer to themselves as if they were something else.

The "Gay" is equivelant to the mythical Unicorn. These tyrants have spun a fairy tale designed to paint a favorable picture of thier proclivity. These are true Hollywood and Wallstreet villians seeking to cultivate willing victims.

KAK1958->So, do yawl just want gay people to "fake it" and get married to someone of the opposite sex so that the appearances meet your expectations? I mean, sure, they could do that, but then marriage becomes even more of a sham than it already is.

You pose a false dilemma since there are other options to gays besides that one.

They can also choose to not marry or they can privately enter a gay relationship without interference from society.

KAK1958->bman - isn't adultery a sin?

It is sin.

>> Of course not. Why fake it? Either get married, or don't. But if you mean to suggest that we ought to call every kind of cohabiting sexual hookup a marriage, then let me assure you with one hundred per cent certainty: your neighbors will never go along with that.

See NC next Tuesday for details.

In this culture, we don't believe in arranged marriages. There is supposed to be some attraction, some connection, some feeling between the two parties beside the money exchanged between two families. A forced fit marriage is probably doomed.

Steve->Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer....have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?"

The fundamental right to have monogamous bride-groom marriage sanctioned by society does not imply a fundamental right to have other types of relationships sanctioned by society.

Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed

Possibly its because society views a commitment to sin [gay sex] as worse than a failed commitment to righteousness [marital fidelity] .

Furthermore, Its not the public purpose of society for couples to divorce. And, when society approves the re-marriage of such persons its not endorsing "disposable marriage" as you suggest, but its giving the person another chance to get it right this time around.

This will be epic

Looks like he's accepted your offer. This should be interesting.

http://bit.ly/JIL8hX

(Link shortened to remove profanity, which is also present in Savage's post.)

(speaking to a group of women, many of them mothers)
"Elder Andersen said that although it is a privilege to live during great days of destiny, individuals must be armed with righteousness and the power of God as they fight in the spiritual war that is raging for the souls of men and women.

'We recognize the enemy and understand his plan,' Elder Andersen said. 'The pride of the world seeks to destroy faith by casting doubt on the existence of God or, if not His existence, His personal care and concern for His children.'

These tactics of the adversary aren't new and have been around since ancient times, he said. It is through being armed in righteousness that individuals are able to withstand and feel the power and promises of their Heavenly Father.

'The spiritual battle rages because those who have chosen wickedness, darkness and self-conceit are never happy to go their way alone,' he said. 'They form unholy alliances with what Paul calls the principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness in high places, determined to take others with them' (see Ephesians 6:12).

Those tactics are especially strong for the youth, he added.

'While wanting us all, they especially pursue the young, the unsure, the undisciplined, and the weak, hoping to destroy any hope of Christ in the fragile and vulnerable,' he said. 'You know all of this. You are on the battlefield, right in the crossfire. The conflict will not diminish but intensify in the years ahead. How will we—how will you—withstand the attack?'

It is through putting on the whole armor of God—as described by Paul in the New Testament (see Ephesians 6)—that individuals are able to withstand the attacks.

'As you arm yourself for battle, your protection comes from God who is our Father,' he said. 'You have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and you take His name upon [you]. You are commissioned as a disciple of Christ, as defenders of the faith."

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62292/BYU-Womens-Conference-Armed-with-righteousness.html

Marriage is, of course, exactly the union of the two genders in a stable relationship from which children commonly result and within which union they are best nurtured.

It is true that in a democracy, it is occasionally possible for Alinskyite lunacy to advance to the stage where we can vote on the issue.

But since you will lose every time there also, I conclude that there must be some deeper agenda driving the haters we see in the various TFP incidents.......

And so there is.

The deeper motivation- and as your political defeat becomes more and more obvious this becomes even much more clear- this deeper motivation is a profound, vicious, implacable hatred of the Christian faith.

Of course, attacking a religion is actually an expression of religious freedom (the alternative is being required to practice a certain religion), so y'all are telling the literal opposite of the truth. Again.

NOM, YOU pick on somebody your own size. Or, better yet, don't pick on anybody at all. Just go away.

As for Newt. It has nothing to do with same sex unions. But yes, he is basically an unfaithful polygamist (multiple marriages). He is unfaithful to his women and his children by leaving them, rather than keeping them. But you do know that our country has laws, and in the USA, marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

So your point is that nobody has the right to point out how wrong your side is because of how wrong somebody else is

What are you 5?

@ Mantronikk, great work! Thanks. Excuse me for not being as eloquent in the following.

He insults me, my country, my family and the growing young adults and children of my community. What makes it outrageous is that he is encouraged to do exactly just that by the US government and its psychological warfare on its own people. I challenge he that gives Dan such authority. Be it high school or university leader, government official or party leader. If Obama accepts 'educating' our citizens this way, than I challenge Obama to a duel. Sword, gun, knife or bat (dishonorable drone hits and computer hacking excluded). To first blood, or first dead. Extremes of national degradation and perversion, call for extremes of national dignity and honor. If there are any legal codes restraining such a duel, I'm sure we can easily pass through the courts some law changes. At the rate our culture's moral norms are changing, it should not be hard to legalize a fight to the death in our land of liberty.

As for little Danny boy. I will have to address him in his own language (so some might not want to read on): “Danny's gay! Danny's gay! Ha. ha. Danny's gay! Ha. ha. Dan likes men. You're a homo Dan. Danny's afraid of girls! Danny's a sissy. A pussycat. Ha. ha. queer, queer Dan.” Or as the President of Italy said, after being found in dishonorable relations with some women: “well, at least I'm not gay!” And for that fact he smiled with great comfort, pride and satisfaction. Welcome to your world Danny fag. Maybe we'll build you an outhouse on Mars. Don't anyone feel offended or outraged by such disrespectful, unacceptable and not-funny remarks. Its only me and Dan in a friendly chat. We understand each other. We only say things for effect, not for content. Thanks for the education my nation. Lesson well learned.

This is unacceptable on so many levels. how are these miscreants being allowed to coopt the language used in this debate without beeing challenged by a single individual in academia. This is Orwellian Newspeak on steroids.

These folks are not only being permitted to challege the laws of nature, but they ar being afforded the right to refear to their proclivity as being anything other than what it is; a decadent and peverted lifestyle.

Here we are in an educational environment and this miscreant is referring to himself as Gay, his proclivity as Homosexuality, and his community as "Gay People" and he left unchallenged by the adults in the room who where intrusted with the previledge of educating other peoples children.

This is blatant state sponsored indoctrination.

"If you cause one of Mine to sin, it would be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and you dropped in the middle of the ocean."

Savage could have easily addressed the bible, as well as ALL religons, in an educational and non-offensive manner. That way, more would be on his side.

You should be more careful; it is starting to look like denial is a lifestye for you folks.

http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2012/04/dan-savage-vs-word-of-godchallenge-for.html

What did the Bible get wrong?