Discussion: Gay Rights

[Whirlysplat]

quadruple post sorry guys.

- Whirly

[Whirlysplat]

"I had a good s**t."

"He is your slave?"

Goddamnit this movie can't get here soon enough.

Classic :)

that's me out of here, goodnight guys, sorry if I have made a few to many threads tonight.

- Whirly

[Whirlysplat]

edit

[tzarinna]

You're quite predatory then tzar?

- Whirly

Shameless:O

[Alpha and Omega]

I don't think there's a greater fear; men are probably more apprehensive because most guys think about sex frequently. Personally, I usually identify most homosexual males relatively quickly in different settings. I don't think their mannerisms are stereotypically feminine like the media and tv claim, but there are characteristics which the ones I've interacted w/ display.

Imo, it's harder to peg a bi-sexual as opposed to someone who is homo.

[oakzap425]

As someone who is 99% hetero and only 1% bi, I must say that there IS a "gay agenda", of sorts. It's main points are: being happy, and DANCING! ;) :D


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/chrismakkuh/Gif/Gaaralick.gif

[oakzap425]

I still get a bit creeped out when chicks hit on me. It happens infrequently, but it still bothers me. I'm not a lesbian. They seem to be quite subtle about it, they make with the eyes or some kind of passive aggressive move.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/chrismakkuh/Gif/9390667.gif

[tzarinna]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/chrismakkuh/Gif/9390667.gif



right back at cha,

;)

[Noon]

This thread is ruined for me, now. Before, Whirlysplat was simply nefarious but now that I know he's actually sinister I can no longer be associated with this.

jag

In contrast, it makes me keep coming back for more ;)

[oakzap425]

I love gay men... :D

[jaguarr]

In contrast, it makes me keep coming back for more ;)

That just makes you a sinister groupie. :p

jag

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Men are tired of being objectified, treated like pieces of meat. :(
I know I am.

[oakzap425]

Men are tired of being objectified, treated like pieces of meat. :(
I know I am.



Come with me, and I'll treat you like a queen... :D

[Noon]

That just makes you a sinister groupie. :p

jag

meh, I'll be a groupie for anything :p

[LastSunrise1981]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. If two guys want to get together and have a relationship, then more power to them, just don't splash any of it on me or expect to convert me when they try to make a pass at me.

Unfortunately I have had a gay man hit on me and it's not a very comfortable situation. Luckily he was pretty cool and I told him that I enjoy the female gender too much to be gay.

Besides, watching two hot girls get it on is so much fun. :up: :up:

I'm only repulsed when two males make-out, hug, and openly display their affection in public places or even on television. But if that's how they want to live their life, then who are we to look down on them?

[Spidey-Bat]

Why are men more scared of homosexuals than women?

What's more scary than 2 guys having sex? Atlest with 2 women, it's hot.

[ShadowBoxing]

I love gay men... :DYes we know:o

[tzarinna]

I love gay men... :D

Gay men are hot!!

[Arkady Rossovich]

I can imagine why men would be scared is because...they may think homosexuals have diseases..or such.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Lesbians are what's hot.

[Calvin]

Gay men are hot!!
Please please please stop being such a bigot. They prefer the term "hawt."

[rdh007]

Men are scared because we're afraid to awaken the gay guy within. It's all repression

[deemar325]

Lesbians are what's hot.

Lipstick lesbians not the butch ones.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I actually prefer an ugly butch one with a dainty, girly, pretty one. :)

aHahahahaha YES!

[oakzap425]

Gay men = Smexy...


Mmm... they remind me of cookie dough ice cream...
















God, I need more gay porn in my life.

[deemar325]

I think Christina Lokken(T-3) is a lesbian.

[HULK LOVER]

I grew up in a small town where nobody would talk or admit there were HoMOSEXUAL.....

[deemar325]

^ You from Texas?

[Herr Logan]

What's more scary than 2 guys having sex?

How about people actually getting hurt?

I can imagine why men would be scared is because...they may think homosexuals have diseases..or such.

Yeah, because heterosexuals aren't just as rife with diseases... and such.

:wolverine

[deemar325]

I say screw who you want as long as I don't gotta see it or smell it.

[Spidey-Bat]

How about people actually getting hurt?

My comment was a joke.

[HULK LOVER]

^ You from Texas?

NO I lived in a small town called KAPUSKASING IN Northern ONTARIO IN CANADA

[8Ball2/JanG5]

Is there a trailer out?

edit - oh crap, I clicked on that trailer on apple.com before, saw the poster, didn't realize who that was. I thought it was a documentary on nascar and decided not to view. Viewing now. Cheers.

double edit - Just watched it. Apparently he's a frenchie :up:


Frenchie? Did they change this for the movie? Imdb says the gay bruno character is an austrian fashion guy.

edit: nevermind, it's an entirely new character with a french name.

[Calvin]

We're talking about Cohen's character in some Will Farrell movie.

[deemar325]

NO I lived in a small town called KAPUSKASING IN Northern ONTARIO IN CANADA

Kapuskasing, odd name for a town. I'm assuming it's native American?

[8Ball2/JanG5]

We're talking about Cohen's character in some Will Farrell movie.

Ya got that. I thought it was one of the three characters from his show but it's an entirely new character.

[Herr Logan]

My comment was a joke.

Ah, humor. Splendid!

:wolverine

[8Ball2/JanG5]

I think Christina Lokken(T-3) is a lesbian.

You think they could have gotten a straight girl in that role?

[deemar325]

You think they could have gotten a straight girl in that role?

I like her regardless, she did good in that role.

All her other movies are crap.

[rodhulk]

Kapuskasing, odd name for a town. I'm assuming it's native American?Yes

[deemar325]

^ Cool.

[LastSunrise1981]

I think Christina Lokken(T-3) is a lesbian.

She's admitted to being bisexual and is open to have a relationship with a woman, and that she finds women more interesting anyways.

[deemar325]

Sweet!!

[8Ball2/JanG5]

She's admitted to being bisexual and is open to have a relationship with a woman, and that she finds women more interesting anyways.

I don't blame her. :(

Why men...why do you all have to make us look bad..most of you anyway.

[Angry Sentinel]

chosen...no way can god make that genetic... speaking religously and respectively that is my OPINION.. dnt flame me I know this is probably unnecessary but...

As I see it, God has allowed several things to exist that are contradictory to what is stated in religion as 'right'... and these afflicted people are explained in some religions as the product of a sinful nature. So even from a religious standpoint, you could see how homosexuality could be genetic, or one could have been created that way.

[Calvin]

Why? I am not sure. I know what I like. That is a personal choice.
So for you it was completely a personal choice. You felt just as instinctively attracted to men as women, but you made a personal choice to be heterosexual?

[Matt]

I will chime in here. I do not control when my penis gets erect or what makes me aroused. Wanting to be with women is an instinct. It is not something I control. I assume it is very much the same way for homosexuals.

[Mr. Cheese Puff]

It's a choice. Perhaps a subconscious choice influenced by outside influences, but still.

When it comes right down to it, everyone has choices to make. There comes a time when people must ask themselves...regular...or extra crispy?

[Strange]

If homosexuality is genetic then could DNA be altered to prevent it? I'm not saying it should I'm just asking if it could be possible?

Or is there a homsexual gene?

[Mr Sparkle]

chosen...no way can god make that genetic... speaking religously and respectively that is my OPINION.. dnt flame me

but who are you to question god's creation, simply because you can't understand it.
some native american tribes accepted homosexuals as part of the way the world should be. why exactly are we above that?
furthermore, if it's a choice, why would native americans "choose" that way of life, when it yielded no pratical results?

[Emrys]

chosen...no way can god make that genetic... speaking religously and respectively that is my OPINION.. dnt flame me

Simple logic and common sense dictates otherwise.

[jaguarr]

If homosexuality is genetic then could DNA be altered to prevent it? I'm not saying it should I'm just asking if it could be possible?

Or is there a homsexual gene?

Funny enough, the new X-Men film explores some of those very social complexities with the concept of a "cure for mutanism". Many people wouldn't WANT to be "cured" because they don't feel that their is anything wrong with them in the first place. When science is used to further or even justify a moral agenda, someone ends up losing.

jag

[Strange]

Funny enough, the new X-Men film explores some of those very social complexities with the concept of a "cure for mutanism". Many people wouldn't WANT to be "cured" because they don't feel that their is anything wrong with them in the first place. When science is used to further or even justify a moral agenda, someone ends up losing.

jag

So your saying homosexuals are mutants? :eek:























j/k :D

[Danalys]

we are all mutants.

[jaguarr]

So your saying homosexuals are mutants? :eek:























j/k :D

I'ma stab you in the face! :mad:




























j/k :D

jag

[D.Rex]

I think homosexuality can be either. Some may be born that way but others say a child who was molested or raped may end up becoming one because of that or another experiance.

I feel what goes on in someone else's bedroom is none of my business. Just because it's not for me doesn't make it wrong. That's the problem with some homophobes. They feel that anything that is different from what they do is wrong and bad. And a lot don't just feel that way about gays, they feel that way about everything else different fromt them as well. Most true homophobes (that aren't hiding something themselves) are also racist, sexist, and just flat out full of hate.

The one thing I find irritating are people who act like the sterotypical gay. I find people who feel like they have to act like the stereotype to be annoying. And that goes for any stereotype.

[KingOfDreams]

I think it's mostly genetic. I mean, I'm straight and I am because I am. There was no choice. It has to be the same with homosexuals.

[Cho Chang]

Whether or not it's a choice or genetic I'm surprised we still have to ask questions like this instead of just accepting it. Seriously. Enough is enough already, some people are gay and they deserve all the same rights as anyone else. There is no reason to deny them anything.

Disliking homosexuals is for ****.

[Whirlysplat]

Whether or not it's a choice or genetic I'm surprised we still have to ask questions like this instead of just accepting it. Seriously. Enough is enough already, some people are gay and they deserve all the same rights as anyone else. There is no reason to deny them anything.

Disliking homosexuals is for ****.

I share all your sentiments with one exception. I hate the words ****** and its shortened version ***.

Why the words ****** and *** makes me sick. It's history: taken from some website long ago because it is a good definition.

"******" is the classic anti-gay slur. Most people think it's a funny coincidence that the word also happens to mean "bundle of sticks." But there may be an ancient and awful connection between the two definitions: During the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century, homosexual prisoners were forced to collect wood for the Inquisition's witch-burning fires--and their own bodies were then used to fuel the pyres when the flames died out.

- Whirly

[Colossal Spoons]

^church

[Genesis 1.0]

Meh, I'd of voted for 'Dunno', I'm at a crossroads on the issue, although it is quickly becoming a hot button topic.

[Flame on!]

In all honesty, I've actually lost a wee bit of respect for all those who didn't say 'yes' instantly.

[Slipknot]

The Sperminator was the man.

[Spider-Bite]

Not at all, just respect those who are real christians (even though I have my own issues with religion.) or gays should make their own religion.

wrong. you want to tell churches who they can and can't marry. and you want to tell people where they can and can't get married which is religous institution. you want to control the way people practice their religion and that is wrong.

[Spider-Bite]

Chunin

So it looks like me and 77 others are willing to stand for what's right and not what's popular.:o


that couldn't be farther from the truth. just leave them alone and let them live their life. that's the right thing to do. In america most oppose gay rights. your position is popular and wrong.

At least me and 45 % of America are willing to stand for what's right and not what's popular.

[Genesis 1.0]

In all honesty, I've actually lost a wee bit of respect for all those who didn't say 'yes' instantly.

Heh, sorry about that. I tend to think independently. Silly me.:o

[Kritish]

I only support there right if I can marry my toaster! :mad:

[taskmaster]

I don't care. If they want to be married it's cool with me.

[Admiral_N8]

This is ridiculous. ONE man and ONE woman. What's next? Making divorce illegal? How the hell can you justify not allowing two CONSENTING adults the rights of any other CONSENTING adults?

Oh, this government pisses me off so much

If the argument is to be able to marry whoever you "love" than why does the government have the right to say we can only marry one person at a time? I know there are people who have been torn apart because they loved 2 different people, and the 3 would have been great all living together.

Plus, can 2 family members marry each other also?

[Admiral_N8]

wrong. you want to tell churches who they can and can't marry. and you want to tell people where they can and can't get married which is religous institution. you want to control the way people practice their religion and that is wrong.

Marriage doesnt have anything to do with religion anymore, its just a state license, just like a liquor license or a drivers license. And just like the other licenses there are restrictions.

[taskmaster]

If the argument is to be able to marry whoever you "love" than why does the government have the right to say we can only marry one person at a time? I know there are people who have been torn apart because they loved 2 different people, and the 3 would have been great all living together.

Plus, can 2 family members marry each other also?

Who cares? It doesn't personally affect your life. You may disapprove of a person's choice but it's their choice to make.

[Admiral_N8]

Who cares? It doesn't personally affect your life. You may disapprove of a person's choice but it's their choice to make.

Well if the argument for letting people do anything they want if it doesnt personally affect me then that is silly.

Going by that logic, since it doesnt personally affect me, they could look at child porn, be plotting terrorist attacks on England, be murdering endangered species, and so on.



I think if people just want to let anything happen, let whatever people want to be okay, then we HAVE to let gays marry, have to let people marry more then one person at a time, let family members marry each other. Because, after all, it doesnt hurt any of the rest of us.

[Calvin]

Well if the argument for letting people do anything they want if it doesnt personally affect me then that is silly.

Going by that logic, since it doesnt personally affect me, they could look at child porn, be plotting terrorist attacks on England, be murdering endangered species, and so on.



I think if people just want to let anything happen, let whatever people want to be okay, then we HAVE to let gays marry, have to let people marry more then one person at a time, let family members marry each other. Because, after all, it doesnt hurt any of the rest of us.
That wasn't his argument at all, and you know it. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people marrying. That's what he meant by "you." Terrorism and child abuse do affect others in a non-consensual way.

[taskmaster]

Well if the argument for letting people do anything they want if it doesnt personally affect me then that is silly.

Going by that logic, since it doesnt personally affect me, they could look at child porn, be plotting terrorist attacks on England, be murdering endangered species, and so on.



I think if people just want to let anything happen, let whatever people want to be okay, then we HAVE to let gays marry, have to let people marry more then one person at a time, let family members marry each other. Because, after all, it doesnt hurt any of the rest of us.

The marriages don't hurt people. The children in those movies are not consenting adults. The terrorist attacks actually kill people. No one is going to die because of a same sex marriage.

[Admiral_N8]

The marriages don't hurt people. The children in those movies are not consenting adults. The terrorist attacks actually kill people. No one is going to die because of a same sex marriage.

No one is going to be hurt by same family marriage, or by marrige between more then 2 people, so that okay as well?

[taskmaster]

No one is going to be hurt by same family marriage, or by marrige between more then 2 people, so that okay as well?

It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

[Admiral_N8]

It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

Well thats kind of.....interesting that if something doesnt personally affect you then you dont care. The starving people in Africa doesnt personally affect nearly any of us, so do you not care?

My argument is we either dont let gay marry, or we have to allow a lot more forms of marriage.

[taskmaster]

Well thats kind of.....interesting that if something doesnt personally affect you then you dont care. The starving people in Africa doesnt personally affect nearly any of us, so do you not care?

My argument is we either dont let gay marry, or we have to allow a lot more forms of marriage.

The starving people of Africa does affect me because people are suffering. No one is going to be hurt because of same sex marriages. You can't compare people dying to people getting married, it's incredibly stupid and wrong.

[Admiral_N8]

The starving people of Africa does affect me because people are suffering. No one is going to be hurt because of same sex marriages. You can't compare people dying to people getting married, it's incredibly stupid and wrong.

How does Africa affect you? IT doesnt, it doesnt affect me either. Neither does terrorism in Israel. I still choose to care about things outside of my personal bubble.

[taskmaster]

How does Africa affect you? IT doesnt, it doesnt affect me either. Neither does terrorism in Israel. I still choose to care about things outside of my personal bubble.

And I care about people being killed or starved to death. I don't care about same sex marriages because it's not something worth caring about. Why is the government fighting about gays getting married rather than helping the people in Africa or stopping terrorism in Israel? No they can't be bothered with that because being gay isn't natural or being gay is against god.

[Spider-Nerd]

meh, whatever. Wanna get married? By all means go ahead, get married, and be a contributing member to society.

[Admiral_N8]

And I care about people being killed or starved to death. I don't care about same sex marriages because it's not something worth caring about. Why is the government fighting about gays getting married rather than helping the people in Africa or stopping terrorism in Israel? No they can't be bothered with that because being gay isn't natural or being gay is against god.

And other people care about gay marriage because they think its worth caring about.

[Spider-Nerd]

And other people care about gay marriage because they think its worth caring about.
i think his point is gay marriage isn't going to contribute to people starving to death or contribute to terrorism...

[taskmaster]

And other people care about gay marriage because they think its worth caring about.


Why, what's the point? The real issues like the starving people in Africa and people dying everyday because of senseless violence are much more important than worrying about gays getting married. What could possibly make gay marriage more important than those things?

[Admiral_N8]

Why, what's the point? The real issues like the starving people in Africa and people dying everyday because of senseless violence are much more important than worrying about gays getting married. What could possibly make gay marriage more important than those things?

So since people are starving in Africa we cant deal with other issues in America? That's silly logic.

[Mrh7448]

Personally I don't care if two people of the same sex want to marry so badly why don't they let them. It's not like marriage even has the same purpose anymore. When the instituition of marriage was first started it had nothing to do with love but a binding contract between two families to increase their wealth.

Since the reasoning behind marriage has changed so to should our definition of what marriage should be about.

and don't throw the bible thing in my face saying it's a sin. You know what it was book written by men, using that as proof would be like reading a sci-fi authors book and deciding to base a religion around it....oh wait that's already been done.

[taskmaster]

So since people are starving in Africa we cant deal with other issues in America? That's silly logic.

That's not what I'm saying. Stop spending some much time and money on something so stupid and use it to help with the bigger things. As soon as we actually make a difference on the important things, then we can go back to focusing on the dumb, unimportant things.

[Admiral_N8]

That's not what I'm saying. Stop spending some much time and money on something so stupid and use it to help with the bigger things. As soon as we actually make a difference on the important things, then we can go back to focusing on the dumb, unimportant things.

So you are still saying we shouldnt do anything less important then feeding every African until that problem is solved? So you want America to be pretty much totally gridlocked, since there arent many things more important the living for Africans?

To you gay marriage may be "dumb", but to others its not.

[Calvin]

So since people are starving in Africa we cant deal with other issues in America? That's silly logic.
What's not logical is outlawing something that doesn't harm anyone. Gay marriage is outlawed because of religious morality, that's not logical at all.

[taskmaster]

So you are still saying we shouldnt do anything less important then feeding every African until that problem is solved? So you want America to be pretty much totally gridlocked, since there arent many things more important the living for Africans?

To you gay marriage may be "dumb", but to others its not.

I'm not stupid enough to think that we can fully eliminate that problem but we could do a better job of helping out if we weren't fighting about things that don't involve violence or other people being harmed.

Why is gay marriage so important to you? What could possibly make you have such a strong opinion on the subject?

[Admiral_N8]

What's not logical is outlawing something that doesn't harm anyone. Gay marriage is outlawed because of religious morality, that's not logical at all.

We outlaw a lot of things that dont "harm" anyone.

Gay marriage isnt legal because thats how most people have felt throughout the nations history. What they base their opinions on doesnt matter, this is a democracy you know.

[Admiral_N8]

I'm not stupid enough to think that we can fully eliminate that problem but we could do a better job of helping out if we weren't fighting about things that don't involve violence or other people being harmed.

Why is gay marriage so important to you? What could possibly make you have such a strong opinion on the subject?

Gay marriage isnt that important to me, but its obviously more important to me than you since you say its "dumb" and "unimportant" and "not worth caring about".

[Mrh7448]

How does Africa affect you? IT doesnt, it doesnt affect me either. Neither does terrorism in Israel. I still choose to care about things outside of my personal bubble.

Well How does gay marriage affect you? It's not like some homosexual is going to force you to marry them is it?

I don't get the whole thing, conservatives keep telling me that homosexuality goes against nature and yet it's everywhere, there a gay dogs and gay goats and other animals that are basically gay...why the hell is it such a big deal?

[taskmaster]

Gay marriage isnt that important to me, but its obviously more important to me than you since you say its "dumb" and "unimportant" and "not worth caring about".

I just don't understand why someone would want to outlaw it.

[Calvin]

We outlaw a lot of things that dont "harm" anyone.

Gay marriage isnt legal because thats how most people have felt throughout the nations history. What they base their opinions on doesnt matter, this is a democracy you know.
On principle, we're not supposed to outlaw things that don't infringe on other people's rights/freedom. That's the whole key to freedom. You only outlaw as much as you have to in order to protect as much equal freedom for everyone as you can. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's personal freedom.

[Admiral_N8]

Well How does gay marriage affect you? It's not like some homosexual is going to force you to marry them is it?

I don't get the whole thing, conservatives keep telling me that homosexuality goes against nature and yet it's everywhere, there a gay dogs and gay goats and other animals that are basically gay...why the hell is it such a big deal?

Well, from a Christian standpoint, they would argue that Gay goes against nature because of the bible, how it says "do not lay with a man as you would a woman, for that is detestable". and "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."

Thats their view.

As for myself, Gay Marriage affects me just as much as terrorism in Israel or starvation in Africa does.

[Admiral_N8]

On principle, we're not supposed to outlaw things that don't infringe on other people's rights/freedom. That's the whole key to freedom. You only outlaw as much as you have to in order to protect as much equal freedom for everyone as you can. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's personal freedom.


No, but DEMANDING a state license that you do not qualify for simply because of your feelings is not part of our principles either.

Just for the record I am 100% for civil unions.

[taskmaster]

Well, from a Christian standpoint, they would argue that Gay goes against nature because of the bible, how it says "do not lay with a man as you would a woman, for that is detestable". and "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."

Thats their view.

As for myself, Gay Marriage affects me just as much as terrorism in Israel or starvation in Africa does.

Wow, that's really strange. People dying affects you just as much as gays getting married.

[Calvin]

No, but DEMANDING a state license that you do not qualify for simply because of your feelings is not part of our principles either.

Just for the record I am 100% for civil unions.
They do qualify under the notion that americans are supposed to have equal opportunities. When civil unions carry the same benefits across the boards, and apply to every state wherever you may travel in the way way marriage does, then fine, but they don't yet. Even in the states that have civil unions, if you move to another state that doesn't, it won't count.

Plus, if we're going to hold up marriage as some religious thing, then in the eyes of the government, heterosexual marriages should be labeled as civil unions as well.

[Admiral_N8]

Wow, that's really strange. People dying affects you just as much as gays getting married.

No, it affects me the same in how it DOESNT affect me personally. But does that mean I should somehow not care about starving africans, dead jews, or gay marriage? No

[Super_Child]

Yes they can marry eachother thats fine with me, but that doesn't make it a propper marraige under gods eyes, thats just for men and women.

[taskmaster]

No, it affects me the same in how it DOESNT affect me personally. But does that mean I should somehow not care about starving africans, dead jews, or gay marriage? No

It's the order your putting them in that bothers me. Gay marriage should be the least important of those things. You're making it seem like gay marriage is more important then those other things

[Admiral_N8]

They do qualify under the notion that americans are supposed to have equal opportunities. When civil unions carry the same benefits across the boards, and apply to every state wherever you may travel in the way way marriage does, then fine, but they don't yet. Even in the states that have civil unions, if you move to another state that doesn't, it won't count.

Plus, if we're going to hold up marriage as some religious thing, then in the eyes of the government, heterosexual marriages should be labeled as civil unions as well.

The argument of "equal opportunities" doesnt hold up in the Supreme Court because a person who is gay has the same abilities as me, a straight guy. The Gay guy can marry any girl, just like me, so he can do the EXACT same thing I can. The Law has nothing to do with what you like, just he law. So that argument was presented to the Court.

Yeah I think civil unions should be like drivers licenses, respected in one state to the next.

As for your last sentence...i dont get why heterosexual marriages should be labeled as civil unions under religion?

[Admiral_N8]

It's the order your putting them in that bothers me. Gay marriage should be the least important of those things. You're making it seem like gay marriage is more important then those other things

I wasnt listing it in some kind of order. :rolleyes:

[Calvin]

The argument of "equal opportunities" doesnt hold up in the Supreme Court because a person who is gay has the same abilities as me, a straight guy. The Gay guy can marry any girl, just like me, so he can do the EXACT same thing I can. The Law has nothing to do with what you like, just he law. So that argument was presented to the Court.

Yeah I think civil unions should be like drivers licenses, respected in one state to the next.

As for your last sentence...i dont get why heterosexual marriages should be labeled as civil unions under religion?
No, he can't do the same thing as you. He can't marry someone he's attracted to. Do you think it would fly if the goverment outlawed playing videogames? Non video game fans could make the same argument "you still have just as many opportunities as me, you could read a book, which is my preference." That would still be a ridiculous restriction since it doesn't harm anyone, just like outlawing homosexuals from marrying.

[Mrh7448]

Well, from a Christian standpoint, they would argue that Gay goes against nature because of the bible, how it says "do not lay with a man as you would a woman, for that is detestable". and "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."

Thats their view.

As for myself, Gay Marriage affects me just as much as terrorism in Israel or starvation in Africa does.

My view is that Government policy should not be dictated by religion especially in places like Canada and the States since they are very diverse in the people that lives within those cultures.

I really don't care if the bible says that man shouldn't lay with man that's irrelevant...gay marriage should be permitted by the government. However the government should not be able to force religious leaders, priests etc to perform gay marriages as it would go against thier beliefs.

I don't believe in the bibles doctrine just as I don't believe in Dianetics. You are quite welcome to your own opinion on whether or not homosexuality is moral or not, that does not mean you should be able to stand in the way of two of them participating in a bond of marriage.

[taskmaster]

I wasnt listing it in some kind of order. :rolleyes:

You've compared gay marriage to children starving and people being murdered. That makes it seem like gay marriage is just as important as those things and it's not.

[Admiral_N8]

No, he can't do the same thing as you. He can't marry someone he's attracted to. Do you think it would fly if the goverment outlawed playing videogames? Non video game fans could make the same argument "you still have just as many opportunities as me, you could read a book, which is my preference." That would still be a ridiculous restriction since it doesn't harm anyone, just like outlawing homosexuals from marrying.

No, see he can do the same things as me. I cant marry a guy either. Remeber I speaking from the laws standpoint, not "feelings" standpoint.

[Admiral_N8]

My view is that Government policy should not be dictated by religion especially in places like Canada and the States since they are very diverse in the people that lives within those cultures.

I really don't care if the bible says that man shouldn't lay with man that's irrelevant...gay marriage should be permitted by the government. However the government should not be able to force religious leaders, priests etc to perform gay marriages as it would go against thier beliefs.

I don't believe in the bibles doctrine just as I don't believe in Dianetics. You are quite welcome to your own opinion on whether or not homosexuality is moral or not, that does not mean you should be able to stand in the way of two of them participating in a bond of marriage.

People believe homosexual marriage is immoral, it DOESNT matter HOW you came to that conclusion [if its from religion or not], according to the law. This is a democracy...people base their beliefs on whatever they want, and the peoples will is heard through policy. Now if the people will is to let gays marry, then that is what should happen.

[Admiral_N8]

You've compared gay marriage to children starving and people being murdered. That makes it seem like gay marriage is just as important as those things and it's not.

Nope. I was simply, and it really was quite simple, showing that NEITHER African starvation or gay marriage directly affects me, but I should still "care" about it....which you disagree with. [you said since it doesnt affect you you dont care about gay marriage].

[Mrh7448]

People believe homosexual marriage is immoral, it DOESNT matter HOW you came to that conclusion [if its from religion or not], according to the law. This is a democracy...people base their beliefs on whatever they want, and the peoples will is heard through policy. Now if the people will is to let gays marry, then that is what should happen.

Then put it to a vote and see what happens. Then you'll see what people truly want and that's the only...and if it was decided and voted on would you accept it as policy?

This is one politician decreeing that he won't allow it to happen no matter what the people think and that's what the problem is, the few dictated to the many.

The majority in the poll on this thread goes in my favor for, not yours against.

[Calvin]

No, see he can do the same things as me. I cant marry a guy either. Remeber I speaking from the laws standpoint, not "feelings" standpoint.
It's not a feelings standpoint. You're just altering the wording. Two gay people cannot enter into a consensual relationship of their choice. Two heterosexual people can. It would be like if they said you weren't allowed to marry someone of a different race. "Well, you can still marry someone of the same race, just like me, you have the same opportunity." That's utter bull.

[taskmaster]

Nope. I was simply, and it really was quite simple, showing that NEITHER African starvation or gay marriage directly affects me, but I should still "care" about it....which you disagree with. [you said since it doesnt affect you you dont care about gay marriage].

I still don't know why you would want to outlaw gay marriage. They might not affect you but you should show that one is more important then the other.

[Daisy]

I always find bumped threads created by banned users disconcerting. :(

[Stringer]

Doesnt bother me at all.

[Sandman138]

It's not a feelings standpoint. You're just altering the wording. Two gay people cannot enter into a consensual relationship of their choice. Two heterosexual people can. It would be like if they said you weren't allowed to marry someone of a different race. "Well, you can still marry someone of the same race, just like me, you have the same opportunity." That's utter bull.

Thank you. Your past two posts have been the best negation of that ridiculous semantic argument yet seen on these boards.

[Darth Elektra]

Wow,its heavily in favor of yes!

And Yes,they should have the same rights as everyone else.

[Admiral_N8]

Then put it to a vote and see what happens. Then you'll see what people truly want and that's the only...and if it was decided and voted on would you accept it as policy?

This is one politician decreeing that he won't allow it to happen no matter what the people think and that's what the problem is, the few dictated to the many.

The majority in the poll on this thread goes in my favor for, not yours against.

The majority in this poll? That means absolutely nothing...this isnt a scientific poll. Look at the REAL polls and its the opposite story.

I would stand by any vote, i would also stand by any legistlation enacted by the people we chose to represent us.

[Admiral_N8]

It's not a feelings standpoint. You're just altering the wording. Two gay people cannot enter into a consensual relationship of their choice. Two heterosexual people can. It would be like if they said you weren't allowed to marry someone of a different race. "Well, you can still marry someone of the same race, just like me, you have the same opportunity." That's utter bull.

No, youre altering MY wording. A guy can marry a girl, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is. A guy cannot marry a guy, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is.

I have the same laws on me as a homosexual. I am not treated to different laws because I am straight. [this was the argument put before the Supreme Court when it was upheld]

[Admiral_N8]

I still don't know why you would want to outlaw gay marriage. They might not affect you but you should show that one is more important then the other.

I dont need to "outlaw" gay marriage, outlawing something would mean it was legal now...which it isnt :rolleyes:

Gay marriage doesnt affect me, but I care about it, just like starving kids in africa...whats hard to understand about that?

[Spider-Bite]

No, youre altering MY wording. A guy can marry a girl, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is. A guy cannot marry a guy, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is.

I have the same laws on me as a homosexual. I am not treated to different laws because I am straight. [this was the argument put before the Supreme Court when it was upheld]

wrong you are allowed to marry anybody whom you are attracted to who wants to marry you.

a gay person isn't allowed to marry anybody he or she is attracted to.

big diference. very big difference.

your argument is like this. in order to get a college education you must have a penis. you have the same laws on you as a woman. if she wants one than she just has to get a penis. if you want one, you have to keep your own.

luckily that's not the law anymore. opposing equal rights is unjustifiable. it's conservatvies wanting to do a bad thing to a lot of good people, just because they enjoy it. simply because they get pleasure out of hurting other people for being different.

[rigel7soldiers]

I don't see the harm in it. I mean, even if you think it's wrong, it's none of your business, really.

[Spider-Bite]

I dont need to "outlaw" gay marriage, outlawing something would mean it was legal now...which it isnt :rolleyes:

Gay marriage doesnt affect me, but I care about it, just like starving kids in africa...whats hard to understand about that?

It's legal in Massachucets, and within 20 years most states will allow it as well. The vast majority of the voters who oppose it are really old now. As the generations change so will the votes. In 20 years most of the people who opposed it will be dead by then. And the reamaining people alive in America will be the ones who already support it equal rights.

and don't compare opression to helping the starving. it's ridiculous.

[Admiral_N8]

wrong you are allowed to marry anybody whom you are attracted to who wants to marry you.

a gay person isn't allowed to marry anybody he or she is attracted to.

big diference. very big difference.

your argument is like this. in order to get a college education you must have a penis. you have the same laws on you as a woman. if she wants one than she just has to get a penis. if you want one, you have to keep your own.

luckily that's not the law anymore. opposing equal rights is unjustifiable. it's conservatvies wanting to do a bad thing to a lot of good people, just because they enjoy it. simply because they get pleasure out of hurting other people for being different.

You are still trying to explain the law in terms of how I feel, which will NEVER work in ANY argument in court.

That Woman with a penis thing is just so silly I am not going to address that.

Also this "it's conservatvies wanting to do a bad thing to a lot of good people, just because they enjoy it. simply because they get pleasure out of hurting other people for being different" is so ignorant its scary.

Yes the evil conservatives just want to hurt people who are different they get pleasure out of it blah blah blah.....how hapless :rolleyes:

[Admiral_N8]

It's legal in Massachucets, and within 20 years most states will allow it as well. The vast majority of the voters who oppose it are really old now. As the generations change so will the votes. In 20 years most of the people who opposed it will be dead by then. And the reamaining people alive in America will be the ones who already support it equal rights.

and don't compare opression to helping the starving. it's ridiculous.

Wow, so you can see into the future, that must be a nice gift to have.

[Calvin]

No, youre altering MY wording. A guy can marry a girl, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is. A guy cannot marry a guy, no matter what sexual orientation the guy is.

I have the same laws on me as a homosexual. I am not treated to different laws because I am straight. [this was the argument put before the Supreme Court when it was upheld]
That's NOT the same thing. You have the freedom to marry according to your sexual preference, a homosexual does not. It's no different than having a law that restricts interracial marriage. Neither of those marriages would infringe on the freedoms of anyone, neither should be outlawed.

[thedeadite]

again.... interracial marriages WERE illeagal in many states...not too long ago either...and i'm sure the majority of people that are so against same sex marriages now think that interracial marriages being illeagal is rediculous, yet they find loopholes in laws to find all the reasons that denying legal gay marriages is ok, society in general is ****ing disgusting...

[Swiftman]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :down :down

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I can never remember the answer so I'll ask again. How exactly am I harmed if two chicks want to do what all of my married friends have done?

[PhotoJones]

this thread is kinda ridiculous. i mean, it's fun for a minute debating wedge issues; but you have to realize that no one's changing anyone's mind here. we should move on to something worth debating.

[Calvin]

this thread is kinda ridiculous. i mean, it's fun for a minute debating wedge issues; but you have to realize that no one's changing anyone's mind here. we should move on to something worth debating.
Considering the hype's usual thread topics, that's a pretty dumb statement.

[Spider-Bite]

Wow, so you can see into the future, that must be a nice gift to have.

unless everybody under the age of 60 suddenly changes their positions my prediction will come true.

[Spider-Bite]

this thread is kinda ridiculous. i mean, it's fun for a minute debating wedge issues; but you have to realize that no one's changing anyone's mind here. we should move on to something worth debating.

yes but many people who oppose freedom now feel like idiots so it's worth it.

[Spider-Bite]

You are still trying to explain the law in terms of how I feel, which will NEVER work in ANY argument in court.

That Woman with a penis thing is just so silly I am not going to address that.

Also this "it's conservatvies wanting to do a bad thing to a lot of good people, just because they enjoy it. simply because they get pleasure out of hurting other people for being different" is so ignorant its scary.

Yes the evil conservatives just want to hurt people who are different they get pleasure out of it blah blah blah.....how hapless :rolleyes:

it is ridiculous. that was the whole point. it was an example to show how ridiculous your argument is.

Why on earth would a gay man want to marry a woman? think about that for a second.

and I was right about conservatives. think about the civil rights battles of the last century. Women rights? African American rights? now gay rights? My sister is a lesbian. shes not a bad person. but just a few years ago gays were being thrown in prison convicted of Sodomy. That my friend is conservatives hurting good people for being different. She didn't hurt you guys, but you guys sure as heck tried to hurt people like her.

[PhotoJones]

Considering the hype's usual thread topics, that's a pretty dumb statement.

not really. some of the more recent threads have been really interesting; like the one on the illuminati, the traffic signal thing, people being pro-islam, etc...

[PhotoJones]

yes but many people who oppose freedom now feel like idiots so it's worth it.

i suppose.

[Calvin]

not really. some of the more recent threads have been really interesting; like the one on the illuminati, the traffic signal thing, people being pro-islam, etc...
The traffic signal thing? You mean the guy that changes traffic signals with that machine he bought or whatever? You find that a more "worthy" discussion than the rights of human beings in america that are being unjustly denied?

[PhotoJones]

The traffic signal thing? You mean the guy that changes traffic signals with that machine he bought or whatever? You find that a more "worthy" discussion than the rights of human beings in america that are being unjustly denied?

gay rights is an age old debate. you can talk about for years (which is what's been done) and not get anywhere. that's all i'm saying. i like debates that go places. abortion, gay marriage and God, are not things that go anywhere. people already have their minds made up when they enter into the conversation. trust me, it's what i do for a living. :)

[Calvin]

gay rights is an age old debate. you can talk about for years (which is what's been done) and not get anywhere. that's all i'm saying. i like debates that go places. abortion, gay marriage and God, are not things that go anywhere. people already have their minds made up when they enter into the conversation. trust me, it's what i do for a living. :)
No, I don't trust you, because clearly debting and discussing them DÖ have an impact. Things aren't the same way there were 100 years ago. That didn't happen because of some natural biological evuolution that was inevitable, it happened because of debate, discussion, examination, exploration, sympathy, empathy, etc. If you don't want to discuss it just stick the the either/or, what are you listening to right now, or man changes traffic signals! debates that make you more comfortable.

[PhotoJones]

No, I don't trust you, because clearly debting and discussing them DÖ have an impact. Things aren't the same way there were 100 years ago. That didn't happen because of some natural biological evuolution that was inevitable, it happened because of debate, discussion, examination, exploration, sympathy, empathy, etc. If you don't want to discuss it just stick the the either/or, what are you listening to right now, or man changes traffic signals! debates that make you more comfortable.

has your mind been changed from something you read on a meassage board? something you already believe so strongly about that it nearly defines your person? i'd say probably not. and if it has, you probably weren't that strong of a person to begin with.

[Calvin]

has your mind been changed from something you read on a meassage board? something you already believe so strongly about that it nearly defines your person? i'd say probably not. and if it has, you probably weren't that strong of a person to begin with.
That's an utterly idiotic statement. Steeling yourself towards never changing your mind isn't a sign of strength, it's a sign of stubborn ignorance.

[PhotoJones]

That's an utterly idiotic statement. Steeling yourself towards never changing your mind isn't a sign of strength, it's a sign of stubborn ignorance.

and that, sir, is what i was getting at. you just proved my point for me. debates like these are filled with stubborn ignorance. congrats! :up:

[Calvin]

and that, sir, is what i was getting at. you just proved my point for me. debates like these are filled with stubborn ignorance. congrats! :up:
No, I didn't. Your point was "we should just not care of bother discussing." Your point wasn't prove one damn bit. If your point was proven, I wouldn't be arguing with you right. this. second. Issues like this should be debated. Just because you might run into a few people that don't immediately go "oh, ok! mind changed!" doesn't mean the collective concensus isn't being progressed.

[PhotoJones]

No, I didn't. Your point was "we should just not care of bother discussing." Your point wasn't prove one damn bit. If your point was proven, I wouldn't be arguing with you right. this. second. Issues like this should be debated. Just because you might run into a few people that don't immediately go "oh, ok! mind changed!" doesn't mean the collective concensus isn't being progressed.

dude, i said, "here". "HERE". of course, on senate floor, in the supreme court room, there's cause for debate. not HERE. not a message board. for superheroes. HERE, it's a little worn. HERE.

[Calvin]

dude, i said, "here". "HERE". of course, on senate floor, in the supreme court room, there's cause for debate. not HERE. not a message board. for superheroes. HERE, it's a little worn. HERE.
This is the community section, there are other sections to describe superheroes. You honestly think it's smart to tell this generation "hey, don't debate any of this stuff, leave that for the guys in charge" and then expect any sort of generational progress? If you personally find it worn, DO NOT CLICK ON THE THREAD. It's that easy.

[PhotoJones]

This is the community section, there are other sections to describe superheroes. You honestly think it's smart to tell this generation "hey, don't debate any of this stuff, leave that for the guys in charge" and then expect any sort of generational progress? If you personally find it worn, DO NOT CLICK ON THE THREAD. It's that easy.

i don't think you get it.

this thread has been hot. what have we accomplished? answer me that? who's views have been changed? how much closer are we to tolerance (you can tell which side i take)?

[Calvin]

i don't think you get it.

this thread has been hot. what have we accomplished? answer me that? who's views have been changed? how much closer are we to tolerance (you can tell which side i take)?
We're clearly a LOT closer to tolerance than we were 50 years ago, BECAUSE this is something that gets discussed among peers, be it at lunches, or on the internet, or through journalism, or in bars, whatever. The YES option is leading by 100. You really think it would be anything like that if the topic were something people weren't allowed to discuss outside of congress? You're being ridiculously shortsighted about the merits of open discussion.

[PhotoJones]

We're clearly a LOT closer to tolerance than we were 50 years ago, BECAUSE this is something that gets discussed among peers, be it at lunches, or on the internet, or through journalism, or in bars, whatever. The YES option is leading by 100. You really think it would be anything like that if the topic were something people weren't allowed to discuss outside of congress? You're being ridiculously shortsighted about the merits of open discussion.

yes we are very close aren't we? close enough for a presidential election to split the country in half with an issue like this. close enough for states to ban gay adoption. close enough for pride parades to be shut down, and the participants arrested. yes, we are getting there.

and as for this particular poll? people inhabiting a board based on comics (be it "community" or otherwise), isn't the best representation for the rest of the country.

[Calvin]

yes we are very close aren't we? close enough for a presidential election to split the country in half with an issue like this. close enough for states to ban gay adoption. close enough for pride parades to be shut down, and the participants arrested. yes, we are getting there.

and as for this particular poll? people inhabiting a board based on comics (be it "community" or otherwise), isn't the best representation for the rest of the country.
This isn't an issue that's suddenly going to change on the spot with a complete turnaround. Going "well it's not solved now is it?" doesn't prove a single thing. Look at the actual societal progression over a long period of time How are relegating ourselves to mundane topics about traffic lights going to change society? How could that possibly be more productive?

[PhotoJones]

This isn't an issue that's suddenly going to change on the spot with a complete turnaround. Going "well it's not solved now is it?" doesn't prove a single thing. Look at the actual societal progression over a long period of time How are relegating ourselves to mundane topics about traffic lights going to change society? How could that possibly be more productive?

you twisting my words. i just said, for me, it's more interesting. more interesting because it's new. people don't already have preconceived notions. you see?

plus, there hasn't been much social change for the better. the biggest change has been legislation; and that has not been for tolerance. if anything, from a law-making standpoint, we are regressing.

[Calvin]

you twisting my words. i just said, for me, it's more interesting. more interesting because it's new. people don't already have preconceived notions. you see?

plus, there hasn't been much social change for the better. the biggest change has been legislation; and that has not been for tolerance. if anything, from a law-making standpoint, we are regressing.
There hasn't been much social change for the better? Are you kidding me? Tell that to a black man that's been alive since before the civil rights changes. Tell that to gay men that were beaten on the spot if they came out of the closet. Tell that to women that were kept out of the work place, or kept from voting. The only reason there isn't a great amount of legislative progression right this second is because of attitudes like yours that think this isn't a topic "worth discussing." Social attitudes often dictate legislation. That's why topics like these NEED to be discussed at length. If you don't find it personally interesting, POST IN ANOTHER THREAD. Clearly others do find it interesting, because we're posting in the thread and discussing/debating this.

[PhotoJones]

There hasn't been much social change for the better? Are you kidding me? Tell that to a black man that's been alive since before the civil rights changes. Tell that to gay men that were beaten on the spot if they came out of the closet. Tell that to women that were kept out of the work place, or kept from voting. The only reason there isn't a great amount of legislative progression right this second is because of attitudes like yours that think this isn't a topic "worth discussing." Social attitudes often dictate legislation. That's why topics like these NEED to be discussed at length. If you don't find it personally interesting, POST IN ANOTHER THREAD. Clearly others do find it interesting, because we're posting in the thread and discussing/debating this.

this thread isn't about black men, or women voting. it's about gay rights. keep that part straight. secondly, gay men were beaten 50 years ago, and they're still being beaten today. i like your optimism, but i just see it differently. anyway, i'm out. i gotta sleep some.

[Calvin]

this thread isn't about black men, or women voting. it's about gay rights. keep that part straight. secondly, gay men were beaten 50 years ago, and they're still being beaten today. i like your optimism, but i just see it differently. anyway, i'm out. i gotta sleep some.
They aren't being beaten with the same prevalence. If you think they are, you're very socially unaware. And the anology to other minorities that were oppressed or marginalized is absolutely apt. If you can't handle analogous discourse, then you really shouldn't be in this thread. Here's something more your speed: http://superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171895

[britrogue]

Never had any lesbian tendencies in my life, but it doesn't bother me when other people are gay. I mean, you can't help who you fall in love with, right?

[Uncanny Orb]

I'm not against same sex marriage, but I am against couples adopting, not because I think that they would be bad parents or sexually abuse the kids or anything like that. I just think that those kids would be crucified by other kids because of their parents sexaul orientation.

[britrogue]

Not necessarily. My Stepsister's mum is lesbian, and lives with her girlfriend. My stepsister doesn't get any crap over it.

[Spider-Face]

i really dont care how other people choose to live their lives as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. its not really anyone else's business.

[blind_fury]

Letting two men marry is like letting a rabbi eat pork on the holiest jewish day. It's wrong.

[Spider-Face]

who cares? if it is "wrong" they will be the ones punished not you : /

[blind_fury]

They are punishing others by trivializing marraige like it's some game. Marraige is supposed to be sacred. It isnt meant to be some game people "play".

[Calvin]

They are punishing others by trivializing marraige like it's some game. Marraige is sacred. It isnt some game we "play".
The idea of "marriage" has existed longer than religion. When you have different tax breaks and privelages attributed to marriage, you can't take away the equal opportunity just because of someone's biological sexual preference. Arguments like "it's just wrong" or "it would destroy marriage" are the exact same arguments that were used against interracial marriage. It's not going to change your religious doctrine one bit. The text of the bible isn't going to change if the government recognizes gay marriage. The church doesn't have to recognize it, only the government. If you think that the government recognizing it automatically means the church is, then there is a SERIOUS problem with seperation of church and state.

[Spider-Face]

i dont understand why other people's behaviour offends you so much, when really it has absolutely no effect on you at all. you dont have to spend time with people if you dont want to. leave people to get on with their own thing.

[redmarvel]

They can get together as a couple, and choose to share their life together, but it should be given a different terminology. Marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

[Spider-Face]

why?

[blind_fury]

The idea of "marriage" has existed longer than religion. When you have different tax breaks and privelages attributed to marriage, you can't take away the equal opportunity just because of someone's biological sexual preference. Arguments like "it's just wrong" or "it would destroy marriage" are the exact same arguments that were used against interracial marriage. It's not going to change your religious doctrine one bit. The text of the bible isn't going to change if the government recognizes gay marriage. The church doesn't have to recognize it, only the government. If you think that the government recognizing it automatically means the church is, then there is a SERIOUS problem with seperation of church and state.
I dont care if neanderthals who had no concept of God got married. Marriage has "evolved" since then and is given legitmacy because of SPIRITUAL context. Without God, getting married is like any other casual relationship. If you get married simply because you want a tax break it is immoral. If you get married to another man it is immoral also. Not because tax breaks or gay love is wrong but because you trivialize marriage to the point were it loses meaning. Those who fought against interracial marraige didn't care about the sanctity of marraige. They only cared about white supremacy. I'm not saying gay love is wrong, I'm saying gay marraige trivializes the sanctity of a traditional marriage and of a family unit. If two gay people are in love that's fine, but when they expect their unions to be santified by God they are crossing the line.

They are NOT asking for equal rights. They are asking to redesign society's spiritual values for the sake of comfort, NOT for the sake of families or religion.

[Spider-Face]

i must admit, that statement makes a lot of sense

[PhotoJones]

I dont care if neanderthals who had no concept of God got married. Marriage has "evolved" since then and is given legitmacy because of SPIRITUAL context. Without God, getting married is like any other casual relationship. If you get married simply because you want a tax break it is immoral. If you get married to another man it is immoral also. Not because tax breaks or gay love is wrong but because you trivialize marriage to the point were it loses meaning. Those who fought against interracial marraige didn't care about the sanctity of marraige. They only cared about white supremacy. I'm not saying gay love is wrong, I'm saying gay marraige trivializes the sanctity of a traditional marriage and of a family unit. If two gay people are in love that's fine, but when they expect their unions to be santified by God they are crossing the line.

They are NOT asking for equal rights. They are asking to redesign society's spiritual values for the sake of comfort, NOT for the sake of families or religion.

people get married because they love each other, man. not necessarily because they want God's blessing.
i'm going to marry my girlfriend someday. not because i want or need God to approve of our love and unite us, but because it's a commitment we are making to each other. i hate to sound sappy, but it's the truth. your views on marriage on your own. but most of us disagree.
it's not society's values that are in question.

plus you get rad presents and a sweet party ;)

[C-$]

I don't understand why gay people want to get married. I thouhght the whole "gay lifestyle" was about having the freedom to have as many sex partners as you want and not having to be bound to one sex partner.

[PhotoJones]

I don't understand why gay people want to get married. I thouhght the whole "gay lifestyle" was about having the freedom to have as many sex partners as you want and not having to be bound to one sex partner.

...

what?

you can't be serious.

[TheSumOfGod]

I don't understand why gay people want to get married. I thouhght the whole "gay lifestyle" was about having the freedom to have as many sex partners as you want and not having to be bound to one sex partner.

Well, being bi and having a gay friend myself, I can assure you that that is simply not the case. Gay people are consenting adults, having consentual relations with other consenting adults, just like heterosexual people. They're NOT sex addicts. And some of them want to get married purely out of mutual love and commitment, just like heterosexuals do.

[PhotoJones]

Well, being bi and having a gay friend myself, I can assure you that that is simply not the case. Gay people are consenting adults, having consentual relations with other consenting adults, just like heterosexual people. They're NOT sex addicts. And some of them want to get married purely out of mutual love and commitment, just like heterosexuals do.

"no dood. i heard about them gays. they wanna have sex with like...other people. and stuff."

give me a break. people are so ignorant.

[TheSumOfGod]

"no dood. i heard about them gays. they wanna have sex with like...other people. and stuff."

give me a break. people are so ignorant.

Besides, just LOOK at the gay people getting married... They are NOT attractive (for the most part). So it CAN'T be "lust". :eek: :(

[PhotoJones]

Besides, just LOOK at the gay people getting married... They are NOT attractive (for the most part). So it CAN'T be "lust". :eek: :(

ha! :up:

[Mrh7448]

The majority in this poll? That means absolutely nothing...this isnt a scientific poll. Look at the REAL polls and its the opposite story.

I would stand by any vote, i would also stand by any legistlation enacted by the people we chose to represent us.

It means nothing you said "people" find it immoral it seems to me the majority here find it acceptable, Scientific or not.

You believe it is immoral, you believe that the majority will find in your favour, I believe you are wrong.

It doesn't matter anyway because eventually it is going to be legal, there are places it already is. The ball is already is already rolling on this subject, and I'm done arguing/debating about it.

It doesn't matter to me anyway, you have your opinion I have mine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because neither of us is ever going to change our opinions on the matter.

[Calvin]

I dont care if neanderthals who had no concept of God got married. Marriage has "evolved" since then and is given legitmacy because of SPIRITUAL context. Without God, getting married is like any other casual relationship. If you get married simply because you want a tax break it is immoral. If you get married to another man it is immoral also. Not because tax breaks or gay love is wrong but because you trivialize marriage to the point were it loses meaning. Those who fought against interracial marraige didn't care about the sanctity of marraige. They only cared about white supremacy. I'm not saying gay love is wrong, I'm saying gay marraige trivializes the sanctity of a traditional marriage and of a family unit. If two gay people are in love that's fine, but when they expect their unions to be santified by God they are crossing the line.

They are NOT asking for equal rights. They are asking to redesign society's spiritual values for the sake of comfort, NOT for the sake of families or religion.
No, they aren't, because religion is not supposed to be connected to government, period.

[Calvin]

I don't understand why gay people want to get married. I thouhght the whole "gay lifestyle" was about having the freedom to have as many sex partners as you want and not having to be bound to one sex partner.
...... I'm not even gonna touch this one. I already feel considerably stupider having only read it.

[taskmaster]

I dont care if neanderthals who had no concept of God got married. Marriage has "evolved" since then and is given legitmacy because of SPIRITUAL context. Without God, getting married is like any other casual relationship. If you get married simply because you want a tax break it is immoral. If you get married to another man it is immoral also. Not because tax breaks or gay love is wrong but because you trivialize marriage to the point were it loses meaning. Those who fought against interracial marraige didn't care about the sanctity of marraige. They only cared about white supremacy. I'm not saying gay love is wrong, I'm saying gay marraige trivializes the sanctity of a traditional marriage and of a family unit. If two gay people are in love that's fine, but when they expect their unions to be santified by God they are crossing the line.

They are NOT asking for equal rights. They are asking to redesign society's spiritual values for the sake of comfort, NOT for the sake of families or religion.

Alright, so you want your religious rules to be the rules for everyone. That is against this countries constitution. We have a seperation of chruch and state so that religious beliefs won't interfere with government business. God should not enter into this debate.

[C-$]

...... I'm not even gonna touch this one. I already feel considerably stupider having only read it.

Well it's true.

[C-$]

"no dood. i heard about them gays. they wanna have sex with like...other people. and stuff."

give me a break. people are so ignorant.

At least you understand what I'm talking about.

[Calvin]

Well it's true.
Not even close.

[C-$]

Not even close.

It's pretty close.

[Calvin]

Nope.

[C-$]

Nope.

Yep.

[Calvin]

How many gay friends do you have?

[C-$]

How many gay friends do you have?

My aunt is gay.

[Calvin]

My aunt is gay.
So.... one?

[C-$]

So.... one?

Do I need to have a a ton of gay relatives in order to be credible?

[Calvin]

Do I need to have a a ton of gay relatives in order to be credible?
You need to have more perspective than basing generalizations on a single gay person you know, or on proliferated BS propaganda. If you actually had a decent array of gay friends, you'd see just how incredibly stupid and offensive your comment was.

[blind_fury]

No, they aren't, because religion is not supposed to be connected to government, period.
So you're saying marraige has more to do with government than spirituality?

So why don't let an IRS auditor marry you and your wife instead of a priest?

Marriage is sacred. That's why cheating on your wife is much worse than cheating on your girlfriend.

Without a spiritual basis, marriage loses almost all meaning.

[Calvin]

So you're saying marraige has more to do with government than spirituality?

So why don't let an IRS auditor marry you and your wife instead of a priest?

Marriage is sacred. That's why cheating on your wife is much worse than cheating on your girlfriend.

Without a spiritual basis, marriage loses almost all meaning.
If you want it that way, remove the tax breaks from marriage. Remove any government recognition of marriage, and make it strictly a religious thing. With seperation of church and state, it's one or the other. Either recognize all, or none. We're not in a theocracy. Read the constitution.

[blind_fury]

Alright, so you want your religious rules to be the rules for everyone. That is against this countries constitution. We have a seperation of chruch and state so that religious beliefs won't interfere with government business. God should not enter into this debate.
You believe marraige is a purely secular tradition? Then why do people get married by a priest and in a church? Why?

[C-$]

You need to have more perspective than basing generalizations on a single gay person you know, or on proliferated BS propaganda. If you actually had a decent array of gay friends, you'd see just how incredibly stupid and offensive your comment was.

My comment was not stupid. When the whole gay lifestyle bursted onto the scenes, gay people were having tons of sex partners. That was the whole pint! Former homosexuals have said the same thing I am saying.

[C-$]

If you want it that way, remove the tax breaks from marriage. Remove any government recognition of marriage, and make it strictly a religious thing. With seperation of church and state, it's one or the other. Either recognize all, or none. We're not in a theocracy. Read the constitution.

"Seperation of church & state".

:rolleyes:

[Calvin]

My comment was not stupid. When the whole gay lifestyle bursted onto the scenes, gay people were having tons of sex partners. That was the whole pint! Former homosexuals have said the same thing I am saying.
No, that wasn't the point. Have you talked to any actual amount of gay people? It's a ridiculous statement.

[Calvin]

:rolleyes:
So I take it you haven't read the Constitution.

[C-$]

So I take it you haven't read the Constitution.

I have. It says the gov't can make any rules respescting the etablishment of religion, but it also says that the gov't can't make any rules gainst religon.

[Calvin]

I have. It says the gov't can make any rules respescting the etablishment of religion, but it also says that the gov't can't make any rules gainst religon.
This isn't a rule against religion. Is it going to rewrite the bible? Change the doctrine? Force religious people to do anything differently? No.

[C-$]

No, that wasn't the point. Have you talked to any actual amount of gay people? It's a ridiculous statement.

What do you mean that wasn't the point? What about the bath houses and the gay clubs back in the day? What do you think they were doing?!

[C-$]

I have to go, I'll debate you later.

[Calvin]

What do you mean that wasn't the point? What about the bath houses and the gay clubs back in the day? What do you think they were doing?!
Same thing hetero clubs do. It's the club scene, not the sexual orientation. You'll find just as much debasement in hetero clubs as you will in homo ones. Or have you never been out of the house?

[blind_fury]

If you want it that way, remove the tax breaks from marriage. Remove any government recognition of marriage, and make it strictly a religious thing. With seperation of church and state, it's one or the other. Either recognize all, or none. We're not in a theocracy. Read the constitution.
lol. You're taking this seperation of church and state thing way too far. Next you'll be telling me I can't get married in church because married people get tax breaks. :rolleyes:

Marraige is a spiritual act. That gives it meaning. Without that context it's just a name change.

[Calvin]

lol. You're taking this seperation of church and state thing way too far. Next you'll be telling me I can't get married in church because married people get tax breaks. :rolleyes:

Marraige is a spiritual act. That gives it meaning. Without that context it's just a name change.
Way to miss the point entirely. If you want to make the issue a spiritual one, then the government shouldn't give tax breaks for it. Period. You can get married, but it's just a spiritual thing. If you want government recognition, then the government has to be fair and recognize non-religious marriages.

[blind_fury]

Way to miss the point entirely. If you want to make the issue a spiritual one, then the government shouldn't give tax breaks for it. Period. You can get married, but it's just a spiritual thing. If you want government recognition, then the government has to be fair and recognize non-religious marriages.

The government gives tax exempt status to organized religions. Are you against that too?

[Calvin]

The government gives tax exempt status to organized religions. Are you against that too?
As long as they give it to every religion, no. Equal or nothing.

[Mr Sparkle]

Well it's true.

no, no it's not.
the "gay lifestyle" is about being gay.
and cut me a break puh-leese. in college both me and friends where out to score with as many women as possible, I guess neither me or my friends should marry by your standards.

[Mr Sparkle]

So you're saying marraige has more to do with government than spirituality?

So why don't let an IRS auditor marry you and your wife instead of a priest?

Marriage is sacred. That's why cheating on your wife is much worse than cheating on your girlfriend.

Without a spiritual basis, marriage loses almost all meaning.

what percentage of marriages end in divorce these days again?

oh yeah, like 50%

how very spiritual.

and cheating is cheating. always, it's the exact same. :rolleyes:
"yeah, I said I loved you, but we weren't married, so....doesn't count. sorry"
"darn you and your technicalities!....i can't be mad now!"

[blind_fury]

As long as they give it to every religion, no. Equal or nothing.
:confused:

The government can't do anything to discourage religion, that means no taxes.

Why do you think the seperation of church and sate was created? To prevent married people from getting tax breaks?

[Calvin]

:confused:

The government can't do anything to discourage religion, that means no taxes.

Why do you think the seperation of church and sate was created? To prevent married people from getting tax breaks?
To prevent a single religion from dominating and oppressing other religions or those of no religion. Like, for example, what's happening now.

[blind_fury]

double post

[blind_fury]

what percentage of marriages end in divorce these days again?

oh yeah, like 50%

how very spiritual.
Marriage is intended to be the highest ideal of human companionship. Of course not all couples live up to that ideal but that doesn't change the fact that marraige is meant to be a sacred union blessed by God.

and cheating is cheating. always, it's the exact same. :rolleyes:
"yeah, I said I loved you, but we weren't married, so....doesn't count. sorry"
"darn you and your technicalities!....i can't be mad now!"
Cheating on your wife is worse than cheating on your girlfriend!

Why? Because marraige is sacred, not some stupid game!

[blind_fury]

Edit

[blind_fury]

To prevent a single religion from dominating and oppressing other religions or those of no religion. Like, for example, what's happening now.
You mean in Iran? :confused:

[Spider-Bite]

They are punishing others by trivializing marraige like it's some game. Marraige is supposed to be sacred. It isnt meant to be some game people "play".

jsut because they are gay that means it can't be sacred? your are very stupid.

Marraige becomes unsacred when the federal government walks in and points the finger at who can participate and who can't.

I now pronounce you State approved, federally ammended, heavily protested, supreme court approved, wait your both hetero right, okay,
man and wife!

that's not sacred at all. that's people "playing" politics for votes. when you mix marriage with oppression it loses all meaning. it becomes a piece of paper. you conservatives are ruining it.

[raybia]

No

If CONSENTING Adults who are the same sex want to cohabitate together then that is fine by me and should be able to do so without any hostile treatment towards them from society but this Nation does not owe those couples anything else other than the Constitutional rights that they already enjoy individually.

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not against same sex marriage, but I am against couples adopting, not because I think that they would be bad parents or sexually abuse the kids or anything like that. I just think that those kids would be crucified by other kids because of their parents sexaul orientation.

The Americn phychology association of America and the Social workers association of america have both researcehd this and found that children raised by homo sexual couples grow up just as healthy and happy as other children raised by hetero parents.

[Spider-Bite]

No

If CONSENTING Adults who are the same sex want to cohabitate together then that is fine by me and should be able to do so without any hostile treatment towards them from society but this Nation does not owe those couples anything else other than the Constitutional rights that they already enjoy individually.

then quit trying to ammend the constitution. it says two people. it does not say they have to be opposite gender.

[Mr Sparkle]

Marriage is intended to be the highest ideal of human companionship. Of course not all couples live up to that ideal but that doesn't change the fact that marraige is meant to be a sacred union blessed by God.


Cheating on your wife is worse than cheating on your girlfriend!

Why? Because marraige is sacred, not some stupid game!

and gay people can't achieve this why?

and a relationship is not a "stupid game". sorry.:down

[raybia]

then quit trying to ammend the constitution.


Oh really.

Lets see how our country would be today if we thought the original Constitution was perfect with no need to amend it.


Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery and grants Congress power to enforce abolition.


Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; repeals the three-fifths compromise.

Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's sex as a qualification for voting.


So, without amendments my black a** would still be bailing cotton without the right to vote along with all women.

[Spider-Bite]

Oh really.

Lets see how our country would be today if we thought the original Constitution was perfect with no need to amend it.


Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery and grants Congress power to enforce abolition.


Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; repeals the three-fifths compromise.

Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's sex as a qualification for voting.


So, without amendments my black a** would still be bailing cotton without the right to vote along with all women.

I didn't say there has never been a need to ammend the constitution. There is no need to ammend it to simply oppress people.

[Mr Sparkle]

Oh really.

Lets see how our country would be today if we thought the original Constitution was perfect with no need to amend it.


Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery and grants Congress power to enforce abolition.


Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; repeals the three-fifths compromise.

Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's sex as a qualification for voting.


So, without amendments my black a** would still be bailing cotton without the right to vote along with all women.

these are all arguing for equality.

[raybia]

I didn't say there has never been a need to ammend the constitution. There is no need to ammend it to simply oppress people.


Please explain how an amendment forbidding same sex marriage would oppress people.

[Calvin]

Please explain how an amendment forbidding same sex marriage would oppress people.
Homosexuals can't marry according to their biological sexual preferences, and are prevented from enjoying the same tax break privelages as heterosexuals, despite their actions not limiting any personal freedoms of anyone else.

[Spider-Bite]

Please explain how an amendment forbidding same sex marriage would oppress people.

If I have to explain that, then there is no point, because it would obviously be over your head.


hey tell me if this proves God was created by man.

I will use the creation as evidence of the creator. God is the creation, and man is the creator.

My evidence that god was merely created by Man? the mere fact that the belief exists proves that man created it.

[raybia]

Homosexuals can't marry according to their biological sexual preferences, and are prevented from enjoying the same tax break privelages as heterosexuals, despite their actions not limiting any personal freedoms of anyone else.


Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."

The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression". Oppression is most commonly felt and expressed by a widespread, if unconscious, assumption that a certain group of people are inferior.


I sorry, I just cannot buy that as a form of oppression.

The Government won't, at this point, recognize same-sex marriages. If it does, that how far should this go?

One of the main arguments is that as long as its two consenting adults then its ok since their actions are not limiting the personal freedoms of others.

With that said, then the Government should recognize a marriage to my mother, my sister, brother, aunt, uncle. What if I want to walk down the street in the nude all of the time? Just how far do we as a society take this?

[Calvin]

[I]Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."
Are you being serious? That's EXACTLY what is happening to homosexuals!

[DarthRekal]

speak on it CALVIN!:up:

[Calvin]

speak on it CALVIN!:up:
I always do.


By the way, a vote for Calvin is a vote for tolerance and humanity. Don't let your voice go unheard in the hype deathmatch.

[raybia]

If I have to explain that, then there is no point, because it would obviously be over your head.

Actually there is a point. The point is you demonstrating that you can back up that statement. Since you don't know me, you would be surprise at what I'm able to comprehend.

hey tell me if this proves God was created by man.

I will use the creation as evidence of the creator. God is the creation, and man is the creator.

I can provide evidence of the Creation. Can you of G-d in this example?

My evidence that god was merely created by Man? the mere fact that the belief exists proves that man created it.

Belief isn't evidence, belief is the result of something else. There is also belief that G-d doesn't exist, so both belief systems cannot be correct.

Belief is intangible, but the Creation isn't.

Nice try though.

[Spider-Bite]

It is oppression. It is unfair inequal rights. and I did expose your faulty logic for what it is.

the belief is the result of a primitive group of people with little or no understanding of the universe around them creating the bible. science didn't even exist back then.

[raybia]

Are you being serious? That's EXACTLY what is happening to homosexuals!


There are existing laws that deal with persecution of people based on sexual preference. When a crime is committed then those who commit them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[Mr Sparkle]

Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."

The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression". Oppression is most commonly felt and expressed by a widespread, if unconscious, assumption that a certain group of people are inferior.


I sorry, I just cannot buy that as a form of oppression.

The Government won't, at this point, recognize same-sex marriages. If it does, that how far should this go?

One of the main arguments is that as long as its two consenting adults then its ok since their actions are not limiting the personal freedoms of others.

With that said, then the Government should recognize a marriage to my mother, my sister, brother, aunt, uncle. What if I want to walk down the street in the nude all of the time? Just how far do we as a society take this?

no, not really, since inbreeding is detrimental to offspring.
as to the walking nude....puhleese! if gay people want to have sex in public, then that is bull****! I'm against that! otherwise your comparison is not that applicable.

[Calvin]

There are existing laws that deal with persecution of people based on sexual preference. When a crime is committed then those who commit them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
You're taking the position that the laws are infallible because they already exist? So, repealing slavery must have been total bulls**t then, right?

[thedeadite]

everytime i come to this thread it just makes me think of the same things over and over again, and instead of saying it yet again...i'll just say that in 50 years i hope people look back as disgusted as i do now at how certain people where treated.

[C. Lee]

No

If CONSENTING Adults who are the same sex want to cohabitate together then that is fine by me and should be able to do so without any hostile treatment towards them from society but this Nation does not owe those couples anything else other than the Constitutional rights that they already enjoy individually.
The problem with that is....you can have a man and a woman (legaly married to each other for 20 years) who may or may not live in the same house...never talk to each other or interact whatsoever.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital....the other one can have total control over his medical treatment, who can visit him, etc.....

Then you can have a same sex couple who have lived together for 20 years....always be together and do everything together.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital.....the sick person's family can keep the other from visiting or having any say in their treatment...because legaly....they are not family.

[Spider-Bite]

everytime i come to this thread it just makes me think of the same things over and over again, and instead of saying it yet again...i'll just say that in 50 years i hope people look back as disgusted as i do now at how certain people where treated.

don't worry man. I can gurantee that your wish will be granted.

[Spider-Bite]

The problem with that is....you can have a man and a woman (legaly married to each other for 20 years) who may or may not live in the same house...never talk to each other or interact whatsoever.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital....the other one can have total control over his medical treatment, who can visit him, etc.....

Then you can have a same sex couple who have lived together for 20 years....always be together and do everything together.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital.....the sick person's family can keep the other from visiting or having any say in their treatment...because legaly....they are not family.

not only that but they wont get any say in who gets their possessions either.

[raybia]

no, not really, since inbreeding is detrimental to offspring.

Well, my mother cannot have anymore children, and my sister wasn't born with a uterus so why should I be denied the right to marry them?


as to the walking nude....puhleese! if gay people want to have sex in public, then that is bull****! I'm against that! otherwise your comparison is not that applicable.


Yeah, bad comparison.

[ILuvCyclops]

yes

[raybia]

You're taking the position that the laws are infallible because they already exist? So, repealing slavery must have been total bulls**t then, right?

No, that is not my position.

What I'm trying to say is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution doesn't not cause, call for or avocate the oppression of people who are homosexual.

[Spider-Bite]

No, that is not my position.

What I'm trying to say is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution doesn't not cause, call for or avocate the oppression of people who are homosexual.

it does not call for opression, which is the reason republicans want to ammend the constitution. It's not oppressive enough for them.

[raybia]

The problem with that is....you can have a man and a woman (legaly married to each other for 20 years) who may or may not live in the same house...never talk to each other or interact whatsoever.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital....the other one can have total control over his medical treatment, who can visit him, etc.....


Then you can have a same sex couple who have lived together for 20 years....always be together and do everything together.....and if one of them gets deathly ill and goes into the hospital.....the sick person's family can keep the other from visiting or having any say in their treatment...because legaly....they are not family.


I'm not a lawyer so maybe there is a reason why this wouldn't work but why couldn't this couple have Powers of Attorneys on each other that would give them the right to make these type of decisions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney

[raybia]

it does not call for opression, which is the reason republicans want to ammend the constitution. It's not oppressive enough for them.


Well I certainly don't call for the oppression of any group of people but please explain how the Republicans proposed amendment would oppress homosexuals.

[Sandman138]

No, that is not my position.

What I'm trying to say is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution doesn't not cause, call for or avocate the oppression of people who are homosexual.

This doesn't account for opression that is implicit within the institution.

[Sandman138]

What do you mean that wasn't the point? What about the bath houses and the gay clubs back in the day? What do you think they were doing?!

And brothels and non-gay clubs are any more monogomous? Have you considered that part of forming a relationship is having had a few before? People go to gay bars to pick up somone their interested in, jut like you would go to a club to pick up chicks. This is a seriously pathetic argument.

[Mr Sparkle]

Well, my mother cannot have anymore children, and my sister wasn't born with a uterus so why should I be denied the right to marry them?


ah! but then, you would forget that means that the relationship is non-detrimental only in this specific case. in which it would just be societies law, remember that at one time intermarriage was pretty much the standard norm of conduct even amongst the "god-fearing" the effects of incest cannot be compared to the effects of homosexuality, see, incest is psychological, a man or woman can feel attraction to his family members, it's seldom due to a hormonal development, in fact, to compare the two is rather weak to me (like those who comapare bestiality/child molestation and homosexuality) the homosexual has really no say in the matter as his development from the womb is what determines what sex he is attracted to.
see this is the strangest thing to me, you're not arguing that homosexuals whould be put in camps or executed, but you are tacitly agreeing with the mentality that they shouldn't be treated as human beings, simply because you disagree with their sexual orientation.
I frankly fail to see how some dude getting married to another dude is going to "dimish the significance" of my own marriage.
you know what does that though?
divorce.
i don't see many people trying to get a constitutional ban on that though.

[Spider-Bite]

Well I certainly don't call for the oppression of any group of people but please explain how the Republicans proposed amendment would oppress homosexuals.

because it's to deny them the right to marry their romantic partner. why do you keep asking questions to which you already know the answer?

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not a lawyer so maybe there is a reason why this wouldn't work but why couldn't this couple have Powers of Attorneys on each other that would give them the right to make these type of decisions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney)

I'm no lawyer so I don't know, but I do know that lawyers are incredibly expensive and they shouldn't have to spend their entire life savings to decide who gets their entire life savings.

[Matt]

For me, its more a matter of who the hell cares what other people do?

[Admiral_N8]

For me, its more a matter of who the hell cares what other people do?

I, for one, care about what other people do...even if it doesnt directly affect me.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I, for one, care about what other people do...even if it doesnt directly affect me.Why?