Gay Marriage [Archive]

odin_dax

27th November 2007, 09:56 PM

Maybe you should spend less time in the "smokehut" and spend more time in English class.

It's not to fair to say this is a religious issue. That's part of it, but homosexual acts have been around far longer, and societies throughout history have shown prejudice against them. There is no case for allowing gays to marry based on a religious, biological or societal argument. You say there's no credible argument against gay marriage, but the only argument for it is "people should do what they want."

Yes, I agree that homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples, when speaking of your example. Tax breaks and such, I haven't formulated an opinion. Only in recent times has homosexuality become an accepted practice, even though it's abnormal psychologically and biologically - and, no, that's just a statement of fact, not a slander.

Is any argument for or against enough? Well, let me take it from this standpoint. My religion tells me the act is wrong, but to love and respect our brethren. We are all sinners, and it's only God's right to judge. Biology tells me that the act does nothing to promote population, and increases disease in the case of males. Society tells me that the act is disgusting, but some people say why do we care what goes on behind closed doors? The gay community will tell me that if two people love each other, they should be able to share that love freely like heterosexual couples. Promiscuity is a problem in the gay community, more so than straight couples, which also adds fuel to the fire against gay marriage.

I say, as long as it's not shoved in my face, so to speak, then I don't care.

SilentOctober

28th November 2007, 04:46 AM

Maybe you should spend less time in the "smokehut" and spend more time in English class..
I was cool with everything you said except for this. why the fuck did you feel it necessary to throw an insult at me? It really fucking irritates me that it has to be like that, honestly. Its not like you hurt my feelings, or said something that i really took to heart, i just don't understand why you felt the need to try and put me down before you could go on to try and make your point. I like what you said, i disagree with some of it, which I'll get to, but i liked getting a thought out response to promote convorsation.... but you had to go out of your way to try and make yourself look good with a comment that wasn't even clever before you could do some genuine talking. as a first impression, because of that comment, i think that you are probably a pretentious prick... I really wish you hadn't have said anything worthwhile so I wouldn't feel the need to respond, but you did and I do. a rant, sure...shit like that really bothers me though... we could've just been cool and talked you know?

I think that this is definetly a religious issue. Its a constitutional right that is denied gay citizens because of a religious definition of marriaGE. The definition of marriage as observed by the courts is a gender biased definition in a place that is supposed to be beyond bias.
My argument isn't just that people should do what they want, its that they are told that they can, toild to love, raised to believe in a family unit, raised being told that they were created by some god that loved them, and so when they mature into their own persons, all the people that told them about equality and family and about gods love is reversed and told it doesn't apply to them because they picked the wrong person.and the people that reverse these thoughts, and take back what was said to be gaurenteed to them as citizens of this country, are people that are doing so on religious principles, tied up in the state.

And yeah, i do think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as its not hurting anyone, why the hell not? Sounds like freedom to me. but thats not the point. the point is that its an equal rights issue. There is no reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, as they were promised they could by the constituion that was force fed to themk in public schools. and once again it takes a religious standpoint to refute that.

also, as far as it not promoting population growth, niehter do cigerettes, or cars in theory, yet their not illegalized because of our supposed freedom of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

and about promiscuity in the gay community, that sounds inacurate, but even if not, the divorce rate is almost at a solid 50%, so so much for so sacred a tradition.

shit...i don't even believe in marriage.

Heavy_'TalMeMan

28th November 2007, 12:02 PM

Only in recent times has homosexuality become an accepted practice, even though it's abnormal psychologically and biologically - and, no, that's just a statement of fact, not a slander.
Well, there are MANY things abnormal with you, odin, both psychologically and biologically. I can't even COUNT how many things are wrong with YOU. Ceaselessly claiming the existence of invisible beings, dead animal humping, anal fucking grandma, the list goes on and on.... -and, no, that's just a statement of fact, not a slander.

But don't worry. We still love you.:naughty:

Heavy_'TalMeMan

28th November 2007, 12:09 PM

On the issue, let me first say that I couldn't care less.

...

Religion, and all its influence should be separated from the state, and this includes the legislation system. The taint of religion and social conservatism only perverts what would otherwise be a system grounded in rationality and reason.

You have a valid question there.

Should the closed-mindedness of people afflict people who otherwise would have nothing to bar them from their constitutional rights?

This reminds me of the issue of medical cannabis. People who have been taught that cannabis is "bad" keep potential medicine from those who are suffering.. Just because they were brainwashed by social influence, even when they have NO relation to the afflicted.

Go figure.

odin_dax

28th November 2007, 08:23 PM

Well, there are MANY things abnormal with you, odin, both psychologically and biologically. I can't even COUNT how many things are wrong with YOU. Ceaselessly claiming the existence of invisible beings, dead animal humping, anal fucking grandma, the list goes on and on.... -and, no, that's just a statement of fact, not a slander.

But don't worry. We still love you.:naughty:

Ha, ha.

odin_dax

28th November 2007, 08:36 PM

I was cool with everything you said except for this. why the fuck did you feel it necessary to throw an insult at me? It really fucking irritates me that it has to be like that, honestly. Its not like you hurt my feelings, or said something that i really took to heart, i just don't understand why you felt the need to try and put me down before you could go on to try and make your point. I like what you said, i disagree with some of it, which I'll get to, but i liked getting a thought out response to promote convorsation.... but you had to go out of your way to try and make yourself look good with a comment that wasn't even clever before you could do some genuine talking. as a first impression, because of that comment, i think that you are probably a pretentious prick... I really wish you hadn't have said anything worthwhile so I wouldn't feel the need to respond, but you did and I do. a rant, sure...shit like that really bothers me though... we could've just been cool and talked you know?

I think that this is definetly a religious issue. Its a constitutional right that is denied gay citizens because of a religious definition of marriaGE. The definition of marriage as observed by the courts is a gender biased definition in a place that is supposed to be beyond bias.
My argument isn't just that people should do what they want, its that they are told that they can, toild to love, raised to believe in a family unit, raised being told that they were created by some god that loved them, and so when they mature into their own persons, all the people that told them about equality and family and about gods love is reversed and told it doesn't apply to them because they picked the wrong person.and the people that reverse these thoughts, and take back what was said to be gaurenteed to them as citizens of this country, are people that are doing so on religious principles, tied up in the state.

And yeah, i do think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as its not hurting anyone, why the hell not? Sounds like freedom to me. but thats not the point. the point is that its an equal rights issue. There is no reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, as they were promised they could by the constituion that was force fed to themk in public schools. and once again it takes a religious standpoint to refute that.

also, as far as it not promoting population growth, niehter do cigerettes, or cars in theory, yet their not illegalized because of our supposed freedom of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

and about promiscuity in the gay community, that sounds inacurate, but even if not, the divorce rate is almost at a solid 50%, so so much for so sacred a tradition.

shit...i don't even believe in marriage.

That's better. My only response to all this, even though I agree with you, is that what defines marriage? Is marriage not only a religious ceremony? First, what is the point of marriage? Tell me in which culture past or present, marriage was not some religious or sacred act? I mean that as a cultural expression, not individual basis.

The simple fact is, modern day marriage is defined by religion. There is no right to marry because allowing gays to marry changes a definition. Call them civil unions, yes, but we can't go around changing definitions to fit in with current trends. Separation of church and state, which doesn't exist, and was never meant as complete separation, that US doctrine prevents defining gay marriage as marriage, though liberals will disagree.
That's all my point is. I'm not trying to tie it in with government, etc. Like I said, I agree with you.

Heading towards another point, the Constitution doesn't guarantee anything. If it did, slavery would have ended the day all states ratified it. That's all I'm going to say about the Constitution.

headcase

29th November 2007, 11:52 AM

Maybe you should spend less time in the "smokehut" and spend more time in English class.

What was your problem with his English? A few typos and a missed capitalisation? There have been far worse cases you've overlooked. Maybe that should have read "Maybe you should spend less time defending gay marriage and spend more time reading your Bible".

That's better.

That's condescending.

Back on topic;

I'll state right off that religion has no place in legislature and any reference I make to it will only be in the sense of the definition of marriage.

It's not to fair to say this is a religious issue. That's part of it, but homosexual acts have been around far longer, and societies throughout history have shown prejudice against them.

That's not an arguement. Secondly, if it's not a religious issue, why do you flog that side of it throughout your next two posts?

There is no case for allowing gays to marry based on a religious, biological or societal argument. You say there's no credible argument against gay marriage, but the only argument for it is "people should do what they want.

The religion bit is tempting but I've already promised myself not to waste my time. SilentOctober made a good point about cigarettes but a better one would have mentioned contraception, the Welfare State, the entire medical system, international aid... the list goes on. As for societial reasons; freedom vs oppression, analogies to the freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, (a hilarious irony I do believe), right to a fair trial, freedom of..... well freedom of everything and right to anything, really. All those values of modern, Western society. Although I can see how you'd overlook those.

Yes, I agree that homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples, when speaking of your example.

Tax breaks and such, I haven't formulated an opinion.

Why not? What's the difference? What's confusing you?

Only in recent times has homosexuality become an accepted practice, even though it's abnormal psychologically and biologically - and, no, that's just a statement of fact, not a slander.

Do you masterbate? Look at porn? Give something up for lent? (Actually, now that I think about it, religion and homosexuality have more in common than you might think. But I won't go out of my way to be offensive). Watch scary movies? Drink? Take drugs? Shake your head to metal music? Hell, watch TV? Eat unhealthy food? This list actually is endless. Point being, most practises of modern society are abnormal and downright damaging, either psychologically, bilogically or both.

Is any argument for or against enough? Well, let me take it from this standpoint. My religion tells me the act is wrong, but to love and respect our brethren. We are all sinners, and it's only God's right to judge.

Which we've agreed is irrelevant. I'll get to "definitions".

Biology tells me that the act does nothing to promote population, and increases disease in the case of males.

See "4", above.

Society tells me that the act is disgusting...

Really? Where? Society tells me baseless oppression and prejudice is disgusting. So does religion. So does everything, everywhere and everyone of any merit, really.

...but some people say why do we care what goes on behind closed doors? The gay community will tell me that if two people love each other, they should be able to share that love freely like heterosexual couples.

A point no one has addressed.

Promiscuity is a problem in the gay community, more so than straight couples, which also adds fuel to the fire against gay marriage.

Firstly, shouldn't that encourage gay marriage? You religious types are all confused. Reminds my of Sideshow Bob joking about how Quinby doesn't know if he's coming or going. Secondly, promiscuity? Ha! Welcome to the 21st centuary.

I say, as long as it's not shoved in my face, so to speak, then I don't care.

That and tax breaks.

"And God said unto Moses, let those amoung you unmarried pay 3 silver pieces of tax, but let those of you bound in holy matrimony, only pay 2 pieces of silver tax". His word be done.

My only response to all this, even though I agree with you, is that what defines marriage? Is marriage not only a religious ceremony? First, what is the point of marriage? Tell me in which culture past or present, marriage was not some religious or sacred act? I mean that as a cultural expression, not individual basis.

Plenty of societies. In many (most?) European countries and some more I'll find a list of when I have the time, the ceremony in the church is legally meaningless. Just something that people like to do. It's the registrar's office that the magic happens, with or without a church ceremony.

The simple fact is, modern day marriage is defined by religion.

Nope. See above. And I doubt gay couples want to be recognised by the Church. They want all the legal rights which have simply adopted the term "marriage" for reasons of convenience.

There is no right to marry because allowing gays to marry changes a definition. Call them civil unions, yes, but we can't go around changing definitions to fit in with current trends. Separation of church and state, which doesn't exist, and was never meant as complete separation, that US doctrine prevents defining gay marriage as marriage, though liberals will disagree.

(This isn't an arguement against you), where is marriage defined in the constitution? Just so I know...

As for changing definitoons to fit current trends, this isn't a trend. This is an evolution of the way society thinks. In the same way as racism (and religion) is dying off so will this prejudice. As for changing the definition to fit the trend, the same thing could have been said about Rosa Parks keeping her seat on the bus. That was unlawful. Did that make it wrong? Should that have "not changed the definition" to fit the trend of these self-righteous blacks? No. Society learned better and left the relics of the past bemoaning this new "injustice" (the "injustice" of equal rights). How times change. Gay marriage? Welcome to the 21st centuary.

Heading towards another point, the Constitution doesn't guarantee anything. If it did, slavery would have ended the day all states ratified it. That's all I'm going to say about the Constitution.

Thank you, and goodnight.

odin_dax

29th November 2007, 08:22 PM

Just arguing the side. Like I said, I support gay marriage, I just don't want it shoved in my face, like hetero couples all over each other in a bar. Time and a place.

That "that's better" comment was not based on his writing, but the development of the argument.

Society does tell you and me that prejudice is wrong and disgusting, but I'm talking about people, and most people hate homosexuality. It's a fact, at least in my country. They may support people doing what they want, not to intrude in other peoples' lives, but they still hate it.

Like I said on the issue of tax breaks, I haven't formulated an opinion. Why? Just haven't thought about it. I don't think it's central to the issue anyway.

I know everyone is taking my posts in this thread as my personal opinion, so I will indulge the discussion. The laundry list, what's the point? Masturbation isn't damaging to society, and studies have shown the act to have some benefits. It's not in the Bible, either. Watching scary movies and listening to music isn't abnormal.

Again, your point doesn't really fit... Black people and racism. Gays. All these are defined. Marriage is defined too, so I don't know what you're arguing, really. I guess your point was to define Rosa Parks' act as not really unlawful because racism is injustice. Well, that may be, and I agree that racism has no place in society, but the act at the time was unlawful, and Rosa Parks did go to jail.

By the way, I didn't agree religion is irrelevant. Yeah, many people don't agree or follow religion or religious doctrine, but the main issue surrounding gay marriage is the religion. Earlier, I asked about any society in regards to ceremonies and marriage. That still hasn't been answered. It's not my position, but anthropology. It's a simple fact throughout history. Should people ignore their religions to make a minority happy is the question. I can't answer that for anybody else, but I understand why some people won't from a Christian perspective.

Like I've said many times, I think gays should have the right to union and have all the benefits of a married couple - on the issues I know about anyway. I'm not gay, so I probably don't know everything. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm not taking a position until the end, just speaking in general what majorities have said, at least in my society, so all this arguing is rather pointless. Actually, we're all agreeing on the issue, just arguing the motives of people. Since everybody supports here, and I merely state the other view, or some of it, that has generated a back and forth, which I'm happy with as long as nobody thinks it's my opinion.

Tarnak

22nd December 2007, 06:08 AM

I see no reason why gays would want it to be called marriage. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, so nothing is denied them by refusing their marriage - they can still get with someone of the opposite sex.

To tell you the truth, I don't give 2 cents about the sanctity of marriage, though I'm pretty sure two guys going at it kind of destroys it. (Girls don't count)

Seems like that Life Partnership idea or whatnot is a good compromise.

But while some gays may have taken it to heart, Gay Marriage just smells to be like some activism seeking attention/trying to piss the homophobes off.

Stone

22nd December 2007, 04:20 PM

I head a story recently. A guy was dying in a hospital bed, only hours to live. His lover was in the hospital, but wasn't allowed into see him because it was only family allowed. They two guys had been living together as a married couple would for decades. Yet, one couldn't see the other before he died because they were not married. Gay marriage is still illegal in Ireland, even though many countries in the world have now allowed it.

DoubleTShiftty

17th June 2008, 01:14 AM

I don't care what anyone does in the Privacy of their own home. But out in public, no. It may seem a little simple-minded, but all Marriage is, is a step forward in the process of Reproduction, which I believe is one of our main purposes for being on this world in the first place. What is the need for Gay people to have a relationship, when our Reproductive Organs are not designed in such a way, that 2 males, or 2 females for that matter, can Reproduce.

Because as I said above, all relationships and Marriage really is in my opinion is a bonding stage for 2 people to feel comfortable with each other, in order to Reproduce and be able to look after their offspring, until they are capable of doing the same.

Esophagus

17th June 2008, 08:32 AM

I see no reason why gays would want it to be called marriage. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, so nothing is denied them by refusing their marriage - they can still get with someone of the opposite sex."They hever had it so why should they have it now" is a piss poor argument. Gay humans are humans nonetheless, and marriage has serious social and economic benefits that should be allowed a couple no matter what the gender, religious stigmas aside. The seperation of church and state, folks.
To tell you the truth, I don't give 2 cents about the sanctity of marriage, though I'm pretty sure two guys going at it kind of destroys it. (Girls don't count)Why don't girls count? Because theyre "hot"? This seems to be common, and incredibly absentminded, thinking.
Seems like that Life Partnership idea or whatnot is a good compromise.
Why should there have to be a compromise? What would a married man and woman lose if they knew that somewhere in the world was a married man and man.
But while some gays may have taken it to heart, Gay Marriage just smells to be like some activism seeking attention/trying to piss the homophobes off.
Like the anti-gay marriage activists and attention seekers? Its a two way street.

Esophagus

17th June 2008, 08:34 AM

|55555|

18th June 2008, 10:19 PM

I disagree with gay marriage but it's their right to do what they want with their life. Who am I to tell them how to l tell them how to live their life?

crazy white guy

19th June 2008, 12:18 AM

Gay marriage isn't really a problem with me. But i don't like the idea of a couple not having children for some reason. If they adopt I'm all for it.

Pimpin4Life30

20th June 2008, 06:24 AM

cases for and against.

Personally I am for. I have observed no credible argument against it. Its religious principles tied up in the state, and its illegalization is unconstitutional as fart as I can tell. I'm not gay, but what got me really thinking about this is I overheard a convorsation between two gurls in the smokehut at school. They were talking about a gay friend of theirs who was "married" for around twenty years. His lifepartner got in a car wreck, a bad one, and laid in a hospital room dieing from internal bleeding that they couldn't stop. He died. And the whole time that his lover laid dieing, the man could not get in to see him in the ICU because he was not recognized as family by the state, and though the man in the hospital beds family could get in to see him, they attampted to pull no strings for his husband because they disapproved of his choice. Had this been a heterosexual couple, a state recognized marriage certificate would have provided him access to the room... but without one, the man didn't even get to see his husband, his love, before he died. fucking tragic that shit.

Its a slap in the face of what little freedom we are supposed to be illusioned enbough to believe we have.

Im glad he died!!! They should all die!!!!

RoundElephant

20th June 2008, 06:31 AM

Im glad he died!!! They should all die!!!!

Being outrageously homophobic just makes everyone else think that your trying to hide your inner homophobia. A great portion gay bashes end in a rape...

I'm personally not gay but believe in the rights of the gays. They are not hurting anyone why not let them do what they want.

odin_dax

21st June 2008, 10:29 AM

Gay marriage isn't really a problem with me. But i don't like the idea of a couple not having children for some reason. If they adopt I'm all for it.

No fucking way should gays adopt! There's a line, that crosses it!

headcase

22nd June 2008, 12:50 AM

I thought tax breaks was crossing the line. Is the line not straight? *Du-dun tsh*

Micro

22nd June 2008, 10:14 PM

Gay people both male and female can do whatewer they wan't. I can't change that.
But I would NOT allow adoption for gay couples. No fucking way.
Just think how fucked the life would be for the kid in the school.

Maybe whem war and human cruelty doesn't exist, maybe then.

Th0r

22nd June 2008, 10:21 PM

Quite Micro. We can't stop Gay people from existing and they'll engage in Homosexual Activity anyway, so... And I know several kids who have Gay or Lesbian parents. And they are bullied remorselessly in school.

Esophagus

23rd June 2008, 06:23 AM

No fucking way should gays adopt! There's a line, that crosses it!Are you being serious?

Vein

23rd June 2008, 06:30 PM

Having same-sex parents would be better than no parents right? Plus then its easier to distinguish the jackasses from the decent people when you're in school because they'll bully you on the spot.

odin_dax

29th June 2008, 11:25 PM

Are you being serious?

Actually, I was. I just don't think it's healthy, but chalk that up there along with single-parenting.

raiden654

6th August 2008, 01:31 AM

well they are here and queer and theres nothing u can do to change that.even if you wipe all the existing gays out there now more will pop up sooner or later. so denying them the right to not get married is pointless a bit weird but pointless. however marrige means the unity between a man and a woman in my dictionary so i think they should call it something else like butt buddying or something.

Darkhunter

21st August 2008, 09:03 PM

Without reading this thread I will post the following:

Marriage is an institution of religion that the state saw was a big money maker so they stuck their greed paws into it. So if religion says they don't want marriage to happen between two males or females then so be it. Civil partnerships are the gay version of marriage and those that want to get gay marriage are people that just want to stick it to religion.

I am friends with two lesbians and they wanted to get married. So they were pissed you cant in Maine. I was told all this by them and I knew that they could through civil partnerships. SO I gave them the info I had and they refused saying they wanted to be MARRIED. I they had a nice talk over why they wanted to be MARRIED. They apparently wanted to be married to stick it to religion... yes. Even though they could have the same rights it boiled down to them wanting to stick it to religion that didn't approve of them. And according to the both of them that is why a few of their gay friends do this too.

All this is just from what I know for facts and opinions of friends of mine.

Recap: Marridge is an insitution of religion.

Pimpin4Life30

22nd August 2008, 07:59 AM

Too bad Hitler killed Jews instead of homosexuals.

ZionBlack

22nd August 2008, 03:24 PM

gays should be aloud to marry, but not adopt children. children growing up in a gay household will be constantly bombarded by gay bashing teenagers, and will probably turn out gay sooo no

Th0r

22nd August 2008, 08:39 PM

Too bad Hitler killed Jews instead of homosexuals.

Firstly Adolf Hitler didn't kill anybody. Secondly he ordered the murders and imprisonment of Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsy's, 'Coloured People' as well as Russian POW's and other various peoples.

gays should be aloud to marry

What does that mean?

That gays should marry in Public or What? Or did you mean to say allowed.

.VX

23rd August 2008, 03:27 AM

Too bad Hitler killed Jews instead of homosexuals.

Care to elaborate on why you think this is so?

Darkhunter

31st August 2008, 06:23 AM

gays should be aloud to marry, but not adopt children. children growing up in a gay household will be constantly bombarded by gay bashing teenagers, and will probably turn out gay sooo no

:wtf:

I personally as stated earlier think the gay marriage is the choice of religion. If they don't want gays to marry then who are we to force them to break their teachings?

And I do dispute your implying of gays should not raise children. Many children have come from gay homes and are straight.

Too bad Hitler killed Jews instead of homosexuals.

Hitler killed gays just not as much as Jews.

Nocturnal

31st August 2008, 02:41 PM

odin_dax

31st August 2008, 04:50 PM

I don't really like gays, don't really think they should marry. Just a personal issue.

However, in the sake of protecting my own freedoms, I believe they should be allowed to. If I say they can't take my guns and privacy, then what right do I have to tell other people who they can and can't marry? It becomes a tricky issue either way.

Owning a gun is protected by the Constitution.

You don't have any particular right to any kind of privacy. Your data is sold everyday. All your spending habits can be easily tracked. The government can get any piece of information it wants.

What right do people have? It's a democracy. We vote. We've voted many times to ban gay marriage and the courts keep overturning it with no legal basis. We have decided as a people. I think the issue of freedom is that more than anything. Stop judges from legislating from the bench! The American society doesn't want gay marriage. End of story.

Nocturnal

31st August 2008, 06:52 PM

Owning a gun is protected by the constitution, but the kinds of guns we can own is still regulated. Washington D.C. until just recently didn't allow citizens to own guns. Even now, they're still very strictly regulated.

Like you say, the judges are running the country. What the constitution says now is becoming less and less important as the power shifts to a select few.

In the principle of "you don't tell me how to live and I won't tell you how to live," I think gays should have the same rights as everybody else.

hamster

31st August 2008, 07:33 PM

By the look of this thread, I am going to say 2 people here have actually graduated high school. /thread

Nocturnal

31st August 2008, 07:56 PM

Care to say which two?

.VX

1st September 2008, 09:07 AM

gays should be aloud to marry, but not adopt children. children growing up in a gay household will be constantly bombarded by gay bashing teenagers, and will probably turn out gay sooo no

Why punish the Gays/Gays' kids for the ignorance of Gay bashing teenagers?

And, no, growing up in a gay household doesn't make you any more likely to turn out gay yourself.

Th0r

1st September 2008, 05:30 PM

Why punish the Gays/Gays' kids for the ignorance of Gay bashing teenagers?

And, no, growing up in a gay household doesn't make you any more likely to turn out gay yourself.

It's not so much as Punishing the Gays as opposed to protecting the Children from Potential Physical and Verbal Abuse. you aren't ever going to stop Homophobia so you might as well not bother.

Yes, .VX is right. Being Gay is Biological thus from being in Close contact with Homosexuals you are not likely to become Gay yourself.

odin_dax

1st September 2008, 06:21 PM

It's not so much as Punishing the Gays as opposed to protecting the Children from Potential Physical and Verbal Abuse. you aren't ever going to stop Homophobia so you might as well not bother.

Yes, .VX is right. Being Gay is Biological thus from being in Close contact with Homosexuals you are not likely to become Gay yourself.

It's not entirely biological, not nearly.

gbu-36

13th November 2008, 09:14 AM

Being a lesbian myself I suppose this should be some kind of big issue for me, but to be honest it isnt, my honey and I have filed Medical POA over each other so if something was to happen we could make decisions for each other. Our Will's take care of the rest.
Its my opinion that the whole gay marriage thing is just one more thing for the GLBT community to bitch and whine about so they can feel bad for themselves. If they would just go talk to a lawyer most issues would be moot.
Neither my honey or I feel like we need the governments blessing to be together. We are both libertarians that tend to lean to the right on most issues anyways.

.VX

13th November 2008, 09:54 AM

I'm against marriage, and all for gay rights. But if heathens can marry, then so can gays.

gbu-36

13th November 2008, 10:30 AM

.VX

13th November 2008, 11:01 AM

Sometimes I'm against gay marriage just out of spite for the GLBT community, I mean jesus christ, have you seen one of their "Pride Festivals". Every time they have one it sets their whole agenda back a few years.

Not all festivals are like that, but I still see what you mean. We'll (as in humanity) get there eventually, though. People are just going the wrong way about it.

Marriage isn't an exclusively religious practice anymore in my opinion. Now politicians can only try to hide behind the "By definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman" excuse. Which is complete bullshit.

If gay marriage was legalised, what would be your reasons for getting married? Assuming that you would.

gbu-36

13th November 2008, 10:04 PM

Tax reasons would be just about the only reason I'd get married for.

Pimpin4Life30

13th November 2008, 10:31 PM

VX. why are you so much for gay rights?

gbu-36

14th November 2008, 01:48 AM

Pimpin4life30: The real question should be why are you so against gays/gay rights ? Your not overcompensating for something are you ?

.VX

14th November 2008, 06:40 AM

VX. why are you so much for gay rights?

I'm no more for gay rights than I for human rights on the whole.

Also, what GBU said.

Raverous

4th December 2008, 04:57 AM

edit...lol

screwtape

11th December 2008, 08:41 PM

Who said getting married has anything to do with religion. That right there is a contract with the state. And as for the adoption aspect, what gives any of you the right to decide who can and cannot give these childeren a loving home. The fact that you would rather have these kids float around in the system instead of have a home. is the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life. "Oh but they will be picked on!" who gives a shit? what matters is that they are provided with a loving home.

And before it happens yes i know youre smarter then me so stick to topic instead of my grammar, cause I dont give a shit.

odin_dax

12th December 2008, 02:35 AM

And before it happens yes i know youre smarter then me....

Well, I'm glad we got that out of the way.

:stickp4:

.VX

12th December 2008, 02:12 PM

I personally don't give a shit what gays do as long as it doesn't effect me. Start fucking with my <someday in the future> marriage though and you'll bring down a wrath from me the likes of which you've never imagined.

I'm sure that congress are shaking in their boots right now.

Day_N_Night

8th February 2009, 11:18 PM

Why do gays want to enter into a legally binding contract to be able to marry. As far as im concerned if you want to get married have a wedding with or without the legaly binding contract (Wedding Certificate). They can get married without it and still call eachother husband and husband or wife and wife. Just the gov wont recognize it.

Big Deal... Jeeze.....

Mr.A

9th February 2009, 09:05 AM

Firstly, I laughed my ass off reading this whole thread. especially with pimpin's direct closed minded view on the world. Thanks for the laugh guys.

Secondly:
Gays, biologically efficient or not are human beings. They should get basic human being rights just like everyone else. I support the idea of allowing gay marriage.

Odins close to right, marriage in this society is almost completely a religious tradition...at least most marriages are IMO. Thats why my lady and I have decided to be "married" on our own terms. We love each other so much and can see that we would like to be together for the rest of lives, so we say to each other and other people that we are "married." Isn't that what marriage is supposed to be, an eternal bond?

I think its also helps my post if I mention that I believe in God, but largely disagree with all of the worlds religions. I dont think "The Bible" is correct in stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I dont think God gives a shit, he created us all, he loves us all. Just like how when you become a father you expect to love your children until they die, regardless to what they end up doing with their lives. God is our father, he loves us. :kiss:

Good luck with trying to teach somebody about this argument. these might help :flowers1:

.VX

10th February 2009, 08:22 AM

REL0AD

11th February 2009, 09:20 PM

Too bad Hitler killed Jews instead of homosexuals.

Do some research... Hitler was after the perfect aryan race, puffs were'nt part of this 'ideal' world, neither were the disabled etc.

Back on topic I am against gay marriage. I'm against gays & lesbians full stop. Natural Selection, step it up a notch...

Mr.A

3rd March 2009, 09:12 AM

Do some research... Hitler was after the perfect aryan race, puffs were'nt part of this 'ideal' world, neither were the disabled etc.

Back on topic I am against gay marriage. I'm against gays & lesbians full stop. Natural Selection, step it up a notch...

Why the lesbians? They're fun to watch. Well, at least the good looking ones anyhow.:naughty:

thief

5th March 2009, 02:29 PM

It always seems that Gays act more girly than girls and the dykes more butch than men... its like a big act. Its a sickness they have.

MrMinister

7th March 2009, 01:53 AM

I don't think it's an act. I can't see how a guy would pretend to like sucking cock and get fucked up his shitter. There would be no gain besides, well cocks up the shitter.

I don't know how I feel about gay marriage, only because I'm too lazy to find the origin of the word. I think gays should get the same rights hetro married couples get, I don't give a shit what it's called.

My view is more of the technicality of the word. It's like a cuckold. Is it right for a man to want to be a cuckold? Well a cuckold is someone who is unaware that they are a cuckold so, no I don't think it is "right" simply because by definition it cannot be.

I think gays should be afforded all rights. I have to laugh at the pride fest comments. Only thing I dislike about them is the TGs (they give me a boner).

iceniner

18th March 2009, 05:41 AM

Who cares?

Who the hell cares what they do? It affects me in no way. The way I look at it is this, I don't want to date some chick with lesbian tendencies anyway, so she can shack up with some other dyke. And the more gay dudes there are, the less competition hetero guys have for good-looking straight women.

I think there's something extremely suspect about it when people are concerned about the sex habits of others, it kind of betrays a sort of... unseemly interest. Frankly I don't give a damn about this whole thing, I think it's a false wedge issue promulgated by the religionists.

Frankly peoples' sex lives are nobody else's business but theirs.

lcnostra

15th June 2009, 03:53 AM

Actually, I was. I just don't think it's healthy, but chalk that up there along with single-parenting.

Why? There was a recent study that suggests same-sex couples offer an equally nurturing (and often better) environment raising children as heterosexual couples. Plus, gay couples are statistically better educated and more financially affluent.

To me, the "issue" of gay marriage is a no brainer. If two people love each other enough to want to suffer through marriage together, let them. As the OP said, I have heard no reasonable argument against it, other than the incessant babbling of bible-crazed loonies. If they really want to play that card, they might want to go back and read the bible. Nowhere does the bible condemn homosexual behavior or marriage between the same sex. I don't even know why I'm mentioning this anyway, because religion shouldn't have any impact on civil, government issues.

Twist

15th June 2009, 04:19 AM

GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, FUCKING ILLEGAL!!

Day_N_Night

15th June 2009, 04:23 AM

I think we can all agree Gay people are some nasty shit and the grossest sort of list style out there, they are also a minority as i understand it so we shouldnt give a shit about their so called "rights" or what they think. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years , not a man and a man,not a woman and a woman and not a camel and a transexaul.

If they have a problem with it, then there's always the gas chambers or mexico.

Twist

15th June 2009, 04:28 AM

Day_N_Night

15th June 2009, 04:35 AM

Also liberal ideas, like gay rights and women putting career first is contributing to the destruction of western civilization.

Twist

15th June 2009, 04:36 AM

Also liberal ideas, like gay rights and women putting career first is contributing to the destruction of western civilization.

YES!

LaughNowCryLater

15th June 2009, 07:47 AM

I don't feel i need to get into this thread as my views are most like everyone elses who disagree with gay marriage but for the most part im not seeing reasoning behind posts. Sounds just like a bunch of gay bashers (which is fine) but you don't have any real reasons for why they shouldnt be married. Atleast get in from a religious stand point, or how there children will have a tougher childhood. Just saying fags shouldnt get married ftw isnt the best argument.

Im also really drunk sorry for spelling or miss use of words.

thief

15th June 2009, 01:39 PM

Its now been found that been gay is a sickness, "they" said it wasnt back in 1973 with some bullshit test but now they are changing thier minds. They have different brain waves than normal people. So they are ill from birth. There is no cure... only death. The world is becoming more and more "open" about anything to do with sex and deviants. It goes against nature itself. The vatican hide their priests that have sex with kids and protect them, it happens so much now that its no shock anymore... just getting closer to the day when its "ok" to have sex with kids. Been gay now is accepted and there is queers all over TV pushing it into young kids and teens minds as if its ok to have sex with the same jender. They are depraved sick people and the TV industry must be full of gays because they see it was been ok that they almost rule the tv shows etc.
Bottom line. Gay = Wrong

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 01:42 PM

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 01:44 PM

The Schizoid Hatter

15th June 2009, 04:32 PM

thief

15th June 2009, 05:14 PM

"Shearing a lock of one's hair renders you powerless" is a metaphor, having sex with the same jender is not. Its against nature. Full stop. Giving them the right to marry is basically saying its ok to go against nature "and we the vatican support that, just like we support or priests having sex with young boys. It might be against nature but hey... thats ok, we support you in your effort."

lcnostra

15th June 2009, 05:17 PM

I agree, Laugh.

Icon, I somewhat agree. I think they should have all the same civil/government rights as same sex couples. I read many conflicting studies over children being raised by same-sex couples. It really depends how the study was conducted, which then information bias comes into play. I haven't seen this new study you've mentioned, so I'll end here.

Calling people who are religious, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, loonies is no more ignorant than the people going around saying what kind of posters Laugh was referring to. If you think the Bible doesn't condemn gay marriage, then you're reading a different book. Not only does it condemn any homosexual acts, it states that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't know how you can conclude the Bible is for gay marriage.

Everything else on the matter I've already stated. Get married by a judge, not in a church, call it a civil union, give them the same rights, the end. I'm undecided on the child raising part.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of religion. It's when religious zealots try to impose their beliefs on others that these ideals become overbearing and downright out of place. So excuse me, but I would consider the bible-belt sister fuckers who hold protest signs saying "all gays will burn in hell" to be "loonies". If it weren't for religious extremists (read: loonies), we wouldn't have Muslim Jihadists who think that anyone not following the ways of allah should be killed. There's nothing wrong with being "religious," as long as you recognize that what you believe may not be the same as the next guy, and you agree not to gawk at the beliefs of others. I'm all for tolerance, but I think that forced religious beliefs is somehow inappropriate. Nobody has the right to tell me I'm "going to hell" because I'm agnostic, not Christian. If that makes me "ignorant", so be it.

This is why I like Jews. You never hear Jews pontificating mindless drivel about how anyone who's not a Jew is going to hell. You never hear them preaching vastly idiotic ideas or trying to infiltrate the government with things that should clearly be separate. They just mind their own fucking business and practice tolerance. That's how it should be.

As far as the bible goes, I never said that it is "for" gay marriage. However, I will make the case that there is little information within that condemns homosexuality. A lot of people draw on the story of Sodom and Goomorrah to make their point, but that tale deals with sexual deviancy and never makes any particular reference to same-sex relations. As I said earlier, this is merely an arguing point, and a moot one at that. The bible has NO place defining the rights of American citizens, especially in a nation that promotes freedom of religion. There's plenty of fucked up shit in the bible that should not be taken literally and practiced strictly. After all, it's just a fucking book. No, it's a collection of stories. God did not write it, people did. I'm fine with people reading it, or even extolling its "infinite virtues." It's when people force their religion on others that they lose any and all credibility in whatever argument they're making.

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 05:28 PM

I'm starting to believe that I am the only Rortian that wholeheartedly supports Gay Marriage.
Why not give them the same rights? Would it harm you personally in any way? No. Not at all.

I said give them the same rights...

There is much debate over whether or not the Bible demonizes homosexual relationships. There was this beautifully penned editorial in a local newspaper about this, stating that the acts demonized in the Bible are not the same as consensual homosexual relationships, rather they were oft homosexual rape/other dehumanizing acts. So why use the Bible as a crutch when one is speaking out against Gay Marriage? Do you also believe that shearing a lock of one's hair renders you powerless? Do you believe in slavery? Ethnic cleansing? Putting a rebellious son to death? All supported by the Bible.

There isn't a debate over the Bible and homosexuality. I know in this new wave era, people are trying to find wording to support their claims, but the Bible does not say what they want it to say. The Bible condemns the sin, not the sinner. People are not to judge. I don't know how many times I have to say this... or anything in this thread I've already said...

The Bible isn't a crutch, it's a way a life for people. Sorry you don't like it, but many people are religious. I, for one, am not entirely dictated by the Bible, but I know it well enough to say that there is absolutely no support for gay marriage in the Bible. Hell, just take a look at the history around the time it was written.

The fact remains, people don't need the Bible to speak out against homosexuality. It's abnormal behavior. People don't like it simply because it's not "right" in nature. Can two women make a kid? No. Can two men? No.

Is it not strange, or am I the only one, that thinks it's the gay rights community that hates religious people and claims they're the intolerant ones? I think the world is full of hypocrites.

Most straight men appear to have a deep seated hatred for/fear of homosexuality. What, do you think it's contagious if you think about it for more than a moment without bashing it? Can't it comfortably coexist in this world with heterosexuality?

I imagine you were the guys who beat up the school "fag" because he looked at you funny. Or talked to you. Or came within a 10-foot radius of you.

Perhaps you're not quite comfortable with your own sexuality.

Who knows.

Well, I know you're not referring to me here, but I'll address it. I don't advocate hate or violence against homosexuals, or anyone. As a man of faith, I know many things about the teachings contained in the Bible not to hate, to forgive, etc. No real religious person hates anyone. Christians are taught to address the sin, and ask for forgiveness. We do not support someone in sinning just because it is socially popular or acceptable (binge drinking, gambling, homosexuality, etc). Many Christians do those kinds of things, but it's not out of hypocrisy either. We're all just human.

If people choose to hate homosexuals, don't look to the Bible or Christianity.

Going back, you can't simply ignore any position based on religious grounds to invalidate an entire argument, especially since it's well known that the Jewish and Christian religions were based on practical wisdom (ie washing of the hands, circumcision, dietary laws).

Like you said, don't use religion as a crutch...

lcnostra

15th June 2009, 05:30 PM

I'm starting to believe that I am the only Rortian that wholeheartedly supports Gay Marriage.
Why not give them the same rights? Would it harm you personally in any way? No. Not at all.

There is much debate over whether or not the Bible demonizes homosexual relationships. There was this beautifully penned editorial in a local newspaper about this, stating that the acts demonized in the Bible are not the same as consensual homosexual relationships, rather they were oft homosexual rape/other dehumanizing acts. So why use the Bible as a crutch when one is speaking out against Gay Marriage? Do you also believe that shearing a lock of one's hair renders you powerless? Do you believe in slavery? Ethnic cleansing? Putting a rebellious son to death? All supported by the Bible.

THANK YOU so much for offering some keen, and most of all reasonable insight on this issue. After reading some of the comments along the lines of homosexuality being a disease or a sickness, I was starting to lose hope. Like I said, the bible is full of completely sickening and downright retarded stories. It's hilarious to call out the religious nuts on "gay marriage" as condemned by the bible and ask them how they feel about some of this other stuff. It's like watching anyone with half a brain go at it with Bill O'Reilley.

"I agree with a lot of that too. It has been quoted by experts, psychology never should've removed homosexuality from abnormal psychology. And it's true, it shouldn't. By biological standards, it is abnormal because they cannot procreate." - Odin

Some of the comments as of late have been not only ignorant, but disturbing. Any of you who really think homosexuality is some sort of disease need to get your heads checked. Abnormal by biological standards? Would you walk into a cancer ward and call out every woman who is infertile from ovarian cancer? Are infertile couples "abnormal" by biological standards, too? This has to be one of the more intellectually challenged arguments I've heard against gay marriage.

The thing I don't understand is why people take such an avid stance against something that doesn't really affect them. Did gays break into your house and kill your family? Are you going to lose rights as a citizen if gay people are allowed to marry? How could something that has absolutely no impact on your life make people so staunchly against it. I just don't get it....

Is it not strange, or am I the only one, that thinks it's the gay rights community that hates religious people and claims they're the intolerant ones? I think the world is full of hypocrites.

Because the religious community IS largely intolerant of others. I'm not saying all of it, but a great deal has consistently tried to hold back the rights of gays because it's not supported by the bible. It's not hypocrisy if there's a justifiable reason.

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 05:40 PM

THANK YOU so much for offering some keen, and most of all reasonable insight on this issue. After reading some of the comments along the lines of homosexuality being a disease or a sickness, I was starting to lose hope. Like I said, the bible is full of completely sickening and downright retarded stories. It's hilarious to call out the religious nuts on "gay marriage" as condemned by the bible and ask them how they feel about some of this other stuff. It's like watching anyone with half a brain go at it with Bill O'Reilley.

"I agree with a lot of that too. It has been quoted by experts, psychology never should've removed homosexuality from abnormal psychology. And it's true, it shouldn't. By biological standards, it is abnormal because they cannot procreate." - Odin

Some of the comments as of late have been not only ignorant, but disturbing. Any of you who really think homosexuality is some sort of disease need to get your heads checked. Abnormal by biological standards? Would you walk into a cancer ward and call out every woman who is infertile from ovarian cancer? Are infertile couples "abnormal" by biological standards, too? This has to be one of the more intellectually challenged arguments I've heard against gay marriage.

The thing I don't understand is why people take such an avid stance against something that doesn't really affect them. Did gays break into your house and kill your family? Are you going to lose rights as a citizen if gay people are allowed to marry? How could something that has absolutely no impact on your life make people so staunchly against it. I just don't get it....

Now the intolerance begins to bread.... I never thought you'd be so narrow minded, Icnosta. I have to say this because I'm completely offended by your lack of understanding. Did I not say same rights? Did I not?! All I said was that the Bible doesn't support it, and that people can choose to hate it based on biology. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

I did support homosexuality being put back into abnormal psychology because that's where it belongs. If dozens of well respected psychologists, even those who first chose to remove it from abnormal psych, says it belongs there, then it does. Do you even know what abnormal means? It's not a huge insult in this case, just against the norm. Can you not say heterosexuality is the norm in nature?

I never said hate anyone, called someone a fag or gross, I just gave reasons for arguments. You really need to carefully read what I've said before you through out these accusations and insults.

By the way, someone being the most reasonable isn't subjective to your opinion. Someone being reasonable doesn't mean they agree with you. I think I've been quite reasonable on the subject, using many sources as well, to support my heartfelt and intelligent reasoning. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't group me with the haters on here. I'm not at all like them.

The rest of your statements don't even need a response. Next time, don't choose what you want to read, try to understand it.

FOR ABOUT THE 28TH TIME ON THIS THREAD, GIVE HOMOSEXUALS THE SAME CIVIL AND GOVERNMENTAL RIGHTS. For fuck's sake....

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 05:43 PM

Because the religious community IS largely intolerant of others. I'm not saying all of it, but a great deal has consistently tried to hold back the rights of gays because it's not supported by the bible. It's not hypocrisy if there's a justifiable reason.

Judging by your lack of understanding on this issue in regards to my position, I think it's quite clear where the intolerance is coming from...

On the issue, there is never any excuse to hate, and hypocrisy is never justified.

thief

15th June 2009, 05:46 PM

Whatever about marrige been right or wrong, having sex with same gender is wrong. Full stop.

lcnostra

15th June 2009, 05:52 PM

Now the intolerance begins to bread.... I never thought you'd be so narrow minded, Icnosta. I have to say this because I'm completely offended by your lack of understanding. Did I not say same rights? Did I not?! All I said was that the Bible doesn't support it, and that people can choose to hate it based on biology. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

I did support homosexuality being put back into abnormal psychology because that's where it belongs. If dozens of well respected psychologists, even those who first chose to remove it from abnormal psych, says it belongs there, then it does. Do you even know what abnormal means? It's not a huge insult in this case, just against the norm. Can you not say heterosexuality is the norm in nature?

I never said hate anyone, called someone a fag or gross, I just gave reasons for arguments. You really need to carefully read what I've said before you through out these accusations and insults.

By the way, someone being the most reasonable isn't subjective to your opinion. Someone being reasonable doesn't mean they agree with you. I think I've been quite reasonable on the subject, using many sources as well, to support my heartfelt and intelligent reasoning. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't group me with the haters on here. I'm not at all like them.

The rest of your statements don't even need a response. Next time, don't choose what you want to read, try to understand it.

FOR ABOUT THE 28TH TIME ON THIS THREAD, GIVE HOMOSEXUALS THE SAME CIVIL AND GOVERNMENTAL RIGHTS. For fuck's sake....

Odin,

My main beef with your argument is that you think homosexuality should belong in the array of abnormal psychology. While I don't agree, this is hardly an egregious or ignorant statement. Most of my post was directed at the intolerant rants about homosexuality being a disease (the thief and his ilk). I can see how lack of transition and multiquoting could lead you to believe I was only addressing you. I know you never referred to gays as "fags" or "gross", but a lot of people posting on this topic have. If you interpreted it as me "grouping" you with the intolerant gay bashers, my mistake.

I really don't think I'm being narrow-minded. Whether we're dealing with religion or lifestyle choices, it all comes down to tolerance. I think people should do what they want if it doesn't interfere with others.

thief

15th June 2009, 05:55 PM

Homosexuality IS a disease... a psychology disease.

Odin is right, it does have an array of abnormal psychology patterns.

odin_dax

15th June 2009, 06:10 PM

Iconstra, I've always respected you as a member here, thief too. Nothing has changed.

I understand your position, really. I think we've to middle ground, so it's too bad the rest of the world can't, especially in the US.

My narrow-minded comment was based on text you cleared the air on. I don't think that anymore. However, we'll agree to disagree on the psychology part.

bankraped

15th June 2009, 07:35 PM

the whole thread is a bit tl;dr, but here's my view.
People are born how their born. People are people, let them do what they want, I don't care. No one else should care. Seriously, just so long as no one does any GBH or worse, I'm fine with it.
As to the psychology argument, sure gay people can be "Fixed". But so can anyone, depending on your definition of "Fixed". I heard this story once. This girl runs off and joins a cult. Her parents hire a guy to deprogram/brainwash her. After a week of sleep deprivation and all the usual brainwashing malarkey, he returns the girl to his parents, saying "Congratulations, your daughter is a Christian again!" The parents say "But she was Jewish".

Twist

15th June 2009, 08:25 PM

@ The Schizoid Hatter- Homosexuals do not make me feel uncomfortable about my own sexuality. I am open minded and it is not the concept of the male to male relationship that bothers me. This being said if a boy wanted to fuck me I would NOT take kindly to it because the last thing i want is a dick up my ass or my dick which I love so much being in a nasty hole of another man. What does bother me about gays is the way they act, the attention they get, and how they "fight for their rights." Whenever there are gays they selfishly manipulate the situation around them to fit their needs. Example "here is my boyfriend he's so cute." Why should we put up with this and why do 95% of openly gay people talk with a lisp! What the fuck! They try to speak different to be different and it just causes a problem. In family situations their kids have to tell their friends they have 2 dads! Their entire gay culture is useless as well they live in a fantasy land of "beautiful colors" and "oh my that pink shirt looks sooooo good on you hehe" Being attracted to a man is one thing but giggling, acting feminine, making NO meaningful contribution in society is another. So you say accept them let them do what they want because it doesn't affect me. Well it doesn't affect me when little boys and girls are raped and exploited, or it doesn't affect me when animals are abused. This being said gays affect me more because I have to deal with the butt swinging, tight clothes wearing, voice that makes me want to club a baby seal talking, useless comments and awkwardness involved with them. Back to the rape and abusing because this doesn't affect me doesn't make it right it is still very very wrong and affects those involved just like gays affect their family, friends, kids, associates, AND their x wifes/girlfriends who they left so they could stick their dick another usless organism who calls himself gay. If homosexuality did not exist you could get away with kissing a same sex friend on the cheek or saying how much you care about him/her without it being interpreted as coming on to them. To be honest if a man kissed me on the cheek i would not think twice about it because i like to block out the concept of homosexuality as it shouldn't exist in the first place but because it does its just another fucken obstacle in the way of human progression in any way you look at it. Gays have done nothing but wasted time and energy and even the right to be happy in life of those who are straight. I have just wasted 5 minutes of my time writing this so fags be happy and go blow off your boyfriend or spread aids to eachother you make me sick.

Th0r

15th June 2009, 08:35 PM

Also liberal ideas, like gay rights and women putting career first is contributing to the destruction of western civilization.

Haha!

This is coming from the person who insults White Nationalists on Stormfront.

(Many things are contributing to the so called 'destruction' of Western Civilization, btw but lets not sidetrack.)

bankraped

15th June 2009, 08:35 PM

The whole gay culture thing is mainly in cities. The type of shit you're talking about are just stereotypes put out on the television. none of the gay people I know act in the ways you describe. Also, I'm just remembering this now, can't find a link to it anywhere just yet, but a study a few months ago showed that in gay males, the sort of femenine part of the brain was larger. In gay females, the masculine part was larger. Gay people are born gay. Hence, it's natural. Trying to eradicate this would be unnatural.

thief

15th June 2009, 08:39 PM

Gays are not natural... just like retards, gays have a retardation of some sort.

RoundElephant

15th June 2009, 09:09 PM

Gays should be the only ones that care about gay marriage because it only effects them. Therefore they should be allowed to marry people of the same sex if they want to.

Only gays should care about gay marriage.

lcnostra

15th June 2009, 09:24 PM

Only gays should care about gay marriage.

That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard. I suppose only animals should care about animal rights? They can totally fight that battle on their own; they don't need humans to stand up to fellow humans.

You're black, right? Maybe the North shouldn't have cared about slavery antebellum. After all, only black people should care about civil rights and equality. :pat:

Gays are not natural... just like retards, gays have a retardation of some sort.

Care to explain the correlation between sexual preference and intelligence? I'd love to hear.

Day_N_Night

15th June 2009, 10:00 PM

Haha!

This is coming from the person who insults White Nationalists on Stormfront.

(Many things are contributing to the so called 'destruction' of Western Civilization, btw but lets not sidetrack.)

Firstly, i said it partly in jest, but on the whole it is true among other things.

tnkywnky

16th June 2009, 01:00 AM

:la:

RoundElephant

16th June 2009, 08:29 AM

That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard. I suppose only animals should care about animal rights? They can totally fight that battle on their own; they don't need humans to stand up to fellow humans.

You're black, right? Maybe the North shouldn't have cared about slavery antebellum. After all, only black people should care about civil rights and equality. :pat:

Care to explain the correlation between sexual preference and intelligence? I'd love to hear.

I don't understand how anyone can be against gay marriage.
It brings a small part of the population joy and effects nobody else except the gays.

It's ridiculous that gay marriage is not allowed in most states.

Vex

16th June 2009, 10:45 AM

i say if it feels good and nobodys gets hurt, its all cool! except necrophillia because corpses = NO, JUST NO

thief

16th June 2009, 12:43 PM

bankraped

16th June 2009, 01:26 PM

tnkywnky

16th June 2009, 01:55 PM

:la:

The Schizoid Hatter

16th June 2009, 03:09 PM

Thank you, tnkywinky, for the post above.

It appears that we're reverting to playground antics in this thread; name-calling, orientation bashing, calling each other "gay" (like it's such an unspeakable thing :O).
Can we be mature about such an important topic? This may not matter to 99% of you, but this matters to a good portion of the population. Why take away something so basic, so important from people who have caused you no personal harm?

This is pathetic. I can't even bloody look at this thread.

First off Icnostra, the way you keep standing up for gays tell me your a gay lover.. You keep standing up for gays like it affects you somehow... that is telling of you. I wouldnt be supprised to find that you where gay. Gay = retard. Full stop.
As for you tinky winky, even that name says it all. And yes... anyone who wants to stick there member up another persons ass male or female is not natural. And no... everyone is not "un-natural if you think about it"
Whats with you guys and sticking up for gays if your not gay?

Thief, what are you, five?!

Grow up.

All of you.
And come back and debate when you can bring up a reasonable counterpoint that doesn't have the word "fag" in it.

Paranoid Ecstasy

16th June 2009, 04:00 PM

The way I see it is, I'm not homosexual so it does not affect me.
Do I care if gays can get married, no.
Should they be able to, sure.
If they care that much about a title or a piece of paper.
Go ahead let them, who can it hurt?

Oh no, for thousands of year male and females have been getting married.
Back in the roman times men were having sex with other men.
Mayans used to sacrifice people, should we still do it?

Point is I'm a selfish bastard and it doesn't affect me.
Therefore, I don't care.

lcnostra

16th June 2009, 04:18 PM

First off Icnostra, the way you keep standing up for gays tell me your a gay lover.. You keep standing up for gays like it affects you somehow... that is telling of you. I wouldnt be supprised to find that you where gay. Gay = retard. Full stop.
As for you tinky winky, even that name says it all. And yes... anyone who wants to stick there member up another persons ass male or female is not natural. And no... everyone is not "un-natural if you think about it"
Whats with you guys and sticking up for gays if your not gay?

Wow. So as a straight, white male I suppose I'm also not allowed to support civil rights or women's rights? I can't really take much offense to you calling me a "gay lover", considering you have offered no enlightened or reasonable insight on this thread.

I'm not gay; I have a beautiful girlfriend who I love very much. Whether or not you think I'm gay is of little concern to me, cause I've seen what other views you hold. Something tells me you'd have to be trolling to suggest that gays are born retarded. It would be reassuring to know that you're just fucking with us.

thief

16th June 2009, 04:37 PM

"Keep to the topic" yeah whatever tinky winky... your starting to flame in a non flame area.. you should stay on topic. If you want to flame, make a thread in the flame lounge.

"Something tells me you'd have to be trolling to suggest that gays are born retarded" ok whatever.

"It would be reassuring to know that you're just fucking with us" I dont have to reasure anyone here and vise versa.

Bottom line, I cant stand gays and I cant stand this infatuation with gay marrige everyone seems to have, like standing up for them makes the person feel good that they are standing up for something right and just, but its not. Like people that go on about fur is murder. Stand up for yourself, not other people. If your gay and you want to get married then stand up for that. Why should someone not of that persuasion be infactuated with standing up for them and then taking offence when someone else doesnt see the point?

lcnostra

16th June 2009, 05:04 PM

Bottom line, I cant stand gays and I cant stand this infatuation with gay marrige everyone seems to have, like standing up for them makes the person feel good that they are standing up for something right and just, but its not. Like people that go on about fur is murder. Stand up for yourself, not other people. If your gay and you want to get married then stand up for that. Why should someone not of that persuasion be infactuated with standing up for them and then taking offence when someone else doesnt see the point?

Nobody is castigating you because you're not out in the streets championing gay rights. If you're not passionate about a political or civil cause, that's your own deal. I just don't understand what would motivate you to be so overtly homophobic and say that you "can't stand gays." What did gay people ever do to you?

And yes, supporting gay marriage and equal rights does make me feel like I'm standing up for something right. You don't need to be a member of a oppressed group to want them to have the same rights as everyone else. Historically, my people have been the LEAST oppressed out of any "group". I'm as WASP as it gets. That doesn't mean I can't believe in civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc.

thief

16th June 2009, 05:15 PM

Day_N_Night

16th June 2009, 07:21 PM

Consider this.
Retards are born retarded.
gays born gay.
Birth is a natural process.
However, you stipulate that both gays and retards deviate from the "Standard" DNA template. Are you suggesting some sort of racial superiority?

Since no one has responded to this as of yet. I have taken it upon myself to do so.

Rather than likening homosexaulity to retardation consider it a mental illness whos effects develop at puberty or after. A mental Illness like Sociopathy or Schitzophrenia.

Humans from Birth are programed to have reproductive instics. For a human to be born with these instincts backwards (ie attracted to the same gender) indicates some sort of problem with the brain and its hardwiring. Imagine if every animal and human became homosexaul then all life as we know it would die off. This is a very serious flaw indeed. Homosexaulity should be called Lemmings Syndrome....

Twist

16th June 2009, 07:24 PM

Ok gay people didn't do anything directly to me, but they way they go on... more girlish than girls (most of them) Its just Un necessary and they way they push into your face. I just dont like it. They are gay and need to tell the whole fucking world about it.

That I can agree with, flamboyant homosexuals are what pisses me off. Maybe being gay is one thing but PRIDE and PARADES? Come on! Why do they want to push it in our faces? Your gay ok thats fine so be gay I don't want to hear about your muffins,makeup and buttsex. Just like I don't go around having "pride" about having straight sex, there is nothing to be proud about it is natural and there is even less, infact nothing at all to have pride in when you are gay. Being comfortable gay is one thing, pride is another. Pride is when you achieve something or are proud of something related to you. Why be proud of yourself because you swing dildos around and speak in a deliberate lisp? Normal people that happen to be gay, ok thats fine I can still respect you if thats how you were born. Eccentric homosexuals, I would say suck my dick as an insult problem is you actually would so instead I'm just going to say FUCK YOU.

Day_N_Night

16th June 2009, 07:29 PM

I guess gays are proud of AIDS, Child Molestation and anything related to anal injury.

bankraped

16th June 2009, 07:32 PM

Homosexual =/= child molester

Vex

17th June 2009, 02:55 AM

this is worse then XBOX live, its none of your buisness what 2 growen men do, there are alot of annoying things in this world GET OVER IT, also this whole idea you guys have that all men sould act all manly is retarded i'll act any damn way i want, also i'm bisexual, does that make me half a child molester? also heres a interesting fact people who have homosexual feeling in places were it is taboo will offen hide there feeling under hatred for gays and bi-sexuals, and as for homosexuals being child child molesters , were is you proof or statitics for this or do you have none and just seek to demeen gays by assoicating them with child molesters?

The Schizoid Hatter

17th June 2009, 03:36 AM

I'm pansexual, but it isn't why I'm debating in this thread.
To be honest, I personally don't believe in marriage. But just because I haven't any interest in it doesn't mean I'd prevent others from doing so.

Listen- you could be as wary as you want of homosexuals, no one can change that, but why deprive them of a right you have simply because of what gender interests them? It would not harm you in any way.
Hell, it'd even end most "homosexual rights" protests.
If you don't want to have them in your bloody face, then give them what you already have- the RIGHT to marry.
It isn't that hard. Don't be so goddamn stubborn.

Paranoid Ecstasy

17th June 2009, 04:30 AM

Ok gay people didn't do anything directly to me, but they way they go on... more girlish than girls (most of them) Its just Un necessary and they way they push into your face. I just dont like it. They are gay and need to tell the whole fucking world about it.

This is just my hypothesis-

I have a few gay friends.
They act just like anyone else.
They do drugs with me, they tag with me, they fight with me.
The gays who act overly flambouant always seem to be the ones who were straight as of yesterday, if you understand what I'm saying. ALL the sudden they are infatuated with fashion and pink and rainbows. All the gays I've known their parents knew where gay when they were kids, NEVER acted like this. The overly flambouant gays are just attention seeking whores, like little girls.

Ramble of the day.

The Schizoid Hatter

17th June 2009, 05:45 AM

The gays who act overly flambouant always seem to be the ones who were straight as of yesterday, if you understand what I'm saying. ALL the sudden they are infatuated with fashion and pink and rainbows. All the gays I've known you their parents knew where gay when they were kids, NEVER acted like this. The overly flambouant gays are just attention seeking whores, like little girls.

With this, I must agree. It annoys me to no end.
It's like being of legal age and level-headed about it. Then one kid you know finally becomes that legal age and starts vigorously exercising their freedom, oft making a fool of themselves and flaunting it in the faces of others.
Dude, no matter your orientation, be sane about it. There is absolutely NO need to shove it down the throats of others. No one likes it when religious nuts rape you with their beliefs, so why do the same to everyone else with your orientation.

Don't hate the gays, man. Hate attention whores. That's something people of every orientation can hate, ahaha.

Paranoid Ecstasy

17th June 2009, 06:01 AM

Don't hate the gays, man. Hate attention whores. That's something people of every orientation can hate, ahaha.

This we can all agree on.

Even at(teen)tion whores hate other attention whores.

Vallen

26th June 2009, 08:15 PM

i say if it feels good and nobodys gets hurt, its all cool! except necrophillia because corpses = NO, JUST NO

Why the fuck not.

bankraped

26th June 2009, 09:57 PM

Crusty outside, gooey centre.

Vallen

26th June 2009, 10:24 PM

Doesn't that make you hard?:la:

bankraped

27th June 2009, 02:31 AM

Only in terms of foodstuffs.

Day_N_Night

6th July 2009, 03:59 PM

Thats kinda disturbing.

jakebb

31st October 2010, 10:35 AM

Biology tells me that the act does nothing to promote population

Maybe this has already been said, but the fact that gay people can't reproduce is a poor argument against gay marriage. It assumes that gay people will have sex with women if you make gay marriage illegal, which is stupid because there are a lot of gay people now and it is illegal in most states. Gay people are not going to reproduce, regardless of gay marriage being legal or not. Also, condoms don't promote population, should they be illegal too? There are enough people on earth right now, too many if you ask me. I think gay people should be allowed to join is some sort of union. It doesn't hurt straight people at all and it helps gay people, so why shouldn't it be legal? There are quite a few good arguments promoting gay marriage and really no good arguments against it.

P.S. Odin, I know you personally are for gay marriage, as indicated in your post, I have just seen that argument used many times.

Abrazaderas

31st October 2010, 03:33 PM

lcnostra

31st October 2010, 07:53 PM

madscientist

31st October 2010, 10:35 PM

Faggots are destroying America... where wings take dream.

odin_dax

31st October 2010, 11:18 PM

Maybe this has already been said, but the fact that gay people can't reproduce is a poor argument against gay marriage. It assumes that gay people will have sex with women if you make gay marriage illegal, which is stupid because there are a lot of gay people now and it is illegal in most states. Gay people are not going to reproduce, regardless of gay marriage being legal or not. Also, condoms don't promote population, should they be illegal too? There are enough people on earth right now, too many if you ask me. I think gay people should be allowed to join is some sort of union. It doesn't hurt straight people at all and it helps gay people, so why shouldn't it be legal? There are quite a few good arguments promoting gay marriage and really no good arguments against it.

P.S. Odin, I know you personally are for gay marriage, as indicated in your post, I have just seen that argument used many times.

Wow, this thread is three years old now!

Anyway, you're quoting a statement I made a long time ago. My position has changed on many issues. To clarify, I don't support gay marriage, but I support civil unions. To correct, gay people can reproduce. There are many homosexuals that choose to have children.

You're quoting part of a statement that only listed what various groups say. You're right in pointing out that quote doesn't support an argument against gay marriage, but that whole paragraph was listing why people are against homosexuality in general. Thank you for pointing out I support gay rights though.

The condom argument is erroneous. Humans are, last I knew, one of two species that have sex for pleasure (dolphins being the other). Condoms allow humans to engage in pleasurable activities while avoiding diseases that can decrease quality of life and life itself. Also, couples that have great sex may get married and start a family. So, in a way, and for those reasons, they do promote life. :wavey:

Faggots are destroying America... where wings take dream.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. Not every step in evolution has favored promoting population. In fact, the contrary is true. This is why we see dominance heirachies in animal groups; it's a method of population control that ensures group fitness. It is erroneous to assume that every change in the course of evolution has been an adaptation with a specific purpose. Hell, most scientists don't even believe feathers evolved for flight, but took on that role later as the physiological advantage was worked into the behavior of birds. A little bit of a tangent, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

Your post implies that homosexuality is an evolutionary step. This is not at all scientific or factual. Homosexuality occurs within a species. I believe the correct term, other than issues dealing with psychology, is mutation.

odin_dax

31st October 2010, 11:36 PM

john b calhoun did studies with rats. he took a space that he estimated could comfortably house 5000 rats, and made it a 'rat utopia', the perfect rat-land.

to his surprise, over the years of watching it, it never rose above 200. once it got to around 150, a large number of rats became psychotic, attacking every male they met, and even killing females and babies. a large number became exclusively homosexual, or hypersexual, fucking every rat they met, males, females, babies. eventually, there were the violent rats and psychologically dead rats that huddled in the middle as a group. even once the population went down, the rats never returned to normal, they were permanently altered as a rat society.

Can you take this a step further and explain your point?

Psychological behavior is intriguing, but psychological differs from naturally occurring, or biological. Many caging studies have been done with mammals, and homosexuality always comes up among heterosexual animals. That's behavioral. John B. Calhoun studied behavior. It's interesting reading. I suggest doing more of it.

RoundElephant

1st November 2010, 12:31 AM

Wow, this thread is three years old now!

Anyway, you're quoting a statement I made a long time ago. My position has changed on many issues. To clarify, I don't support gay marriage, but I support civil unions.

Why just civil union? It still creates a second class citizen.

And how can you say you support gay rights if you want to deprive them of the right to marry?

madscientist

1st November 2010, 12:40 AM

hahahahah... I was kidding odin.

They should just demolish the entire institution of marriage... it's stupid bs anyway. Civil unions should exist for people for convenience if they're living together or otherwise have a need to share finances etc.

Abrazaderas

1st November 2010, 12:48 AM

Can you take this a step further and explain your point?

Psychological behavior is intriguing, but psychological differs from naturally occurring, or biological. Many caging studies have been done with mammals, and homosexuality always comes up among heterosexual animals. That's behavioral. John B. Calhoun studied behavior. It's interesting reading. I suggest doing more of it.

i think my point was that as there are more humans on earth then we really have room for, (because it's not just about, 'can we support this many people'... creatures need space.)
the gays are here to stay and there's no point in fucking their shit up, and if they want to get married, well why say no? marriage holds little more significance to people then dating now of days. it's a completely ruined idea altogether.

odin_dax

1st November 2010, 02:58 AM

Why just civil union? It still creates a second class citizen.

And how can you say you support gay rights if you want to deprive them of the right to marry?

Because marriage infers a religious ceremony, and no religion permits gay marriage. It's insulting and disrespectful, whether or not you are personally religious. Civil unions solve both issues: 1) respecting religion and 2) the state recognizing a union between two people and granting them all the same rights as heterosexual couples. I understand there are differences in the law between civil unions and marriages, but those can easily be fixed at the same time of allowing civil unions themselves.

I don't see how calling it a civil union is creating second class citizenship if the state doesn't recognize any difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples. Can you make your position clearer?

Many people here know me as a religious person, but my views have greatly changed on that issue. Still, I understand the differences between state and church. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden, and I'm not going to support a state position that demands a church to follow a practice strictly and explicitly against its doctrines. That's a matter of principle, not religion.

Again, if the state gives homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals through civil unions, what is the problem?

hahahahah... I was kidding odin.

They should just demolish the entire institution of marriage... it's stupid bs anyway. Civil unions should exist for people for convenience if they're living together or otherwise have a need to share finances etc.

Ha, okay. I take it back. Sorry!

Yeah, the institution of marriage is becoming more and more irrelevant. I'd say it was a practice to ensure whose offspring was whose. I really don't want to get into it though.

i think my point was that as there are more humans on earth then we really have room for, (because it's not just about, 'can we support this many people'... creatures need space.)
the gays are here to stay and there's no point in fucking their shit up, and if they want to get married, well why say no? marriage holds little more significance to people then dating now of days. it's a completely ruined idea altogether.

Okay, gotcha. I will disagree with the human population thing. If you give everyone an acre (or was it a square mile?), everyone on the planet would fit in the state of Texas. This world isn't overpopulated, and the earth can support much more, we're just not using our resources efficiently. People differ from rats in many ways, so striking a comparison between us on earth and them in barn is really not the best way to derive such a position.

As for gay marriage, I thought I proposed a solution that pleases the most people.

madscientist

1st November 2010, 03:38 AM

I think the gov should completely shut down anything related to marriage and replace it, across the board, with civil unions. If you want to call it a marriage, you are still free to do so - at a church. This way, the "destroying marriage" nonsense could be dodged.

Abrazaderas

1st November 2010, 04:19 AM

respecting religion

problem is, the government handles marriage licenses. meaning there can (or should) be no religious aspect to it. and having respect for a cult is not required of anyone and certainly not the government. i don't know why or how churches are seriously tax-free. if the government hands them out, they can not be religiously discriminatory, or religious in nature. if the government does not hand them out, then it's just a matter of the gays finding someone willing to do the ceremony.

Okay, gotcha. I will disagree with the human population thing. If you give everyone an acre (or was it a square mile?), everyone on the planet would fit in the state of Texas. This world isn't overpopulated, and the earth can support much more, we're just not using our resources efficiently. People differ from rats in many ways, so striking a comparison between us on earth and them in barn is really not the best way to derive such a position.

well, without any references for either of us to show that our guesstimate of the human capacity of earth is correct, as if there really are any that are conclusive, we're just thinking thoughts at each other pretty much. so i'll do just that.

there are roughly 6,800,000,000 billion people alive.

there are 171,891,200 square acres in texas. there are 2,263,962,240 square acres in the USA. there are about 32,000,000,000 square land acres on earth.

now this is a chart of the percent of arable land in each country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Arable_land_percent_world.png

i myself have looked into and read up sustainable agriculture - how to manage land so that a family could live about indefinitely on it. a family of five to ten, normal age distribution, can't really get on on less then seven and a half acres, in a good region. ideally about fourteen, and five is starvation level. now, this is doing agriculture the old way, with rotating plots, animal cohabitation, maximum efficiency and variety, with everything being used over in some way or another. the land will never be exhausted this way, if it's done properly as it was done until a few hundred years ago.

does the world look so big now?

now look at the reaction and solutions applied to the problem.

we can get a higher efficiency out of our land if we grow in massive plots, use monoculture, genetic engineering, chemical aid, machinery, and feed some groups of people a percentage of very artificial food. but that's a precarious balancing act. the land soon becomes exhausted and doesn't produce like it used too; genetically modified foods have their advantages and disadvantages; introducing chemicals the food supply will invariably cause problems, lots of them; the machinery - well, that's not that bad. except eventually the soil is no longer quite as healthy in it's very texture from being smashed down and powerfully churned. feeding people anything less then the diet we would be eating bar technology is going to prove harmful and have ill consequences.

and now look at how it's going to effect people. nutrition is very important in the development of a creature; it affects everything. a population raised on junk food and chemicals is going to be less stable then a population raised on our natural diet. we can't even fathom what the chemicals are doing to us, really, because we don't know the extent of it.

what happens politically? groups of people are pitted against each other for survival, essentially. each state has manage it's existence against a shrinking resource pool. the only way is increasing organization. fit people into smaller and smaller cages, because it's more efficient. and we can't afford to be inefficient. society becomes cramped. people kill each other, become psychopaths, homosexual, etc. a general malaise on human life, because we weren't really designed for this life. community disappears in exchange for interactions with other entities in a 'environment', rather a series of rooms in which we do this in that one, and that in this one. society is now something like a play at companionship... there is no wilderness, just parks in the global metropolis. even war has ceased to exist. we now just have police action here and there - no titanic clashes which anyone actually believes in. no way to fight for life and survival and dominance, the thing which makes us strong and happy. we simply have to submit harder to get better reviews at jobs which we no longer 'live' at, we view working as tine taken out of our life in exchange for which we earn the right to enjoy another part of it, instead of the work being part of life that we enjoy. (generally,)

in short, problems permeate all of humanity subtly and deeply. and where is it going? how much more can we coax out of the land? the dirt simply can not provide high efficiency yields forever. the population is shooting upwards by the second. no end in sight to that. no more land being created. the last century the bloodiest and most violent in human history.

i don't really know what the fuck is going on and what the problem is and i certainly don't know how to fix it, but with those numbers, and that chart, does it REALLY look like there's enough room for us?

and as for how different we are from rats... well, technology. and we're smarter. but as far as our behavior and motivations go, i don't see much of a difference. art, perhaps, is different.

jakebb

1st November 2010, 04:29 AM

Faggots are destroying America... where wings take dream.

Don't you mean where dreams take wing?

madscientist

1st November 2010, 04:32 AM

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-wings.htm

I'm waiting for the neo-Nazis to appear and explain that overpopulation is evidence that we need death camps.

odin_dax

1st November 2010, 06:41 AM

problem is, the government handles marriage licenses. meaning there can (or should) be no religious aspect to it. and having respect for a cult is not required of anyone and certainly not the government. if the government hands them out, they can not be religiously discriminatory, or religious in nature. if the government does not hand them out, then it's just a matter of the gays finding someone willing to do the ceremony.

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, I'm not responding to your "Texas" portion. I only asked you to clarify your point so you could link it to this topic. If you want to discuss it, please create another thread. :beerchug:

I agree, the government shouldn't handle marriage licenses. Fine. Someone can be found to marry a homosexual couple, but that doesn't change the law associated with marriage -- e.g. the tax code.

There are many things with all religions I disagree with, but the law of this land is very clear on the separation of church and state. Respect for the church is a fundamental tenet of this society, and it harms no one to respect different beliefs. It's important to understand all points of view. Arrogance and atheism seem to be brothers, and I have seen this in my behavior as well, but I'm not so arrogant to believe my position is absolute, that the possibility that my view in life is the correct one. Maybe no one on earth has it right. The point is, many religions are rooted in universal wisdom, and that's why they should be respected. You would not argue that murder and rape are okay, would you? Yet, it's always easy to pick and choose which "laws" you want to agree with. Betting that you would be against murder and rape, you would at least respect some aspects of some religions then. I hope you understand the difference between respect and agreement. Just as much as you wouldn't want any one religion to impose its will on you, the reverse is equally true.

However, the whammy in this recent exchange is that marriage hasn't always been a religious ceremony, so anyone's defense of marriage from a religious perspective is flawed. But before you or someone else points out that has been my position, it hasn't been. I merely stated a position of compromise.

So, since we agree, I guess that's the end. :firedevil

RoundElephant

1st November 2010, 06:59 AM

Because marriage infers a religious ceremony, and no religion permits gay marriage. It's insulting and disrespectful, whether or not you are personally religious. Civil unions solve both issues: 1) respecting religion and 2) the state recognizing a union between two people and granting them all the same rights as heterosexual couples. I understand there are differences in the law between civil unions and marriages, but those can easily be fixed at the same time of allowing civil unions themselves.

Church and state are supposed to be separate entities in the United States.

There are tons of religions that permit gay marriage, unless you count the more orthodox conservative side of the religions then that number is significantly reduced.. Yet if that logic applies then every single person on Earth "insults" and "disrespects" other religions by just being alive, so should we strip them of their rights as human beings to pursue happiness as well?

Civil unions are a step towards equality but only marrigage can bring it. Civil unions start another "seperate but equal" ideology.

"We can't call it marriage because of OUR religion, but it is just as good."- No it isn't and if I were gay I'd be fucking on the streets protesting this bigoted legislation aimed at denying them their rights.

odin_dax

1st November 2010, 07:28 AM

Church and state are supposed to be separate entities in the United States.

There are tons of religions that permit gay marriage, unless you count the more orthodox conservative side of the religions then that number is significantly reduced.. Yet if that logic applies then every single person on Earth "insults" and "disrespects" other religions by just being alive, so should we strip them of their rights as human beings to pursue happiness as well?

Civil unions are a step towards equality but only marrigage can bring it. Civil unions start another "seperate but equal" ideology.

"We can't call it marriage because of OUR religion, but it is just as good."- No it isn't and if I were gay I'd be fucking on the streets protesting this bigoted legislation aimed at denying them their rights.

Let me clarify. If you're not religious, why engage in a religious ceremony -- a priest, in a church, etc.? If you are religious, then you're really ignoring God's law. That can't be good. Of course, as you say, some religions permit gay marriage, but Christianity does not, if that's what you were implying. There's no Biblical basis for it; in fact, quite the contrary. If one follows a religion that permits gay marriage, great! The issue then comes back to state recognition.

If you read my last post you will understand that we don't disagree too much here. However, I'm not convinced by your reasoning. For argument's sake, if there is no fundamental difference between marriage and civil unions, then how can you claim they are not equal? You haven't provided any reasoning behind your position.

Here's an argument for you. If there is no difference in rights and recognition by the state between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, then that should satisfy homosexual couples because they get every right they're fighting for. When you call a homosexual union a marriage you're infringing on culture, whether right or wrong. One of the purposes of religion is culture, so separating the two is very difficult. Separate but equal. This again comes back to being religious. An atheist gay couple shouldn't care about being married in a church by a priest. A religious gay couple following a religion that expressly forbids homosexuality aren't following their religion. If they were, they would be fearful of their god. One can then make the assumption they only believe in religion because of psychological comfort or childhood upbringing rather than actually believing in that religion; therefore, marriage in a church by a priest should also not matter for this couple. A homosexual couple getting married in a church by a "priest" of some religion that allows marriage will 1) get all the rights and benefits from the state, and 2) be recognized in the "church" as a married couple. Win-win.

The being equal doctrine is only relevant when we talk of Christianity, which makes it very clear that they are not equal. If they were, homosexual marriage would be permissible. This agenda is clearly an assault on Christianity since that is the dominate religion in the US. To that I simply say, if one claims that the church should stay out of the state's affairs, then the opposite has to be equally true and valid. Civil unions allow all groups to be happy. If not, then it's the homosexuals that are the bigots. Now we're really getting into a deeper issue.

Call it what you will, that is the truth of the world.

Abrazaderas

1st November 2010, 12:53 PM

There are many things with all religions I disagree with, but the law of this land is very clear on the separation of church and state. Respect for the church is a fundamental tenet of this society, and it harms no one to respect different beliefs. It's important to understand all points of view. Arrogance and atheism seem to be brothers, and I have seen this in my behavior as well, but I'm not so arrogant to believe my position is absolute, that the possibility that my view in life is the correct one. Maybe no one on earth has it right. The point is, many religions are rooted in universal wisdom, and that's why they should be respected. You would not argue that murder and rape are okay, would you? Yet, it's always easy to pick and choose which "laws" you want to agree with. Betting that you would be against murder and rape, you would at least respect some aspects of some religions then. I hope you understand the difference between respect and agreement. Just as much as you wouldn't want any one religion to impose its will on you, the reverse is equally true.

while religion may be against murder and rape (sometimes...), i do not agree with the reasons WHY religion is against murder in rape, that it's inherently wrong. it's not inherently wrong, we just dislike it. and i do not think that being mocked is in any way to be imposed upon; if you believe something you have to expect that people that believe otherwise aren't going to take you seriously. and since marriage isn't a 'christian' idea in any case, it's not even mocking. the Christians don't own marriage. if it makes them feel any better they can get a big book full of the names of sanctified marriages and not recognize they gay people's marriages.

i don't think that the government should handle or even have a tax code respecting human mating partnerships. i think that's a aspect of life better left unmanaged by state. now, you can say, "but it is, face it" and you may be right, but there's my take anyways.

and in that ideal case, if a gay couple wanted to get a marriage soley out of spite against a cult that claims the wizard in they sky frowns upon their actions, then it's just a matter of finding a priest, or a priest costume. if they wanted to call it a civil union, they can do that too. it wouldn't even matter because it's all informal.

i say drop the issue, there is no tax code, you guys do whatever you want. if that's your stance, then we agree, if not, i'll meet you in the town square to duel in the morning i guess.

odin_dax

1st November 2010, 10:51 PM

while religion may be against murder and rape (sometimes...), i do not agree with the reasons WHY religion is against murder in rape, that it's inherently wrong. it's not inherently wrong, we just dislike it.

Please, give us an example of the reasoning you disagree, then explain why you disagree with it.

Rape is not inherently wrong? You sure about that?

and i do not think that being mocked is in any way to be imposed upon;

Who's mocking??? You mean calling the Christians' god a wizard, etc.?

if you believe something you have to expect that people that believe otherwise aren't going to take you seriously.

I totally disagree. Your line can be applied to every situation in life, even selecting a newspaper, but reasoned people don't apply only their choice. There's a big difference between disagreement and dismissing someone because they don't make the same choice you do.

the Christians don't own marriage.

No one claimed they did.

i don't think that the government should handle or even have a tax code respecting human mating partnerships. i think that's a aspect of life better left unmanaged by state. now, you can say, "but it is, face it" and you may be right, but there's my take anyways.

Taxes apply to the state and federal government. Unless you want to get rid of federal tax altogether, which I'd like, then there's no reason to say that married couples shouldn't get tax breaks.

if not, i'll meet you in the town square to duel in the morning i guess.

Ha, ha.

Abrazaderas

1st November 2010, 11:36 PM

Rape is not inherently wrong? You sure about that?

yes.

i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with feeding a dozen children and babies into a blender feet first and then putting the resultant pulp into the smoothies you're catering to a bereaved mothers support group for charity tax breaks. or exterminating a race or ending all life on earth. it's just that we have motivations, and a certain set of things don't help us in fulfilling those motivations, generally. blending babies just ain't practical; it makes bad feelings because you're wired to protect, not harm the young, the other people will be angry with you and probably kill you, and the babies could probably have been put to better use anyhow.

morality as separated from ethics involves a imaginary thought world of 'ideals' or 'purity' or 'essences' that plato posited, in which the 'good' is a set and unchanging thing, and that towards which all things must strive. this is the logical basis of christian morality. problem is, that despite recent advances in bovine colon inspection technology, this imaginary world has not been found outside of theory. morality does not live up to us, we being only living creatures doing what seems best and what we think we can get away with, according to our primal urges and capabilities, just like every other creature. ethics is what makes human society function for the greatest happiness and comfort of all involved. it has no set rules - just whatever works good, is what goes.

this is what would lead a christian to say, for example, that it's bad to have sex without marriage. now, it may have been impractical before condoms were invented, and even unethical if one was unprepared to provide for a baby should one result, but now we can eliminate the possibility of a childbirth resulting from sex almost altogether. but morals do not change. because they're in the imagination and part of their character is that they don't change.

Who's mocking??? You mean calling the Christians' god a wizard, etc.?

yes, calling the christians god a cosmic sky wizard is an excellent example of mocking.

I totally disagree. Your line can be applied to every situation in life, even selecting a newspaper, but reasoned people don't apply only their choice. There's a big difference between disagreement and dismissing someone because they don't make the same choice you do.

i'm not entirely certain what you're getting at.

No one claimed they did.

does ANY religion that denies homosexuals marriage own marriage?

does, in fact, any religion own marriage? in what lies the roots of marriage?

and does it even matter, for the following reason?

Taxes apply to the state and federal government. Unless you want to get rid of federal tax altogether, which I'd like, then there's no reason to say that married couples shouldn't get tax breaks.

i think we should replace the taxes with bake sales. if the government can get it's shit together, and the senators and congressman can bake some mean cookies, the problem is solved altogether. maybe we could export them.

but seriously, i don't see why you should get a tax break for deciding to practice monogamy and raise children, or just one or the other, or neither, or whatever it is people use marriage to indicate nowadays. or why it should require a state license. or what the fuck the state has to do with two peoples life and romance in any fucking case anyways.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 12:08 AM

yes.

i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with feeding a dozen children and babies into a blender feet first and then putting the resultant pulp into the smoothies you're catering to a bereaved mothers support group for charity tax breaks. or exterminating a race or ending all life on earth

it's just that we have motivations, and a certain set of things don't help us in fulfilling those motivations, generally. blending babies just ain't practical; it makes bad feelings because you're wired to protect, not harm the young, the other people will be angry with you and probably kill you, and the babies could probably have been put to better use anyhow.

If that is your position, then how can you say it's not inherently wrong? If we're wired, as you say, to protect the young, then it is inherent.

Raping a woman is a violation of her willingness. It's brute force, yet you say that it's not inherently wrong? You don't believe imposing someone's will on another is inherently wrong? Hasn't that been your position in this thread all along though?

I didn't ask you about murder because the Bible clearly permits that in certain instances. I don't know what other religions say. Obviously, it's not wrong to defend yourself if your life is threatened. There's a practicality there, which is something I keep saying about religion in general. Wisdom is universal. If wisdom is universal, it must be inherent as well, no?

morality as separated from ethics involves a imaginary thought world of 'ideals' or 'purity' or 'essences' that plato posited, in which the 'good' is a set and unchanging thing, and that towards which all things must strive. this is the logical basis of christian morality. problem is, that despite recent advances in bovine colon inspection technology, this imaginary world has not been found outside of theory. morality does not live up to us, we being only living creatures doing what seems best and what we think we can get away with, according to our primal urges and capabilities, just like every other creature. ethics is what makes human society function for the greatest happiness and comfort of all involved. it has no set rules - just whatever works good, is what goes.

Accepting your premise, if humans decide that it's ethical to ban same sex marriage, then you can't be, by your own logic, against that decision. After all, we can't live up to morality, and we think we can get away with it. This is your logic.

In order to be consistent, you either have to be against gay marriage or admit your position on ethics and morality is wrong.

this is what would lead a christian to say, for example, that it's bad to have sex without marriage. now, it may have been impractical before condoms were invented, and even unethical if one was unprepared to provide for a baby should one result, but now we can eliminate the possibility of a childbirth resulting from sex almost altogether. but morals do not change. because they're in the imagination and part of their character is that they don't change.

You assume Christianity forbids sex before marriage on the basis of procreation.

i'm not entirely certain what you're getting at.

Then I don't think I can explain it, which is probably why we've written so many posts on the subject. :dunno:

does ANY religion that denies homosexuals marriage own marriage?

does, in fact, any religion own marriage? in what lies the roots of marriage?

No, the culture does, as I inferred.

but seriously, i don't see why you should get a tax break for deciding to practice monogamy and raise children, or just one or the other, or neither, or whatever it is people use marriage to indicate nowadays. or why it should require a state license. or what the fuck the state has to do with two peoples life and romance in any fucking case anyways.

I'm not an expert on taxes (yet), but I would assume the law was written for a single income supporting a spouse and family. Practicing monogamy has nothing to do with it. Many people cheat, some couples swing, some couples allow affairs.

Beyond laws that are designed to protect people, keep law and order, I would agree that the government has no right. In reality, and on the subject of marriage, DOMA says otherwise. Is it right? Probably not, but since culture and Christianity in the US are intertwined at this point, there is resistance. I've been stating that all along, and I proposed a compromise.

Abrazaderas

2nd November 2010, 01:46 AM

we're wired to protect the young. doesn't mean we can't defy that wiring for whatever reason. or perhaps we sometimes defy that wiring because of more complex wiring that permits it. or more faulty. either way, it's just a monkeys killing a small young monkey, and the universe keeps turning, it doesn't care.

i think raping a woman is bad for the woman and it's a bad practice for people to take up and it may end badly for the rapist, but i don't think that if he get's away with it, and doesn't give a fuck about her feelings, that there are any consequences for him. i don't think any higher power forbids it. it's something we all agree we can't allow, but i don't think it's inherently wrong. it's something i would personally stop if i could, but simply because it feels bad and so i would like to not allow it, it would make me feel good to do so.

you say that it's not wrong to defend yourself if your life is threatened. jesus didn't. the martyrs didn't. i would say that it's bad NOT to defend yourself if your life is threatened, it's not something that really works on a large scale. a christian that would rather kill someone then be killed himself isn't much of a christ-like person. christianity really has little to do with christ... christ would not permit murder. the old testament swims in blood. the new testament doesn't conclusively lead either way. a examination of christs life and teachings would lead one to conclude that killing is always unacceptable, if one were determined to be a christ-ian.

if wisdom were inherent then most people would be wise, and agree on what wisdom meant... or was... or anything for that matter.

no. humans do unethical things all the time, because they are stupid, stupid things. stupid, mean, things. and you assume that majority equals correctness, which is inverse to the known fact that there aren't many smart people but a great deal of fools.

my position is that we should let people do what they damn well please so long as they don't prevent others from doing the same! because that makes everyone happy except those determined to make others unhappy, and if we're not working together to make us all happy, what ARE we working for?

i don't assume that christianity forbids marriage on the basis of procreation. that's just the only logical reason to do so.

your compromise may be best practically, but since i'm not a politician i'm only interested in arguing ideas. my idea, the feds get their tentacles away from everything, no laws or licenses regarding marriage or civil unions or wiccan handbounds or the beast 666 and his scarlet woman, is the best, and i don't move from that. i agree your idea may be the best thing we can actually get. but i don't care what we actually get, i just argue for the fun of thinking, so i'll shoot for the moon.

madscientist

2nd November 2010, 01:48 AM

It's semantics... Abraz is right... he's not saying that he sees rape etc. as a neutral issue, he's just acknowledging why it offends us.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 02:58 AM

we're wired to protect the young. doesn't mean we can't defy that wiring for whatever reason.

Now you're backtracking. Just because we can defy our instincts doesn't make something inherently neutral. If it's wired, again, as you say, then it is inherent -- in other words, built in.

i think raping a woman is bad for the woman and it's a bad practice for people to take up and it may end badly for the rapist, but i don't think that if he get's away with it, and doesn't give a fuck about her feelings, that there are any consequences for him.

Feelings and getting away with it are irrelevant in determining whether is inherent, just, or anything else.

Why are you personally against rape?

i don't think any higher power forbids it.

You're missing the point on the universal wisdom part.

it's something we all agree we can't allow, but i don't think it's inherently wrong. it's something i would personally stop if i could, but simply because it feels bad and so i would like to not allow it, it would make me feel good to do so.

If it's not inherently wrong, why claim we all can't allow it? If it feels bad, why is it not inherently wrong? If stopping it makes you feel better, then the act of doing so is inherently good, so wouldn't that make the act you stopped inherently bad?

you say that it's not wrong to defend yourself if your life is threatened. jesus didn't. the martyrs didn't. i would say that it's bad NOT to defend yourself if your life is threatened, it's not something that really works on a large scale. a christian that would rather kill someone then be killed himself isn't much of a christ-like person. christianity really has little to do with christ... christ would not permit murder. the old testament swims in blood. the new testament doesn't conclusively lead either way. a examination of christs life and teachings would lead one to conclude that killing is always unacceptable, if one were determined to be a christ-ian.

It's very clear that you don't know at all what you're talking about, and considering how easily you mock any religion, especially Christianity, you don't come off as an authoritative source on the matter of what Jesus would want or have anyone do.

Luke 22:36
1st Timothy 5:8

Those are just New Testament references.

if wisdom were inherent then most people would be wise, and agree on what wisdom meant... or was... or anything for that matter.

I didn't say wisdom was inherent in individual people. I said wisdom was universal. Big difference.

no. humans do unethical things all the time, because they are stupid, stupid things. stupid, mean, things. and you assume that majority equals correctness, which is inverse to the known fact that there aren't many smart people but a great deal of fools.

I never said the majority equals correctness.

Yes, humans do many unethical things, but one human doesn't do all the unethical things. Most people don't murder, don't rape, don't assault people either.

my position is that we should let people do what they damn well please so long as they don't prevent others from doing the same! because that makes everyone happy except those determined to make others unhappy, and if we're not working together to make us all happy, what ARE we working for?

So drunk driving is okay?

i don't assume that christianity forbids marriage on the basis of procreation. that's just the only logical reason to do so.

What about preventing disease?

What about ensuring your offspring belongs to you?

i just argue for the fun of thinking.

Me too.

By the way, I'm still waiting for answers to my earlier questions.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 03:03 AM

It's semantics... Abraz is right... he's not saying that he sees rape etc. as a neutral issue, he's just acknowledging why it offends us.

Yes, it is semantics... Obviously. No one is making the claim that rape is a neutral issue, and no one is saying that they're not offended by rape, so please explain how Abraz, in your view, is right because I'm a little unclear as to what exactly you're trying to agree with.

madscientist

2nd November 2010, 03:11 AM

I believe what he's getting at is that everything about us - even our most selfless actions - are inherently hedonist. We help others because it makes us feel good. If we felt terrible, like we'd committed a horrible deed, helping others, we wouldn't do it. It all boils down to the chemistry of the mind.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 03:18 AM

madscientist

2nd November 2010, 03:27 AM

Sort of, if you consider "derived from" to be "co-exist with." The same way the roof of a house can co-exist with the foundation.

RoundElephant

2nd November 2010, 04:19 AM

Let me clarify. If you're not religious, why engage in a religious ceremony -- a priest, in a church, etc.? If you are religious, then you're really ignoring God's law. That can't be good. Of course, as you say, some religions permit gay marriage, but Christianity does not, if that's what you were implying. There's no Biblical basis for it; in fact, quite the contrary. If one follows a religion that permits gay marriage, great! The issue then comes back to state recognition.

If you read my last post you will understand that we don't disagree too much here. However, I'm not convinced by your reasoning. For argument's sake, if there is no fundamental difference between marriage and civil unions, then how can you claim they are not equal? You haven't provided any reasoning behind your position.

Here's an argument for you. If there is no difference in rights and recognition by the state between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, then that should satisfy homosexual couples because they get every right they're fighting for. When you call a homosexual union a marriage you're infringing on culture, whether right or wrong. One of the purposes of religion is culture, so separating the two is very difficult. Separate but equal. This again comes back to being religious. An atheist gay couple shouldn't care about being married in a church by a priest. A religious gay couple following a religion that expressly forbids homosexuality aren't following their religion. If they were, they would be fearful of their god. One can then make the assumption they only believe in religion because of psychological comfort or childhood upbringing rather than actually believing in that religion; therefore, marriage in a church by a priest should also not matter for this couple. A homosexual couple getting married in a church by a "priest" of some religion that allows marriage will 1) get all the rights and benefits from the state, and 2) be recognized in the "church" as a married couple. Win-win.

The being equal doctrine is only relevant when we talk of Christianity, which makes it very clear that they are not equal. If they were, homosexual marriage would be permissible. This agenda is clearly an assault on Christianity since that is the dominate religion in the US. To that I simply say, if one claims that the church should stay out of the state's affairs, then the opposite has to be equally true and valid. Civil unions allow all groups to be happy. If not, then it's the homosexuals that are the bigots. Now we're really getting into a deeper issue.

Call it what you will, that is the truth of the world.

My stance on homosexual marriage is that gays are being singled out and scapegoated as the embodiment of morality going down the drain.

You say Christian gays should not be married simply because it goes against God's law. The bible just talks about how lying with a man is an abomination, it isnt even one of the seven deadly sins.

Since gays aren't allowed to marry shouldn't glutenous people not be allowed to eat? Them eating is committing a deadly sin. Since they are glutenous, their eating offends the lord infinitesimally more than homosexual relationships. It seems to me like gays are being singled out and scapegoated because of homophobia and the Bible is merely an excuse.

now, I am in no way bashing the Bible with what I am saying. I like the Bible alright, even though most of it is much more judgmental than anything Jesus ever said.

And Brown v. Board of education ruled separate but equal unconstitutional, it just breeds prejudice.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 07:48 AM

My stance on homosexual marriage is that gays are being singled out and scapegoated as the embodiment of morality going down the drain.

I can't comment. It's obviously an opinion based on what you hear, which is clearly not the same interpretation of what I hear, since I live in a very liberal area.

You say Christian gays should not be married simply because it goes against God's law. The bible just talks about how lying with a man is an abomination, it isnt even one of the seven deadly sins.

Before I continue, let me just remind everyone that I'm only arguing a position, but it's not one I necessarily agree with.

No, I said gay Christians wanting to get married ignore their god's laws. Many things in the Bible are not deadly sins, but that doesn't make any one thing better. Rape isn't a deadly sin. But both fall under the lust umbrella (but rape could be argued as greed). If you don't believe me, refer to Romans 1:26-27.

Since gays aren't allowed to marry shouldn't glutenous people not be allowed to eat?

I would certainly argue they shouldn't be allowed healthcare, but that has no relevance here.

It's really a bad comparison because if you starve a person, it's unhealthy for him and/or he will die. Dare I say it, preventing someone from engaging in homosexual sex (and hetero) will probably save lives because the contraction of a disease is impossible, such as AIDS.

Them eating is committing a deadly sin. Since they are glutenous, their eating offends the lord infinitesimally more than homosexual relationships. It seems to me like gays are being singled out and scapegoated because of homophobia and the Bible is merely an excuse.

As I said, homosexual acts would fall under the lust category. Both acts are "deadly" because they, according to the Bible, forbid entry into the kingdom of heaven. First Corinthians 6:9.

now, I am in no way bashing the Bible with what I am saying. I like the Bible alright, even though most of it is much more judgmental than anything Jesus ever said.

You're not bashing the Bible because you don't know what it says, and what you think it says you agree with. Refer to my references above and these: Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33, Leviticus 18:22.

From a Christian angle, there's no possible way to permit gay marriage. My earlier comments about people following various practices is very relevant. I have more references on Biblical passages if you need more, but I think I've proven my point on this issue.

I can refer to passages that say teach in a loving and respectful way, and one on being of the world, liked by the world... It's all good stuff, really. Even if you don't believe in that, there are lessons to be learned there. Universal wisdom. Christianity doesn't permit bigotry or hate speech, discrimination, anti-gay signs, etc.

If you want to argue gay marriage from a different perspective, by all means.

And Brown v. Board of education ruled separate but equal unconstitutional, it just breeds prejudice.

Brown vs. the Board of Education was not a decision based on church and state. Separate but equal doesn't apply here.

odin_dax

2nd November 2010, 07:53 AM

Sort of, if you consider "derived from" to be "co-exist with." The same way the roof of a house can co-exist with the foundation.

Then we have the chicken and the egg.

madscientist

2nd November 2010, 06:27 PM

odin_dax

3rd November 2010, 12:43 AM

No, that's not chicken and the egg, it's roof built on foundation. One leads to the other. There's no paradoxal questions here. Chemistry has always, and will always, dictate the behavior of living organisms.

Nature vs. nurture.

There is no absolute. Some behaviors are natural, some are nurtured. Chemistry plays many important roles, but to totally dictate behavior, higher reasoning, etc.? Absolutely not.

True Sounds

3rd November 2010, 01:49 AM

odin_dax

3rd November 2010, 02:01 AM

I Guess GOd Was All Like " You're Gay, You're Straight, You're Bi-Sexual" at the time of conception or is it my crotch crashing into Uranus?(I would stick it where the Sun don't Shine! ) "Come on party people"

Seriously, dude, what's wrong with you? Are you mental? Just disappear again and leave this forum alone.

lcnostra

3rd November 2010, 03:01 AM

The drunken porter is to Othello as True Sounds is to Rorta: much-needed comic relief in between the seriousness. I think he'd be a riot to party with.

Anders Hoveland

2nd April 2011, 12:24 PM

found this:
http://christwire.org/2011/02/homosexual-perversion-is-it-normal/

I do not think there will be any "gay" marriage in the states any time soon.
The American left is further right than most of the conservative parties on the continent (at least western Europe)

I do not believe in gay marriage- in fact, I do not believe in any type of marriage.
It is not the government's job to be recognizing marriage, leave that to crazy religious institutions. The government should only recognize legal guardians for children.

Abrazaderas

2nd April 2011, 02:29 PM

marriage is a biological event. religion ruined it by making it a social event, but no ceremony will ever truly make a woman your wife, only real female-male submission and union can do that. i've seen very few actual husband and wives, but thousands of fakers with rings, adult children playing sex, playing love, no actual clue...

Saturday

3rd April 2011, 04:13 AM

Some species are monogomous, some are polyamourous. Humans seem to be both, which seems to be the root of the problem. Can't hold just one umbrella over everyone, but we try anyway.

Abrazaderas

3rd April 2011, 05:17 PM

no form of sexual activity is satisfying.

madscientist

10th April 2011, 05:15 AM

...uh?

only real female-male submission

What?

Anders Hoveland

4th June 2011, 08:39 PM

Ideally children should have both a father and a mother. Children need the care and nurture that a mother can provide, but also benefit from a strong male role model. For example, females that are raised with only the mother are much more likely to engage in risky sexual activity in their younger years. This is not really an argument against same-sex couples adopting. There are already more single-parent families than there should be. Step parents can be very unkind or uncaring also, so remarriage is not really an ideal solution.

Perhaps a male-male couple could co-adopt children with a female-female couple so their children would have both male and female parents. Personally, I am much more against interracial adoption than I am against same-sex parents adopting.

If I had to be adopted, I would much prefer to be adopted into a normal family, but better a gay family than no family. I have heard that the orphanages/"foster" care in the USA can be very bad places for children to grow up in, especially when one looks at the statistics for orphans after they become adults. A 2007 study in the state of California, the Children’s Advocacy Institute reported that 65% of foster youth do not have a place to live upon emancipating, 51% are unemployed, the percentage of all former foster youth who ever obtain a college degree is only 1– 3%. Compared to these grim statistics, even a gay family is a blessing.