Discussion: Gay Rights

[maxwell's demon]

I refuse to reply intelligently to your posts anymore since you seem bound and determined to not reply intelligently to mine. I am not attacking anyones beliefs nor am I saying anyone is wrong in what they are thinking nor am I insulting anyones intelligence. You however don't seem to be able to handle that concept. So you can kindly go play in traffic.

Fett? seriously. i've read enough on this subject to have a firm footing. but thanks for the insult.
And I never insulted your intelligence. i said your post showed a lack of knowledge on the subject. if you can't see the difference, then take another look.

[Spider-Fett]

Then explain to me how else those hormones and chemicals are to get released into the system just as they are through sexual expression if that is taken out of the equation.

jag

Explain please, you lost me on this question.

[gdw]

Gay marriage. Not homosexuality.

Thank you, so lets shut up alltogether about sex. This isn't the "purpose of sex thread either."

[jaguarr]

Explain please, you lost me on this question.

There are hormones and chemicals stored in the body that are directly linked to intimacy, feelings of closeness, bonding and even that elusive concept of "love". Sexual intimacy is direcly linked to their being released into the body. If there is no sexual intimacy, then how do they get released?

jag

[gdw]

You know what? No. You can go back and reread it just like I can. It's there in black and white and I've tried to be very clear in my writing and I don't really have the energy or desire to explore every single little corner case you can dream up about the subject and decide how that fits into the grand scheme of things. I've enjoyed the discussion with you, but I'm done.

jag

I have. And I am only using different scenarios because the reasons you have given are only specific to the scenarion, NOT that act of incest alone.

And that was the question, what is wrong with Incest, all around, something that would apply to every god damned situation of incest.

And again, i have read over everyone of your posts, infact every last post in this thread, and I have not seen one thing brought up to be winherently wrong with incest ALWAYS, not jsut some of the time, every damned time. Thus it has to be inherent in only the act of incest, nothing else.

And you have said nothing about this in any of your posts. At least nothing that actually argues against it.

[jaguarr]

I have. And I am only using different scenarios because the reasons you have given are only specific to the scenarion, NOT that act of incest alone.

And that was the question, what is wrong with Incest, all around, something that would apply to every god damned situation of incest.

And again, i have read over everyone of your posts, infact every last post in this thread, and I have not seen one thing brought up to be winherently wrong with incest ALWAYS, not jsut some of the time, every damned time. Thus it has to be inherent in only the act of incest, nothing else.

And you have said nothing about this in any of your posts. At least nothing that actually argues against it.

Then go back and reread my goddamned posts again because it is in there! :up:

jag

[gdw]

Sorry for sounding intense. It is rather frustrating for me, as I do NOT agree with incest, however, while looking into finding an actual reason why it's wrong, I can not find anything solid.

Nothing inherent with incest that makes the act wrong. It's gross, socially unacceptable, a risk, able to disrupt a family, but so is body piercing.

[Addendum]

Then go back and reread my goddamned posts again because it is in there! :up:

jag
We know where they are. They're in the North, and South, and East, and West of Iraq.

[Spider-Fett]

There are hormones and chemicals stored in the body that are directly linked to intimacy, feelings of closeness, bonding and even that elusive concept of "love". Sexual intimacy is direcly linked to their being released into the body. If there is no sexual intimacy, then how do they get released?

jag

There can be sexual intimacy in a homosexual couple, just as there is in a heterosexual couple. The act of sex, sexual attraction, sexual arousal release these hormones and chemicals. No matter what you are about to sexually interact with. I'm not saying that there is no sexual intimacy, I'm not saying sex doesn't serve more then one purpose. I was simply trying to explain how people can see homosexuality as sexually deviant and therefore tie it to other sexually deviant behaviors.

[gdw]

Then go back and reread my goddamned posts again because it is in there! :up:

jag


Again, I have. It is not. You don't have to re-read your posts to simpy say it again in a few sentances. It's probably easier then telling me to look it up repeatedly. Which I have tried, and still haven't found it. Please just tell me what I am not seeing?

[jaguarr]

Sorry for sounding intense. It is rather frustrating for me, as I do NOT agree with incest, however, while looking into finding an actual reason why it's wrong, I can not find anything solid.

Nothing inherent with incest that makes the act wrong. It's gross, socially unacceptable, a risk, able to disrupt a family, but so is body piercing.

I TOLD you why I think it's wrong. I TOLD you what I think constitutes a family. Seriously. Part of your frustration is that your looking for absolute, universal answers. That's an endeavor that will almost always leave you frustrated.

jag

[Spider-Fett]

Sorry for sounding intense. It is rather frustrating for me, as I do NOT agree with incest, however, while looking into finding an actual reason why it's wrong, I can not find anything solid.

Nothing inherent with incest that makes the act wrong. It's gross, socially unacceptable, a risk, able to disrupt a family, but so is body piercing.

The biological effect of incest is that when two partners of near enough genetic makeup (let's say brother and sister) create a child there is not enough deviation within their DNA to form a "healthy" child. Incest usually results in genetic deficiencies, birth defects and abnormalities.

[gdw]

There can be sexual intimacy in a homosexual couple, just as there is in a heterosexual couple. The act of sex, sexual attraction, sexual arousal release these hormones and chemicals. No matter what you are about to sexually interact with. I'm not saying that there is no sexual intimacy, I'm not saying sex doesn't serve more then one purpose. I was simply trying to explain how people can see homosexuality as sexually deviant and therefore tie it to other sexually deviant behaviors.


Yes, that makes sense. I think they are really argueing with those views, rather then your exposition of the logic behind them.

I was under the impression that you were trying to argue that it was correct.

But then again, deviant, to deviate, to stray from the beaten path, what the hells wrong with that?

I'm fine with being called a sexual deviant because I like having sex without having a child.

[jaguarr]

There can be sexual intimacy in a homosexual couple, just as there is in a heterosexual couple. The act of sex, sexual attraction, sexual arousal release these hormones and chemicals. No matter what you are about to sexually interact with. I'm not saying that there is no sexual intimacy, I'm not saying sex doesn't serve more then one purpose. I was simply trying to explain how people can see homosexuality as sexually deviant and therefore tie it to other sexually deviant behaviors.

And I've been simply trying to explain how trying to tie homosexuality to deviant sexual behaviors of any kind can be argued against. :)

jag

[Spider-Fett]

Thank you, so lets shut up alltogether about sex. This isn't the "purpose of sex thread either."


Actually the current discussion started from the topic of people tying homosexuality and pedophilia, incest etc. together when they discuss the topic of homosexuality and gay marriage.

I was merely explaining why people do such things. Which then lead to this.

[Spider-Fett]

Yes, that makes sense. I think they are really argueing with those views, rather then your exposition of the logic behind them.

I was under the impression that you were trying to argue that it was correct.

But then again, deviant, to deviate, to stray from the beaten path, what the hells wrong with that?

I'm fine with being called a sexual deviant because I like having sex without having a child.

Socially you are not a sexual deviant. The fact is that people have sex. They don't have it to have kids most of the time and in today's world most of the population agrees that if you are using protection of some sort you are a responsible and intelligent adult who is doing the right thing.

But mother nature wants to kick you in the nuts. :up:

[Spider-Fett]

And I've been simply trying to explain how trying to tie homosexuality to deviant sexual behaviors of any kind can be argued against. :)

jag

Right.

But your arguement can be used for any of those sexual behaviors. That is all I'm saying.

Someone can say "I have sex with a woman because I enjoy the intimacy it brings between myself and my partner."

You can insert "man", "dog", "sister", "child", "corpse", "bunt cake" or any number of words in there and the sentence can still not be wrong because it is based off of a persons opinion or sexual preference.

However if you change the sentence to

"I have sex with a woman because I wish to have a healthy child"

You cannot put "man", "dog", "corpse", "sister" or "bunt cake" into that sentence. Nor could you put "child" if the child was too young.

I agree with you on the sexual intimacy thing. Which is why the thought of gay marriage being federally legalized worries me. Because the same arguements can be used for the others.

You present me with an arguement for homosexuality that can be proven through fact that doesn't work with other sexual behaviors. Not laws or emotions and I'll vote yes for gay marriage the next time it comes around.

[jaguarr]

Right.

But your arguement can be used for any of those sexual behaviors. That is all I'm saying.

Someone can say "I have sex with a woman because I enjoy the intimacy it brings between myself and my partner."

You can insert "man", "dog", "sister", "child", "corpse", "bunt cake" or any number of words in there and the sentence can still not be wrong because it is based off of a persons opinion or sexual preference.

However if you change the sentence to

"I have sex with a woman because I wish to have a healthy child"

You cannot put "man", "dog", "corpse", "sister" or "bunt cake" into that sentence. Nor could you put "child" if the child was too young.

I agree with you on the sexual intimacy thing. Which is why the thought of gay marriage being federally legalized scares me. Because the same arguements can be used for the others.

But because the same argument is being applied to a different set of circumstances, a whole new set of rebuttals comes into the mix, that's why I'm in no way worried about some sort of legal Pandora's Box as you seem to be.

jag

[gdw]

I TOLD you why I think it's wrong. I TOLD you what I think constitutes a family. Seriously. Part of your frustration is that your looking for absolute, universal answers. That's an endeavor that will almost always leave you frustrated.

jag


Ah, then we agree. Sp you haven't actualy answered the question though, but I did read you saying what you thought about incest, and what a family was. All I wanted was a reason why incestual activity was wrong, not an opinion.

I have no intention of being harsh here. And true, the search for universal answers will always be frustrating, but that is exactly why it may not be wrong.

There should be a clear reason why something is wrong or not. The world is not black and white, but if you want to say something is wrong all around, you need a reason.

Murder is clearly wrong as you take someones life away from them. You deprive them of something that you have no right to take from them.

Most things, however, are not so black and white, granted even killing is not, but murder is. (well, you can get into arguments about vigilante murder, for example of a pedophile, still wrong, but you certainly wont get everyone to agree to hang the vigilante)

Which is why, in most incestual situations you will likely find something wrong, but not all. Considering the constant is incest, but that you cannot find something wrong in every scenarion, the only conlusion is that there is not something exclusivly wrong with incest, but rather the situations which usually lead to its occurance.

These situations are far more heavily linked (though not exclusivly) to occurances of incest than the negative situations comonly attributed to homosexuality are actually linked to homosexuality.

Just really makes me wonder what if . . . Largely for the couple who does not know that they share genes. Should what they do be illegal? Or just strongly advised against?

Thank you very much for this discussion. It truely was a pleasure, and I found you to be a far more articulate and founded in your arguments then most.

We would have never gotten half the points if this were to have been a debate with some against homosexuality probably would have.

Glenn

[gdw]

Socially you are not a sexual deviant. The fact is that people have sex. They don't have it to have kids most of the time and in today's world most of the population agrees that if you are using protection of some sort you are a responsible and intelligent adult who is doing the right thing.

But mother nature wants to kick you in the nuts. :up:

There are a lot of people who would disagree here. Namely true Catholics. they do not believe that sex should engaged in unless it is to re-produce :D

So what defines the social aspect? The majority? Then, within, say Canada, homosexuality is not being sexually deviant either, as it is accepted by the majority.

Infact, considering a large portion of those who still vote against gay marriage are still fine with homosexuality, in theory, then the majority in the USA probably allows for homosexuality to be socially accepted, and therefore not a sexually deviant act.

[Spider-Fett]

But because the same argument is being applied to a different set of circumstances, a whole new set of rebuttals comes into the mix, that's why I'm in no way worried about some sort of legal Pandora's Box as you seem to be.

jag

Fair enough. But fortunately I have the power to vote based on my worries and beliefs. See you at the polls :up:

[gdw]

Wow, I can't believe that there was this much inteligent discusion on the topics here. Not to say I think we are all incapable of it, just that it is not something you fnd that often as is, let alone on an internet free forum discussion.

[jaguarr]

Yeah, I don't think we completely agree, but whatever floats your boat. I did answer why I think incest is wrong at what I would consider a universal level, though I'm sure someone who reallllllly wants to screw their sister could find a way to justify themselves out of what I believe to be a universal truth: incest destroys the integrity of the family, period. There aren't situations which give it exception in my mind, even in your obscure corner case of two people who didn't know they were even related. Trust me, I can find something wrong with every single instance of incest you could cite. Why? Because I want it to be there and will find it because that suits my overall view of the matter. The problem with universal truths is that they're only universal to the people that have them and they are often prone to evolving, which sort of goes against their really being universal truths at all.

jag

[gdw]

Fair enough. But fortunately I have the power to vote based on my worries and beliefs. See you at the polls :up:

Hmm, is this fortunate because we all should have this freedom? Or UNfortunate because we vote based on these things rather then facts and truths and often on things that only a select few are actually informed enough to vote on. like say, stem cell research.

[jaguarr]

Fair enough. But fortunately I have the power to vote based on my worries and beliefs. See you at the polls :up:

I'ma snipe you in the parking lot with my deer rifle before you can say "hanging chad". :cmad:

jag

[gdw]

"Why? Because I want it to be there and will find it because that suits my overall view of the matter."

Yes, and unfortunately, this is also exactly the same reason why we cannot argue with those who are against gay marriage.

Also, I don't see how it destoys a family, if neither has any family outside of each other ;)

[jaguarr]

"Why? Because I want it to be there and will find it because that suits my overall view of the matter."

Yes, and unfortunately, this is also exactly the same reason why we cannot argue with those who are against gay marriage.

Also, I don't see how it destoys a family, if neither has any family outside of each other ;)

But....and there's always a but....in forming social and legislative policy, you can't possibly formulate positions and laws that will meet every single little corner case. You have to represent the broader public interest and position on the matter. (Which explains why we see gay marriage being banned in so many states). There are also varying degrees of responsibility, here. There's a very big difference between the very rare case of two people falling in love that had NO idea they were related at all and a mother who decides she wants to start sleeping with her own son. The mother knew it was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway, so she has more responsiblity and is more to blame in the matter than people who were completely unaware they were related. Would the people who fell in love that didn't know they had blood relations have done so with that knowledge? Maybe. Maybe not. Will having that information come to the surface after they're already together potentially cause some problems in their relationship and maybe even contribute to it ending. Certainly plausible. If that were to happen, then, I'm still right....incest damages the family integrity.

jag

[Outsiderzedge]

I haven't seen C. Lee's question answered. :)

jag

Sure. Why not. The entire purpose of marriage has been distorted in modern times by a misguided and degenerate emphasis on feelings and pleasure. I can not say I'm a huge fan of such carousal...

The masses are blindly allowing themselves to be guided by emotions and desire instead of reason and thought. Then again, it is the human cattle that is the proletariat that such deterioration has taken place. It is how you are kept happy and complacent, but I have come to care for some of you like pets and want to try and save you from such a dreary orbit. I want to make a better breed out of you. :cool:

[jaguarr]

Sure. Why not. The entire purpose of marriage has been distorted in modern times by a misguided and degenerate emphasis on feelings and pleasure. I can not say I'm a huge fan of such carousal...

The masses are blindly allowing themselves to be guided by emotions and desire instead of reason and thought. Then again, it is the human cattle that is the proletariat that such deterioration has taken place. It is how you are kept happy and complacent, but I have come to care for some of you like pets and want to try and save you from such a dreary orbit. I want to make a better breed out of you. :cool:

Are you planning on building The Matrix? :huh:

jag

[gdw]

But....and there's always a but....in forming social and legislative policy, you can't possibly formulate positions and laws that will meet every single little corner case. You have to represent the broader public interest and position on the matter. (Which explains why we see gay marriage being banned in so many states). There are also varying degrees of responsibility, here. There's a very big difference between the very rare case of two people falling in love that had NO idea they were related at all and a mother who decides she wants to start sleeping with her own son. The mother knew it was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway, so she has more responsiblity and is more to blame in the matter than people who were completely unaware they were related. Would the people who fell in love that didn't know they had blood relations have done so with that knowledge? Maybe. Maybe not. Will having that information come to the surface after they're already together potentially cause some problems in their relationship and maybe even contribute to it ending. Certainly plausible. If that were to happen, then, I'm still right....incest damages the family integrity.

jag

Thank you.

It certainly would be a hard thing to deal with were they to discover it. Only because of what preconceptions they have about it based on society though. Kinda like how somone who realises they are gay will have a hard time coming to terms with it if they were raised by two people who were openly against homosexuality.

Sorry, I seem to like similies.

[jaguarr]

Thank you.

It certainly would be a hard thing to deal with were they to discover it. Only because of what preconceptions they have about it based on society though. Kinda like how somone who realises they are gay will have a hard time coming to terms with it if they were raised by two people who were openly against homosexuality.

If two people who were in love discovered they were blood relatives, it would probably open up a major bit of drama in their families as well. They would be the one's disappointed in their family, possibly even their own parents. Gay people who have homophobic parents fight the issue of disappointing their own parents which most people spend their whole lives trying not to do, so it's really pretty different from my viewpoint.

jag

[Darthphere]

Are you planning on building The Matrix? :huh:

jag


We are in the Matrix.

[the_joker]

Dare I even mention platonic love?

[Outsiderzedge]

Are you planning on building The Matrix? :huh:

jag

You are already in it. If anything, I wish to take some of you out of it.

I am doing something I have been taught not to do; tampering with the "batteries" that power my world.

Oh well.

It is of no real consequence if I do or do not succeed. It is just a wandering hobby of mine.

[jaguarr]

Dare I even mention platonic love?

:cmad: GET OUT! :cmad:

jag

[gdw]

dbl pst

[gdw]

If two people who were in love discovered they were blood relatives, it would probably open up a major bit of drama in their families as well. They would be the one's disappointed in their family, possibly even their own parents. Gay people who have homophobic parents fight the issue of disappointing their own parents which most people spend their whole lives trying not to do, so it's really pretty different from my viewpoint.

jag


A lot of homosexual people have issues with it as they themselves may actually be against it as a result of the way they were raised. That is what they were raised with being right and wrong, so it is the same.

When first coming to terms with what they are discovering. Not all gay people, but this does happen. the comparison is in what you believe is wrong based on what you learnt rom your suroundings.

[jaguarr]

A lot of homosexual people have issues with it as they themselves may actually be against it as a result of the way they were raised. That is what they were raised with being right and wrong, so it is the same.

When first coming to terms with what they are discovering. Not all gay people, but this does happen. the comparison is in what you believe is wrong based on what you learnt rom your suroundings.

And therein ruins any chance of a "universal truth". ;)

jag

[gdw]

And therein ruins any chance of a "universal truth". ;)

jag
???

I grasped the lack of any chance of finding universak truths, but not sure what you mean by reffering it to that post.

[Spider-Fett]

There are a lot of people who would disagree here. Namely true Catholics. they do not believe that sex should engaged in unless it is to re-produce :D

So what defines the social aspect? The majority? Then, within, say Canada, homosexuality is not being sexually deviant either, as it is accepted by the majority.

Infact, considering a large portion of those who still vote against gay marriage are still fine with homosexuality, in theory, then the majority in the USA probably allows for homosexuality to be socially accepted, and therefore not a sexually deviant act.

Yeah I think I said something about the devout catholics in another post.

. ....People not wanting to have children, doesn't abstain from the fact that sex is designed to create children. And in certain moral structures (like Catholocism) sex for anything but the attempt to make children is considered morally wrong.

There it is.

And yes I understand that homosexuality is slowly but surely becoming more and more socially acceptable. But if you go back and look at my posts, I'm not speaking on a social level I'm speaking on a biological scale. The day men get pregnant from other men will be the day that homosexuality is not biologically sexually deviant.

I think that's where all this debate is coming from. You guys are trying to argue psychology and sociology against biology. Three distinctly different fields of study.

[Spider-Fett]

I'ma snipe you in the parking lot with my deer rifle before you can say "hanging chad". :cmad:

jag

Pff

Lies.

Anyone who owns a deer rifle hates gay people. It's a fact. :)

Anywho, off to play World of Warcraft.

Lata

[gdw]

Actually, they are well on their way to allowing gay couples to concieve a child that is biologically both of theirs.

[jaguarr]

I think that's where all this debate is coming from. You guys are trying to argue psychology and sociology against biology. Three distinctly different fields of study.

Ummm...actually, I believe I was trying to illustrate the direct link biological factors have to emotions and feelings.

jag

[jaguarr]

Pff

Lies.

Anyone who owns a deer rifle hates gay people. It's a fact. :)

Anywho, off to play World of Warcraft.

Lata

Whatever. Walk slow so I don't have to lead you as much for the shot. :up:

Have fun in WoW World.

jag

[Holly Goodhead]

Whatever. Walk slow so I don't have to lead you as much for the shot. :up:

Have fun in WoW World.

jag

let's get married. :heart:

[kaylee]

the arguments i have heard is that it contributes to the moral deterioration of our country.

uh... ahem... maybe we should be looking at the nation's hypocrisies for the moral deterioration.

as far as i'm concerned, how could it possibly bad to recognize more loving committed couples in the world? isn't love where it's at, morally?

Agreed. I don't get it, actually - if we're so worried about the deterioration of marriage equally the collapse of American culture, maybe they should talk to all those straight people getting divorced.

Allow it, I say.

[Cyrusbales]

They can trace homosexuality to hormone levels whilst in the womb, but who cares? There are nice gay people, and gay ****s. As with any group in society, if they wanna get married, who cares? It's not as if everyone has to marry them, let them do what they want as long as it's with each other, I can't understand why people have any issues against them

[Spider-Bite]

Yeah I think I said something about the devout catholics in another post.



There it is.

And yes I understand that homosexuality is slowly but surely becoming more and more socially acceptable. But if you go back and look at my posts, I'm not speaking on a social level I'm speaking on a biological scale. The day men get pregnant from other men will be the day that homosexuality is not biologically sexually deviant.

I think that's where all this debate is coming from. You guys are trying to argue psychology and sociology against biology. Three distinctly different fields of study.

deviancy means wrong or immoral, not incapable of having kids. according to Buddhism the following examples are sexual deviancy's.

breaking a promise to be faithful
with a child or animal
against somebody's will
violating an oath of celibrecy, like if a priest were to mislead people into believing he's living a life of no sex or something.

your bible's definition of what a sexual deviancy is, is simply wrong and incorrect, and counter productive to benefiting society.

[Spider-Bite]

They can trace homosexuality to hormone levels whilst in the womb, but who cares? There are nice gay people, and gay ****s. As with any group in society, if they wanna get married, who cares? It's not as if everyone has to marry them, let them do what they want as long as it's with each other, I can't understand why people have any issues against them

the instinctual desire to hurt people. that's why.

[Cyrusbales]

the instinctual desire to hurt people. that's why.

Never hate the group, always hate the individual i say!

[Hotwire]

:wow:WOW!!!!:wow:

My little baby has grown! I never thought this thread would get to over 600 posts. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been closed yet. Since I'm not about to got back and read through all the pages, has anyone who against gay marriage been able to offer a NON-RELIGIOUS arguement against it. I last visited when there were only about 150 posts, and at that point all the arguements against it were basically, "It's a sin against God."
So I challenge anyone to give me a NON-RELIGIOUS reason as to why we should ban gay marriage.

[pyromaniac]

deviancy means wrong or immoral, not incapable of having kids. according to Buddhism the following examples are sexual deviancy's.

breaking a promise to be faithful
with a child or animal
against somebody's will
violating an oath of celibrecy, like if a priest were to mislead people into believing he's living a life of no sex or something.

your bible's definition of what a sexual deviancy is, is simply wrong and incorrect, and counter productive to benefiting society.

Wow - those Buddist examples you pointed out had nothing to do with this subject on hand, at all.

[Dangerous]

I say no because it is wrong, plus you go to hell if you do, plus that is how aids started.

[pyromaniac]

:wow:WOW!!!!:wow:

My little baby has grown! I never thought this thread would get to over 600 posts. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been closed yet. Since I'm not about to got back and read through all the pages, has anyone who against gay marriage been able to offer a NON-RELIGIOUS arguement against it. I last visited when there were only about 150 posts, and at that point all the arguements against it were basically, "It's a sin against God."
So I challenge anyone to give me a NON-RELIGIOUS reason as to why we should ban gay marriage.

When bereft of actual individual experience or prolonged exposure with the topic in question, they have to at best cite religious, biological, psychological, sociological and anthropological reasons as substitutes--sorry, sources for their arguments that might work if all was theory, but in reality is unfortunately otherwise not to be.

It's the only way they know how to counter the 'demming' evidence: bullets if aimed right can hit the target.

If you've been living in an exclusively heterosexual community all your life and that your means to the 'other side' was the media and stereotypes, I'm afraid it doesn't hold water and get you anywhere. Though environment is a key factor, it squares largely on the mindset (ie common sense :p) as well.

Anyway - I did capitulate a personal account of having the support of my Christian friends who don't care about the relationship I am involved in, my sexuality, nor about the gay marriage quandary that has been raging throughout the conservative continent since 2004.

People are complex. 'Nuff said.

[Hotwire]

I say no because it is wrong, plus you go to hell if you do, plus that is how aids started.
You couldn't leave out religion could you.

[Hotwire]

When bereft of actual individual experience or prolonged exposure with the topic in question, they have to at best cite religious, biological, psychological, sociological and anthropological reasons as substitutes--sorry, sources for their arguments that might work if all was theory, but in reality is unfortunately otherwise not to be.

It's the only way they know how to counter the 'demming' evidence: bullets if aimed right can hit the target.

If you've been living in an exclusively heterosexual community all your life and that your means to the 'other side' was the media and stereotypes, I'm afraid it doesn't hold water and get you anywhere. Though environment is a key factor, it squares largely on the mindset (ie common sense :p) as well.

Anyway - I did capitulate a personal account of having the support of my Christian friends who don't care about the relationship I am involved in, my sexuality, nor about the gay marriage quandary that has been raging throughout the conservative continent since 2004.

People are complex. 'Nuff said.
I'm sorry, I didn't really follow what you posted here. I'm assuming you are OK with gay marriage and agree that those against it seem to only be able to come at it from a religious stand point.

[pyromaniac]

I say no because it is wrong, plus you go to hell if you do, plus that is how aids started.

:)

Ah, he's precisely a case in point.

[spideyboy_1111]

I say no because it is wrong, plus you go to hell if you do, plus that is how aids started.
aids did not start that way....

[spideyboy_1111]

From Wiki:

AIDS is thought to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the 20th century. It was transferred to humans by a similar route as some classic Old World infectious diseases. The ancient Old World was the incubator of many diseases like smallpox because it had large human populations in close association with large animal populations, especially those that lived in herds or social groups.
Contents
[hide]
1 Spread from animal to human populations
2 History of known cases and spread
3 Identification of the virus
4 Further reading
5 Notes
[edit]Spread from animal to human populations

HIV originated in primates as far as is known. Possible ways for this virus to have originally infected humans include the hunting and eating of the original primate species; a bite would be another possible route. From this point, the virus ultimately spread to the rest of the world.
Since a cross species jump is most likely the origin of HIV, and since HIV became a true epidemic, transmissible from human to human, then the following conditions were needed:
A large human population,
A large nearby population of the appropriate host animal,
An infectious pathogen in the host animal, that eventually produces a mutation that can spread from animal to human,
Interaction between the species to transmit enough of it to humans to establish a human foothold, which may take millions of individual exposures,
A mutation of same pathogen that can spread from human to human,
Some method that allows the pathogen to disperse widely. This prevents the infection from "burning out" by either killing off its human hosts or provoking immunity in a local population of humans.
Such requirements existed in the remote past with smallpox, and also with the 20th century Spanish Flu, despite the latter's New World origin at Fort Riley, Kansas (there the animal reservoir seems to have been two species, chickens and pigs, which were of Old World origin.}
Two species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is less easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa. [1]
Both species of the virus (HIV-1 and HIV-2) are believed to have originated in West-Central Africa and jumped species (zoonosis) from primates to humans. HIV-1 evolved from a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIVcpz) found in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. [2] DNA sequencing indicates that HIV-1 (group M) entered the human population in the early 20th century, probably sometime between 1915 and 1941. [3][4] HIV-2 crossed species from a different strain of SIV, this one found in sooty mangabeys (an Old World monkey) of Guinea-Bissau. [5]
SIVs in non-human primates tend to cause non-fatal disease. Comparison of the gene sequence of SIV with HIV should therefore give us information about the factors necessary to cause disease in humans. The factors that determine the virulence of HIV as compared to most SIVs are only now being elucidated. Non-human SIVs contain a nef gene that down-regulates CD3, CD4, and MHC class I expression; most non-human SIV's therefore do not induce immunodeficiency; the HIV nef gene however has lost its ability to down-regulate CD3, which results in the immune activation and apoptosis that is characteristic of chronic HIV infection.[6]

[pyromaniac]

I'm sorry, I didn't really follow what you posted here. I'm assuming you are OK with gay marriage and agree that those against it seem to only be able to come at it from a religious stand point.

I didn't realise I was channelling Dr Hank McCoy there! :eek:

Yeah of course I'm okay with it.

But I've actually found that - to reinforce the complexity of people - not all gays advocate gay marriage. Civil unions, with the same legal rights etc, would be enough, simply because some of these gays think those who DO want gay marriage are in it for their own agendas, and not realising that civil unions, which create far less of a fuss, would be enough.

Otherwise, it'd be safe to speculate that the majority within the minority would be in mild or devoted support of gay marriage.

[pyromaniac]

From Wiki:

AIDS is thought to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the 20th century. It was transferred to humans by a similar route as some classic Old World infectious diseases. The ancient Old World was the incubator of many diseases like smallpox because it had large human populations in close association with large animal populations, especially those that lived in herds or social groups.
Contents
[hide]
1 Spread from animal to human populations
2 History of known cases and spread
3 Identification of the virus
4 Further reading
5 Notes
[edit]Spread from animal to human populations

HIV originated in primates as far as is known. Possible ways for this virus to have originally infected humans include the hunting and eating of the original primate species; a bite would be another possible route. From this point, the virus ultimately spread to the rest of the world.
Since a cross species jump is most likely the origin of HIV, and since HIV became a true epidemic, transmissible from human to human, then the following conditions were needed:
A large human population,
A large nearby population of the appropriate host animal,
An infectious pathogen in the host animal, that eventually produces a mutation that can spread from animal to human,
Interaction between the species to transmit enough of it to humans to establish a human foothold, which may take millions of individual exposures,
A mutation of same pathogen that can spread from human to human,
Some method that allows the pathogen to disperse widely. This prevents the infection from "burning out" by either killing off its human hosts or provoking immunity in a local population of humans.
Such requirements existed in the remote past with smallpox, and also with the 20th century Spanish Flu, despite the latter's New World origin at Fort Riley, Kansas (there the animal reservoir seems to have been two species, chickens and pigs, which were of Old World origin.}
Two species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is less easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa. [1]
Both species of the virus (HIV-1 and HIV-2) are believed to have originated in West-Central Africa and jumped species (zoonosis) from primates to humans. HIV-1 evolved from a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIVcpz) found in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. [2] DNA sequencing indicates that HIV-1 (group M) entered the human population in the early 20th century, probably sometime between 1915 and 1941. [3][4] HIV-2 crossed species from a different strain of SIV, this one found in sooty mangabeys (an Old World monkey) of Guinea-Bissau. [5]
SIVs in non-human primates tend to cause non-fatal disease. Comparison of the gene sequence of SIV with HIV should therefore give us information about the factors necessary to cause disease in humans. The factors that determine the virulence of HIV as compared to most SIVs are only now being elucidated. Non-human SIVs contain a nef gene that down-regulates CD3, CD4, and MHC class I expression; most non-human SIV's therefore do not induce immunodeficiency; the HIV nef gene however has lost its ability to down-regulate CD3, which results in the immune activation and apoptosis that is characteristic of chronic HIV infection.[6]

*sheds a tear*

This post had to bear repeating, because there will be ten more ignorant people coming here who will bleat a similiar thing.

Another problem I have with them is that they never stake their own beliefs and own experiences to correlate their veto of homosexuality or gay marriage, instead of referencing the big book or other as the be-all, end-all.

[GoldenAgeHero]

*sheds a tear*

This post had to bear repeating, because there will be ten more ignorant people coming here who will bleat a similiar thing.

Another problem I have with them is that they never stake their own beliefs and own experiences to correlate their veto of homosexuality or gay marriage, instead of referencing the big book or other as the be-all, end-all.


whats wrong with referencing the big book. i believe that homosexuality is wrong. although im not homosexual supporter, i think they should be entitled to the same benefits as married people have...through a civil union.

yupim one of those marriage is between a man and a woman peeps. thats just my belief.

[Spider-Bite]

whats wrong with referencing the big book. i believe that homosexuality is wrong. although im not homosexual supporter, i think they should be entitled to the same benefits as married people have...through a civil union.

yupim one of those marriage is between a man and a woman peeps. thats just my belief.

you do your thing and let them do theirs. that's jesus's belief. he said live and let live.

[pyromaniac]

whats wrong with referencing the big book. i believe that homosexuality is wrong. although im not homosexual supporter, i think they should be entitled to the same benefits as married people have...through a civil union.

yupim one of those marriage is between a man and a woman peeps. thats just my belief.

Oh - in the context of substituting the big book for their own experiences they have with gay people.

My Christian friends certainly don't think homosexuality is wrong, however.

Is your belief that a marriage between a man and a woman based on individual observation or on the book?

Besides, the very definition of marriage has already been explained many pages ago.

The funny thing about marriage being a tried-and-true tradition was that it used to be that schools forced the southpaws to conform to the right hand group, while beachgoing men and women looked like they were wearing clothes and having exclusive and separatist rights, more on the men's part than anything else.

While they are not tradition per se, they were concocted with the (albeit misguided) mind that they actually could hurt, degrade or damage what was held to be socially, morally or politically correct. And they are also indicative of these trends that eventually changed, adapted and evolved into what we deal with today.

Near nudity frolicking galore at beaches! Leftists celebrated!

On another point - if marriage between man and woman had to be condoned, then why is divorce between same man and woman allowed as well? It's like marriage has its own way out, an escape clause so to speak, when all else fails? So it makes tradition moot doesn't it, a self defeating prophecy if you will?

If you think about it, the reason conventional marriage is emphasised is because of what the foundation brings. We like to see weddings. We like them in love. We don't really know the future: simply because they are in love now doesn't mean it stays that way. We leave all the decisions and actions to the couple to work them out, to recreate, to reinvent if they can keep at it, and do well.

The foundation therefore is honourable and noble, but it's not necessarily indicative of the end result.

Also - if so many straight people, both married and single, are okay with gay marriage and have gay friends, it goes back to the saying - walk a mile in another's shoes. If not of a gay individual's shoes, then of a gay-friendly straight individual's, which would glimpses into the comfortability and security that the latter has in such a community that though practices differently, operates from the same principles we all share.

And yet on another point - if homosexuality was wrong, that would defy the simple concept that not all human beings are capable of love, and really, to me, that's the most devastating thing of all because as long as love is consensual, love can come in many different forms and shapes - that of family, girlfriend, boyfriend, same sex, children, best friend, even work colleague.

When one says homosexuality is wrong, straight up, you are telling us that we are not capable of it, or that it is misdirected or that we should love someone else. Didn't we all agree that love is the best emotion of all? The ONLY limit is that it's consensual.

[jaydawg]

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip made a great point about gay marriage earlier this week. By denying gay marriage theres no way to get around saying that homosexual love is inferior to hetrosexual love.

It basically comes down to this: How the hell does gay people getting married affect you? It doesn't. I'm for it.

[pyromaniac]

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip made a great point about gay marriage earlier this week. By denying gay marriage theres no way to get around saying that homosexual love is inferior to hetrosexual love.



I might be stupid but I don't get all of it. :confused:

[Kevin]

whats wrong with referencing the big book. i believe that homosexuality is wrong. although im not homosexual supporter, i think they should be entitled to the same benefits as married people have...through a civil union.

yupim one of those marriage is between a man and a woman peeps. thats just my belief.Do you hate me, GAH, because I am gay? If you do, then why? What have I ever done to you? It's not like I ever made out with a guy in front of you, or made a move on you. Just because I don't believe in the same things you do, or do what you do, it doesn't mean i'll hate you. I'll judge your character, because like me, you are a human being. Can't I at least get the same from you?

[lordofthenerds]

I might be stupid but I don't get all of it. :confused:
I might be stupid but I don't get how its humanly possible for someone to not get all of that. :confused:

[GoldenAgeHero]

Do you hate me, GAH, because I am gay? If you do, then why? What have I ever done to you? It's not like I ever made out with a guy in front of you, or made a move on you. Just because I don't believe in the same things you do, or do what you do, it doesn't mean i'll hate you. I'll judge your character, because like me, you are a human being. Can't I at least get the same from you?


i never said i hated gay people. i just don't agree with it the homosexual lifestyle. umm has there been a situation where i bashed you for being gay? if not, then why do you suddenly think i hate you?


damn,chill out.

[jaydawg]

I might be stupid but I don't get all of it. :confused:
Its basically for people who don't support gay marriage and say they aren't homophobic.

[Spider-Fett]

deviancy means wrong or immoral, not incapable of having kids. according to Buddhism the following examples are sexual deviancy's.

breaking a promise to be faithful
with a child or animal
against somebody's will
violating an oath of celibrecy, like if a priest were to mislead people into believing he's living a life of no sex or something.

your bible's definition of what a sexual deviancy is, is simply wrong and incorrect, and counter productive to benefiting society.

Actually my definition came from www.dictionary.com

You know, that website about that book with definitions of english words in it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deviant

You should check it out sometime

Ass

[Spider-Fett]

Whatever. Walk slow so I don't have to lead you as much for the shot. :up:

Have fun in WoW World.

jag

Murder for your beliefs!?

We'll make a good Christian out of you yet :)

[Kevin]

i never said i hated gay people. i just don't agree with it the homosexual lifestyle. umm has there been a situation where i bashed you for being gay? if not, then why do you suddenly think i hate you?


damn,chill out.*sigh* ... HOW ABOUT YOU CHILL THE **** OUT!!

I will repeat "Do you hate me because i am gay? IF YOU DO, then why?"<---(see right there, that was me asking a second question to my first. the first being "do you hate me because i am gay") i did not say you did, but i did ask you. There was a reason why i said "if you do", it gave you the opportunity (sp) to say that you don't. Now, if your answer was yes to the first question, then the rest apply. so really, calm the **** down.

[Kevin]

Also, GAH, in the very begining of this thread, you, quoted, said the phases "you homos" or "those homos". it may not be bashing, and i know you stopped a long time ago, but it was very disrespectful.

[GoldenAgeHero]

*sigh* ... HOW ABOUT YOU CHILL THE **** OUT!!

I will repeat "Do you hate me because i am gay? IF YOU DO, then why?"<---(see right there, that was me asking a second question to my first. the first being "do you hate me because i am gay") i did not say you did, but i did ask you. There was a reason why i said "if you do", it gave you the opportunity (sp) to say that you don't. Now, if your answer was yes to the first question, then the rest apply. so really, calm the **** down.

but why would you think i hate you? clearly theres no edvidence that i do. so why would you ask me if i did? i mean ive seen you post in the dc comic book forum, did i bother you because you were gay? its like you assumed i did hate gay people, but wanted toask to make sure.

[Spider-Bite]

Actually my definition came from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

You know, that website about that book with definitions of english words in it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deviant

You should check it out sometime

Ass

wow so according to Europe, Canada, China, and Buddhist dominant society's homosexuality is not a deviancy. In fact disallowing gay marriage is a deviancy.

I had no idea you were a deviant.

not to mention you originally said a sexual deviancy was anything that can't produce children, and that's not in the dictionary, so that's not where you got your definition at all.

[Spider-Bite]

but why would you think i hate you? clearly theres no edvidence that i do. so why would you ask me if i did? i mean ive seen you post in the dc comic book forum, did i bother you because you were gay? its like you assumed i did hate gay people, but wanted toask to make sure.

if you don't hate them, then why would you want to use the government to hurt them by breaking up their marriages or stopping others from getting married?

[Kevin]

but why would you think i hate you? clearly theres no edvidence that i do. so why would you ask me if i did? i mean ive seen you post in the dc comic book forum, did i bother you because you were gay? its like you assumed i did hate gay people, but wanted to ask to make sure.I didn't assume. Like my mother use to say "don't assume, you'd make an ass out of me and you." but i did want to make sure. Is it so wrong to know how people feel about others? I think not. Didn't mean to target you, really didn't, dude. But it's nice to know things about the people you deal with. I consider everyone on SHH! to be my friends, so you should be kool with that, as i'm not afraid to ask my friends the hard questions. nor am i afraid to say my opinions about them to them.

[GoldenAgeHero]

When one says homosexuality is wrong, straight up, you are telling us that we are not capable of it, or that it is misdirected or that we should love someone else. Didn't we all agree that love is the best emotion of all? The ONLY limit is that it's consensual.

so your going to assume that when people say homosexuality is wrong we really mean you're incapable of love and that its misdirected? i dunno where your getting these ideas from. everyone is capable of love, you love whom ever you want to love.

but theres always going to be someone who does'nt agree with whome you love. its just a given.

[Spider-Fett]

wow so according to Europe, Canada, China, and Buddhist dominant society's homosexuality is not a deviancy. In fact disallowing gay marriage is a deviancy.

I had no idea you were a deviant.

not to mention you originally said a sexual deviancy was anything that can't produce children, and that's not in the dictionary, so that's not where you got your definition at all.

Actually my definition of sexual deviany was...you know what..you aren't even worth having a conversation with.

[Kevin]

so your going to assume that when people say homosexuality is wrong we really mean you're incapable of love and that its misdirected? i dunno where your getting these ideas from. everyone is capable of love, you love whom ever you want to love.

but theres always going to be someone who does'nt agree with whome you love. its just a given.Let's go here then, I really could care less if you like it. That's ok. But do you at least understand it? That's what matters. If you can't accept it, can you at least understand it?

EDIT: this doesn't only apply to GAH, but to everyone.

[Dangerous]

I'm just yankin ya chain's guys.

As if I care what a pair of homs wanna do w/ their lives.
I think everyone should be entitled to do whatever they like,
so long as no one gets hurt.
If a couple of fudge packers wanna tie the knot, why not.
Kinda a dumb topic for a thread.

[pyromaniac]

I might be stupid but I don't get how its humanly possible for someone to not get all of that. :confused:


Lol - I was just reading the two possibly contradictory statements in the earlier sentence.

Like I said, just me, and call me stupid for it. Particularly after the long, eloquent essay I wrote!

:D

[terry78]

Most people that are against it seem to think it'll be a slippery slope. That's their justification. Basically if you allow this, beastiality marriages are next or something. Though I do have gay associates who like to compare their plight to civil rights stuff in the 60's, which I do disagree with immensely. It ain't the same thing, chief.

[pyromaniac]

so your going to assume that when people say homosexuality is wrong we really mean you're incapable of love and that its misdirected? i dunno where your getting these ideas from. everyone is capable of love, you love whom ever you want to love.


Well - it's like saying heterosexuality is wrong, therefore rendering the limited capacity to understand what heterosexuality really means, both good and bad.

But I also wasn't specifying you in particular. It's for those who make baseless tangents as to the supposed depravity of homosexuality.


but theres always going to be someone who does'nt agree with whome you love. its just a given.

Oh I know. Even the straights would have a hard time with it: ie family in laws who don't agree, inter-racial issues, and so forth.

Love is complicated for everyone, which is the whole point.

[Dangerous]

Erm is it not already legal anyway?
As of this year right, well Elton John got married to his bummer.

[pyromaniac]

I didn't assume. Like my mother use to say "don't assume, you'd make an ass out of me and you." but i did want to make sure. Is it so wrong to know how people feel about others? I think not. Didn't mean to target you, really didn't, dude. But it's nice to know things about the people you deal with. I consider everyone on SHH! to be my friends, so you should be kool with that, as i'm not afraid to ask my friends the hard questions. nor am i afraid to say my opinions about them to them.

I agree with you.

terry78 - what are you talking about re bestiality? Someone earlier in this thread argued this, but I guess I'll have to recapture this in a nutshell.

There is no comparison. Humans are humans. Animals are animals. Humans have consent. Animals don't have consent. Humans are at least physiologically similiar. Animals don't. You don't hear of bestiality-loving nightclubs being set up or an entire sub-community in support of these practices.

So not even in the ballpark in which it can be compared to.

As for the civil rights movement comparison - I think you need to be in their shoes in order to understand. They have all one thing in common: persecution. If persecution didn't exist, then ok, no reason to make the connection. But such is life.

[terry78]

I agree with you.

terry78 - what are you talking about re bestiality? Someone earlier in this thread argued this, but I guess I'll have to recapture this in a nutshell.

There is no comparison. Humans are humans. Animals are animals. Humans have consent. Animals don't have consent. Humans are at least physiologically similiar. Animals don't. You don't hear of bestiality-loving nightclubs being set up or an entire sub-community in support of these practices.

So not even in the ballpark in which it can be compared to.

As for the civil rights movement comparison - I think you need to be in their shoes in order to understand. They have all one thing in common: persecution. If persecution didn't exist, then ok, no reason to make the connection. But such is life.
The beastiality thing is a comparison I have heard from people that are against gay marriage. Point blank, that is their reasoning. And while I do support the movement, a gay person can walk around for life and never have to worry about others knowing he's gay unless he says so...they were forced to wear their mark(read: color) on their sleeve during the civil rights movement, so discrimination was already an issue before they even opened their mouth.

[pyromaniac]

The beastiality thing is a comparison I have heard from people that are against gay marriage. Point blank, that is their reasoning. And while I do support the movement, a gay person can walk around for life and never have to worry about others knowing he's gay unless he says so...they were forced to wear their mark(read: color) on their sleeve during the civil rights movement, so discrimination was already an issue before they even opened their mouth.

It's their prerogative if they refuse to listen to actual earth logic.

[Dangerous]

In all seriousness, I am sure I have heard of cases of human+animal marriages having happened.
Has anyone else heard this?

[Ben Urich]

In all seriousness, I am sure I have heard of cases of human+animal marriages having happened.
Has anyone else heard this?

I read recently that a man who was caught, um, having relations with a goat in the Middle East was sentenced to marry said goat by a judge.
Don't know if it's happened in the US yet. :huh:

[pyromaniac]

In all seriousness, I am sure I have heard of cases of human+animal marriages having happened.
Has anyone else heard this?

Yes. But they're like, straight. :p

Dolphin and female. British man and dog. Indian woman and snake (I could be wrong on that one or it was for traditional reasons...)

Just to show you how whacky these heterosexual people are. ;)

There's not even a term for this very minor group - at least not yet.

[jaguarr]

Murder for your beliefs!?

We'll make a good Christian out of you yet :)

LOL! I was just gonna maim you. :csad:

jag

[Spider-Bite]

Actually my definition of sexual deviany was...you know what..you aren't even worth having a conversation with.

LOL! here is what you said a deviancy was, and then you claim you found it in the dictionary, giving a link that shows the dictionary says nothing like what you said.

There it is.

And yes I understand that homosexuality is slowly but surely becoming more and more socially acceptable. But if you go back and look at my posts, I'm not speaking on a social level I'm speaking on a biological scale. The day men get pregnant from other men will be the day that homosexuality is not biologically sexually deviant.



http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10566032&postcount=655

that's what you said, and then you try and say you said something else, and I call you out on it, I'm suddenly not worth refuting, or more like it's not worth a try.

[USMC]

Point blank, that is their reasoning. And while I do support the movement, a gay person can walk around for life and never have to worry about others knowing he's gay unless he says so...they were forced to wear their mark(read: color) on their sleeve during the civil rights movement, so discrimination was already an issue before they even opened their mouth.


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

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

[USMC]

Gay Animals Out of the Closet?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Friggin' nature. Always making sense...:whatever:

[The_Dark_Knight]

umm.. no. its wrong.

And Jesus frowns apown gays. he sends them to hell..

I thought he loved ALL of us..oh well =/

[Outsiderzedge]

Gay Animals Out of the Closet?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Friggin' nature. Always making sense...:whatever:

Animals also kill each other and defecate in front of one another.

What is your point?

[bluejake01]

How many times is this same poll going to be put up? How many times are we going to discuss this to death? How many times are the same pig headed extremists from both sides of the debate going to throw the same tired arguments back and forth?

[bluejake01]

Animals also kill each other and defecate in front of one another.

What is your point?

Humans do the same...but humans are the only "Animals" that commit murder.


The natural versus un-natural argument goes nowhere and is a bad debate stance for either side to take.

[blind_fury]

How many times is this same poll going to be put up? How many times are we going to discuss this to death? How many times are the same pig headed extremists from both sides of the debate going to throw the same tired arguments back and forth?
As long as butt secks is taboo?

[Spider-Bite]

Animals also kill each other and defecate in front of one another.

What is your point?

so do conservatives

oh that was toooo goooooood!

[spideyboy_1111]

Animals also kill each other and defecate in front of one another.

What is your point?

so do humans :o

[Sloth7d]

Republicans frown upon gay marrige, so I guess I.......




.....am in favor of the choice.:woot:

Seriously, if America is truly equal why is this even a debate or an issue in todays society. If two enamoured heteral sexuals can legally become husband and wife, then two equally enamoured gay guys/girls should be able to do the same.

[Spider-Bite]

conservatives tend to love going to war with each other and killing each other, and they love to kill gay people in many parts of the world.

don't all humans defecate in front of each other? When I am in a public bathroom am i not going to bathroom right in front of other people, casually like it's no big deal, the same way my dogs go to the bathroom right in front of each other like it's no big deal?

what's all the inmaturiy about going to the bathroom all the sudden?

I've heard outziderege say a lot of things, and every time it takes serious willpower and control not get myself banned. But i will say this. I do not consider her/him to be a good person, and I really do not like him/her.

[Spider-Bite]

slightly off topic but just curious if any of you guys ever feel this way. When watching the news or debating politics or social, controversal subjects, do you guys ever get the urge to burn a bunch of bibles in some protest?

I would never do it, because i always think right away about how offensive it would be to the liberal christains of the world. i hate feeling that way, but sometimes I really feel like it.

[bluejake01]

I would never do it, because i always think right away about how offensive it would be to the liberal christains of the world. i hate feeling that way, but sometimes I really feel like it.

I would be less worried about offending people, and more worried about what such an action would say about you...Burn a Bible? Hitler would be proud....

[Sloth7d]

Just had this conversation with my mother.
To summ it up I didn't like her answer.

[Spider-Bite]

I would be less worried about offending people, and more worried about what such an action would say about you...Burn a Bible? Hitler would be proud....

what it would say about me was the whole point of offending the good christains. my point was that not all christains are the same and shouldn't be prejudicially judged and lumped together.

I think it's ery easy to become that which you hate, and it can happen right underneath a person's nose.

[bluejake01]

what it would say about me was the whole point of offending the good christains. my point was that not all christains are the same and shouldn't be prejudicially judged and lumped together.

I think it's ery easy to become that which you hate, and it can happen right underneath a person's nose.

Even the urge to burn a bible says there is a fascist lurking inside you...be wary of it.

[blind_fury]

If gays want to marry, fine! But don't call it marraige. Call it something else. I'm sure most Americans will support it.

[bluejake01]

If gays want to marry, fine! But don't call it marraige. Call it something else. I'm sure most Americans will support it.

The word marriage has many meanings...words are petty things to argue about.

[SLVRSR4]

Words are not petty. Unlike Shakespeare said words have a pivotal role in almost everything. I'm not seeing how people are getting offended when people are saying you this or you that. If that is what you are then why be offended with anyone but yourself?

[blind_fury]

The word marriage has many meanings...words are petty things to argue about.

Exactly! That's why gays should go for civil unions instead of forcing society to distort the definition of marraige.

all so they'll feel more comfortable with their alternative lifestyle. if you were born gay, fine. but don't expect society to turn upside down for your convenience sake.

[bluejake01]

Exactly! That's why gays should go for civil unions instead of forcing society to distort the definition of marraige.

all so they'll feel more comfortable with their alternative lifestyle. if you were born gay, fine. but don't expect society to turn upside down for your convenience sake.

But the word marriage has many meanings...there is no reason to distort anything.

[Spider-Bite]

Even the urge to burn a bible says there is a fascist lurking inside you...be wary of it.

I wont deny what you just said. and i'm not happy about it. that's why i said i wasn't happy i feel that way. All I can do is remember that not all Christains are like that and not act on it, and never support any kind of legislation that would tramply on their rights to be Christain or belong to any other religion.

I agree with your warning of be wary, which is what I was getting at, when I said how easy it is to become that which you despise, and I despise intolerance.

We all have our demons, and i will always try to keep mine in check.

[Spider-Bite]

If gays want to marry, fine! But don't call it marraige. Call it something else. I'm sure most Americans will support it.

it's none of your business what they call it.

[Spider-Bite]

Exactly! That's why gays should go for civil unions instead of forcing society to distort the definition of marraige.

all so they'll feel more comfortable with their alternative lifestyle. if you were born gay, fine. but don't expect society to turn upside down for your convenience sake.

they aren't forcing you or society to do anything. you can do whatever you want and call your own marriage whatever you want. your the one trying to force them to call it something other than what it is.
Why can't you just live and let live?

[Spider-Bite]

Doesn't the word civil union just sound so romantic?

[britrogue]

I don't see a problem with it. The whole point of marriage is to formalise your life long devotion and love to your partner.

[Cyrusbales]

it's moe of a legal thing for rights though, marriage doesn't mean that much these days with annulments and divorces as all time highs!

[Hotwire]

How many times is this same poll going to be put up? How many times are we going to discuss this to death? How many times are the same pig headed extremists from both sides of the debate going to throw the same tired arguments back and forth?
Until someone who is against gay marriage can give am intelligent agruement against it, WITHOUT USING ANY RELIGION as the basis of their arguement. This country was founded on freedom of religion, and for any one person to think that THEIR beliefs should supercede someone else's "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." is just the kind of theocracy we don't want in this country.

[Cyrusbales]

Until someone who is against gay marriage can give am intelligent agruement against it, WITHOUT USING ANY RELIGION as the basis of their arguement. This country was founded on freedom of religion, and for any one person to think that THEIR beliefs should supercede someone else's "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." is just the kind of theocracy we don't want in this country.

Good point, I just wish we had a society with freedom FROM relgion instead.

[blind_fury]

Without religion marraige is even more meaningless. You might as well be in a civil union.

[Addendum]

And yet atheists get married too

[Cyrusbales]

And yet atheists get married too

married couples have more rights, and most people i know who aren't really relgious or just plain over the top and posh, tend to get married in a registry office, so it's a civil partnership. And gay marriage is legal in the UK anyways, and it hasn't destroyed society here. So why shouldn't everywhere else follow suit? I understand England is one of the more tollerant countries(altho Cuba is probably the most tollerant), but i'm sure it'd be fine throughout the world to have gay marriages.

[blind_fury]

Why athiests would get married is beyond me. Maybe they want the tax benefits.

[blind_fury]

married couples have more rights, and most people i know who aren't really relgious or just plain over the top and posh, tend to get married in a registry office, so it's a civil partnership. And gay marriage is legal in the UK anyways, and it hasn't destroyed society here. So why shouldn't everywhere else follow suit? I understand England is one of the more tollerant countries(altho Cuba is probably the most tollerant), but i'm sure it'd be fine throughout the world to have gay marriages.
Cuba, the most tolerant? You get thrown in jail for criticizing the government. :huh:

[blind_fury]

Marraige is sacred. You don't screw with that just because gays want to feel more comfortable about their lifestyle. Talk about selfish.

[Addendum]

Religion didn't invent the concept of marriage.

And drive-thru wedding chapels such as this one,

http://www.aboutvegasweddings.com/photos/440274523a98c.jpg

remove any "sacred" aspect to marriage

[Cyrusbales]

Cuba, the most tolerant? You get thrown in jail for criticizing the government. :huh:

i was refering to the people, who are generally united against the government in mentality, racism doesn't exist in Cuba, issues with sexuality aren't there either, so is the price for tollerance an opressive government?

[blind_fury]

Religion didn't invent the concept of marriage.

And drive-thru wedding chapels such as this one,

http://www.aboutvegasweddings.com/photos/440274523a98c.jpg

remove any "sacred" aspect to marriage
Religion is what gives marriage purpose. Without religion you might as well be in a "civil union".

Drive thru weddings are a themeparks in Vegas. It's not the same as forcing our entire society to recognize gay marraiges.

[blind_fury]

i was refering to the people, who are generally united against the government in mentality, racism doesn't exist in Cuba, issues with sexuality aren't there either, so is the price for tollerance an opressive government?
Holland doesn't have an oppressive gov't and that place is much more tolerant than the US or Cuba.

[Addendum]

But did religion invent marriage?

[blind_fury]

Religion didn't invent funerals either. That doesn't mean that religion hasn't added tremendous purpose to funerals for thousands of years.

[Darthphere]

Does calling it gay marriage really affect you B_F? Like really, do you care? Youve made it clear you hate the notion of God and most religions, but now youre using it as a importnat piece in your lame argument. Hypocrite much?

[blind_fury]

There's a difference between challenging dogma and hating the notion of God..

And I think drugs should be legal but I would never take drugs 100-feet near a Mosque or Church. Gays shouldn't expect churches to bless and sanctify their alternative lifestyles.

Marraige is sacred and that's how it should always be.

[jaguarr]

Religion is what gives marriage purpose. Without religion you might as well be in a "civil union".

Could you please shove an Altoid up your ass, because when you talk out of it so much it stinks up an entire thread. Thanks. :up:

jag

[blind_fury]

*smug alert*

You like the smell of your own farts don't you.

[jaguarr]

*smug alert*

You like the smell of your own farts don't you.

Just one question. Are you married?

jag

[Jplaya2023]

its none of my business they do as they please

[gdw]

There's a difference between challenging dogma and hating the notion of God..

And I think drugs should be legal but I would never take drugs 100-feet near a Mosque or Church. Gays shouldn't expect churches to bless and sanctify their alternative lifestyles.

Marraige is sacred and that's how it should always be.


God, how many times do we have to point it out to you???

THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR RELIGION TO RECOGNIZE ANYTHING. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION GAY MARRIAGE. THE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ****ING CHURCH!

MARRIAGE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH. HELL, MY MOTHER IS CATHOLIC AND MY PARENTS GOT MARRIED BY A J.O.P. AT CITY HALL.
GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU TRY TO ARGUE. KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE ARGUEING AGAINST!!!!!

Thank you

[jaguarr]

God, how many times do we have to point it out to you???

THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR RELIGION TO RECOGNIZE ANYTHING. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION GAY MARRIAGE. THE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ****ING CHURCH!

MARRIAGE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH. HELL, MY MOTHER IS CATHOLIC AND MY PARENTS GOT MARRIED BY A J.O.P. AT CITY HALL.
GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU TRY TO ARGUE. KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE ARGUEING AGAINST!!!!!

Thank you

*hands gdw the box of Altoids* Maybe you'll have better luck getting him to follow my suggestion. :)

jag

[Kyalesyin]

I would like to see someone please define the 'alternative lifestyle' that all us gays are apparently leading, since my day to day doesn't seem that different to anyone elses.

[gdw]

If gays want to marry, fine! But don't call it marraige. Call it something else. I'm sure most Americans will support it.


If they want a to be united under civil law, then fine, just don't call it a civil union! Call it something else.

WTF, why not just let them use the same word as everyone else. That is all they want to do, use a dang word, the same one everyone else is allowed to use, but NOOOOOO, not the gays, THAT would be wrong. they can't use a WORD.

[gdw]

I would like to see someone please define the 'alternative lifestyle' that all us gays are apparently leading, since my day to day doesn't seem that different to anyone elses.


I believe the best way to TRY to understand it, is that you are making a choice. A choice to live your life according to your nature, rather then trying to deny it and live a lie.

That is the only way in which homosexuality is a choice. In the same way I choose to accept that I like women, and live accordingly, as apposed to shoosing to pursue a relationship with a man, which would do nothing for me.

Ever try to just CHOOSE to like a food that you just don't? You can't choose to like it. You can shoose to eat it or not, but you can't choose if you like it.

Same as a food you love, you can't just choose to not like the taste anymore, but you can choose to not eat it, and only eat food you can not stand the taste of.

That is what ths is like, asking someone to only eat something that they cannot stand the taste of for the rest of their life, and nothing else.

[jaguarr]

I would like to see someone please define the 'alternative lifestyle' that all us gays are apparently leading, since my day to day doesn't seem that different to anyone elses.

Honestly, I wouldn't invite some of the closed minded neanderthals that manage to mash out enough words in successive order on their keyboards to somehow make a post on this site to do that.

jag

[blind_fury]

Just one question. Are you married?

jag
Do you have to be on death row to have an opinion about capital punishment?

[jaguarr]

Do you have to be on death row to have an opinion about capital punishment?

Answer the question. Are you married?

jag

[bluejake01]

Until someone who is against gay marriage can give am intelligent agruement against it, WITHOUT USING ANY RELIGION as the basis of their arguement. This country was founded on freedom of religion, and for any one person to think that THEIR beliefs should supercede someone else's "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." is just the kind of theocracy we don't want in this country.

I have heard several valid arguments against it on a sociological level...I don't agree with them, but I have heard them. the fact remains that you can find at least two other threads EXACTLY like this one if you had bothered to do a search.

[gdw]

Why athiests would get married is beyond me. Maybe they want the tax benefits.


Or maybe they want to commit themselves to someone they love for the rest of their life?

That is what a marriage IS. No one is asking anyone to turn their world upside down, or turn society upside down, or too re write some whuge underlying factor of all life.

Just to refine a definition so that it does not exclude people.

It's no different then when women wanted to allow the difinition of a person to include them as well. That is a much bigger change too. Defining a whole person, not just the joining of too in love.


Can't you just imagine the proposals?

"Erin, will you-"
"Yes Sam?"
"-unite with me civilly?"
*slap*

[gdw]

I have heard several valid arguments against it on a sociological level...I don't agree with them, but I have heard them. the fact remains that you can find at least two other threads EXACTLY like this one if you had bothered to do a search.


What does that "fact" have to do with anything. The disussion is in this thread right now.

[Kyalesyin]

My partner and I didn't need to get married. However, if we didn't, the family that I haven't spoken to for more than three years would have the finay say if I was unable to consent to medical treatment. She would have no right to even visit me in the hospital if we hadn't married. Hows that for a reason?

[gdw]

My partner and I didn't need to get married. However, if we didn't, the family that I haven't spoken to for more than three years would have the finay say if I was unable to consent to medical treatment. She would have no right to even visit me in the hospital if we hadn't married. Hows that for a reason?


I am currious what would apply here if you were Civilly United?

Just curious.

[bluejake01]

What does that "fact" have to do with anything. The disussion is in this thread right now.
Read the thread and the post I am responding to...I am not going to recap for those not proactive enough to read back all of one post.

[bluejake01]

I am currious what would apply here if you were Civilly United?

Just curious.

When a male and female "marry" the state issues a "Marriage" license, regardless of religion. What the State is recognizing is in actuality a Civil Union...so why is it called marriage on the Governmental level? All state sanctioned "marriages" should be called Civil Unions. If a church chooses to perform a religious marriage for a same sex couple that should be up to them...not the state.

[gdw]

Read the thread and the post I am responding to...I am not going to recap for those not proactive enough to read back all of one post.


Okay then . . .

You quoted a post asking people to argue against homosexuality with out bringing in religion, in a thread where the majority of the discusion has been a debate about homosexuaity, and gay marriage, and then told them that there are other similar threads around.

Are you telling them t go to those threads? Are you saying that what he is asking is irrelivent(sp?)? Or are you just observing the fact that there are several similar threads?

Are you claiming that this thread is not a valid "thread" because of that? Does it undermine the other "threads" by its existance? Maybe we should just call it a "Civil Discusion?"

[bluejake01]

Okay then . . .

You quoted a post asking people to argue against homosexuality with out bringing in religion, in a thread where the majority of the discusion has been a debate about homosexuaity, and gay marriage, and then told them that there are other similar threads around.

Are you telling them t go to those threads? Are you saying that what he is asking is irrelivent(sp?)? Or are you just observing the fact that there are several similar threads?

Are you claiming that this thread is not a valid "thread" because of that? Does it undermine the other "threads" by its existance? Maybe we should just call it a "Civil Discusion?"

Did you bother to read the original post of mine that he was responding to? He qouted it and it would give you the context needed to figure this great mystery out. In fact, I will give you a scooby snack if you solve it...now get cracking gang.

[gdw]

When a male and female "marry" the state issues a "Marriage" license, regardless of religion. What the State is recognizing is in actuality a Civil Union...so why is it called marriage on the Governmental level? All state sanctioned "marriages" should be called Civil Unions. If a church chooses to perform a religious marriage for a same sex couple that should be up to them...not the state.


But they are NOT the ones being asked to perform them. Why do people keep saying that?

Also, you are not actually addressing the question you quoted.

However, you simply outlined that a civil union IS a marriage. Marriage is just what we call it, so what the hell's wrong with using that word?

Oh, and here's a news flash, marriage did not originate with religion.

[Kyalesyin]

Why are we arguing about the wording when I can't even remember how many states aren't allowing gay people any kind of union at all, and are making moves to ban it, even though it already can't be legally done

[gdw]

Did you bother to read the original post of mine that he was responding to? He qouted it and it would give you the context needed to figure this great mystery out. In fact, I will give you a scooby snack if you solve it...now get cracking gang.


No need to be an ass about it.

Quite simply, you post just gave no context, so i was simply asking what the hell the context was.

Your post just seemed out of place and more or less irrelivent. There is no need for people to have to search back through who knows howmany posts to find what the hell you are talking about.

It may be one page back, but that only matters if you know, one, what you are looking, which post, and two, where the hell to look.

[bluejake01]

But they are NOT the ones being asked to perform them. Why do people keep saying that?

Also, you are not actually addressing the question you quoted.

However, you simply outlined that a civil union IS a marriage. Marriage is just what we call it, so what the hell's wrong with using that word?

Oh, and here's a news flash, marriage did not originate with religion.
Newsflash!!!!

I NEVER SAID THAT IT DID.

You really should invest in some reading comprehension courses.

What I am saying is that the word "marriage" as it's defined today, in this society, has absolutely no place within the body of the government, unless you afford the same priviledges to everyone that otherwise qualifies, regardless of gender. Either make heterosexual marriage a Civil Union, or provide marriage licenses to homosexuals.

[gdw]

Why are we arguing about the wording when I can't even remember how many states aren't allowing gay people any kind of union at all, and are making moves to ban it, even though it already can't be legally done

LOL, I don't know. Probably because if you fight for just a union, you'll get a comprimise of something below it, but if you aim for the top, and argue right down to the wording, then there is a lot more to bargin with, and comprimises can be made on things that may be a touche more trivial, and you will end up getting more.

Not that there should be any sort of comprimise what so ever.

[bluejake01]

No need to be an ass about it.

Quite simply, you post just gave no context, so i was simply asking what the hell the context was.

Your post just seemed out of place and more or less irrelivent. There is no need for people to have to search back through who knows howmany posts to find what the hell you are talking about.

It may be one page back, but that only matters if you know, one, what you are looking, which post, and two, where the hell to look.

Find the post that I qouted Clarice...

[Kyalesyin]

LOL, I don't know. Probably because if you fight for just a union, you'll get a comprimise of something below it, but if you aim for the top, and argue right down to the wording, then there is a lot more to bargin with, and comprimises can be made on things that may be a touche more trivial, and you will end up getting more.

Not that there should be any sort of comprimise what so ever.

I hadn't looke at it that way so much. Good point.

[gdw]

Newsflash!!!!

I NEVER SAID THAT IT DID.

You really should invest in some reading comprehension courses.

What I am saying is that the word "marriage" as it's defined today, in this society, has absolutely no place within the body of the government, unless you afford the same priviledges to everyone that otherwise qualifies, regardless of gender. Either make heterosexual marriage a Civil Union, or provide marriage licenses to homosexuals.


"Originally Posted by bluejake01
When a male and female "marry" the state issues a "Marriage" license, regardless of religion. What the State is recognizing is in actuality a Civil Union...so why is it called marriage on the Governmental level? All state sanctioned "marriages" should be called Civil Unions. If a church chooses to perform a religious marriage for a same sex couple that should be up to them...not the state."

Your post here is very clearly separating civil union and marriage based on government and religion. You are defining them by that in this post. And THIS post is what I was refering to, and the people who generally do this same sort of thing in their arguments against gay marriage.

[gdw]

I hadn't looke at it that way so much. Good point.


Thank you :D

[bluejake01]

Your post here is very clearly separating civil union and marriage based on government and religion. You are defining them by that in this post. And THIS post is what I was refering to, and the people who generally do this same sort of thing in their arguments against gay marriage.

I am attacking the percieved seperation in order to debunk it. I am saying that the argument against "marriage" but for "civil unions" is a bull**** argument anyway you look at it. If a person's definition of marriage involves religion then it shouldn't be recognized on the government level. If their definition does not hinge on religion then there is no reason not to allow gay marriage. The arguments fall apart no matter how you stack them.

[blind_fury]

Or maybe they want to commit themselves to someone they love for the rest of their life?

That is what a marriage IS. No one is asking anyone to turn their world upside down, or turn society upside down, or too re write some whuge underlying factor of all life.

Just to refine a definition so that it does not exclude people.

It's no different then when women wanted to allow the difinition of a person to include them as well. That is a much bigger change too. Defining a whole person, not just the joining of too in love.


Can't you just imagine the proposals?

"Erin, will you-"
"Yes Sam?"
"-unite with me civilly?"
*slap*
well that's the kind of "proposals you get when you get hitched in a state building instead of a church or temple.

[Kyalesyin]

No, I think the exact words were 'I can imagine being without you. Will you marry me?' No church involved. Legally, its not a marrage. Feels like one.

[Mr Sparkle]

Why athiests would get married is beyond me. Maybe they want the tax benefits.

well, yes, and the rights afforded to married partners under the law.
so yeah, that's why they want marriages.
that and a little thing called equality. why people want that I can never guess.

[the_joker]

Calm yourselves, jeez. All getting heated up over something little, anybody would think you were arguing something serious and worthwhile, like the sensible policy of gun control - which actually kills people (and last time I checked, homosexuals in love didn't cause anyone's untimely demise). The fact is, there is no justification discriminate homosexuals, they're here to stay. It's about time people start getting use to it.

[gdw]

I am attacking the percieved seperation in order to debunk it. I am saying that the argument against "marriage" but for "civil unions" is a bull**** argument anyway you look at it. If a person's definition of marriage involves religion then it shouldn't be recognized on the government level. If their definition does not hinge on religion then there is no reason not to allow gay marriage. The arguments fall apart no matter how you stack them.



Well I'm glad we agree :D

[gdw]

well that's the kind of "proposals you get when you get hitched in a state building instead of a church or temple.

No, that is what you get when you are denied the right to get married.

Also, on the "religious" side, there are plenty of homosexuals who believe in a God, and in their belief that God DOES accept what they are.

By trying to empose a limitation of marriage just because YOUR religion wants it is emposing your religion on others.

There are religions that would, and do, accept homosexuality.

[gdw]

Calm yourselves, jeez. All getting heated up over something little, anybody would think you were arguing something serious and worthwhile, like the sensible policy of gun control - which actually kills people (and last time I checked, homosexuals in love didn't cause anyone's untimely demise). The fact is, there is no justification discriminate homosexuals, they're here to stay. It's about time people start getting use to it.


The fact that people don't accept this is what makes it a big issue. And no, being gay doesn't exactly kill people, but the intolerance of it does. there are many cases of people intolerant of homosexuality killing homosexuals.

Please do not try to claim that this is something minor. Equal human rights is far more important an underlying foundation of most of Northa America, than the right to bare arms.

[USMC]

Animals also kill each other and defecate in front of one another.

What is your point?

People kill each other and most spouses piss and crap while the other one shaves or brushes their teeth, don't be naive.:whatever:

[USMC]

Exactly! That's why gays should go for civil unions instead of forcing society to distort the definition of marraige.




http://www.vizu.com/media/poll/large/000/005/737/0.jpg


Y'alls got a point there, sugah! :)

[Spider-Bite]

I thought part of the definition of marriage was untill death do us part? Funny conservatives abandoned that aspect. If they were really worried about the definition of marriage being distorted they'd be calling for divorce to be illegal, and I would oppose them on that too.

Just let couples define their own marriage, instead of the government trying to force it on society.

[the_joker]

The fact that people don't accept this is what makes it a big issue. And no, being gay doesn't exactly kill people, but the intolerance of it does. there are many cases of people intolerant of homosexuality killing homosexuals.

Please do not try to claim that this is something minor. Equal human rights is far more important an underlying foundation of most of Northa America, than the right to bare arms.

Absolutely, I strongly agree. Perhaps you misunderstood me, but what I was trying to get across was that, homosexuals should be allowed to have their freedom to marry. It shouldn't be an issue at all, I don't know how we are still living in a society which still discriminates individuals on the basis on their sexual orientation.

As for the supposed "rights to bear arms" statement, I was using it as an example of things that should matter, rather than wasting time and effort to infringing their, quite frankly, dated beliefs about homosexuality stop homosexuals from marrying. And instead, argue against things that really matter, e.g. "rights to bear arms". It never cease to amaze me how Americans have the gall to complain about all these tragic shootings yet strongly support the rights to bare arms. But that's another matter altogether.

Basically my arguement is to allow individuals to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, end of.

[gdw]

Ah, but unfortunately you can not just tell intolerant people to just calm down and say that they are beimg silly with their argument.

They are, and should, but this is why you can't change their minds.

[sassycat]

marriage is a joke so lets stretch the joke longer dears :up: :( :whatever:

[Hotwire]

Religion is what gives marriage purpose. Without religion you might as well be in a "civil union".
F you, pal!!! My marriage may have taken place infront of a justice of the peace, but don't you DARE imply that it is without purpose, you prick!! My wife and I love each other very much and are 100% committed to each other and our daughter, yet you get o your high-horse and say that just because the service wasn't performed in a religious way, it is without purpose?!? You need to take a crowbar and pry open your tiny closed mind!

[Hotwire]

Still no intelligent agruments agaisnt gay marriage without using religion as a crutch??

[vibeke_T]

I don't know...sometimes I feel like black people feel and realize that being gay is nothing like being black.

Any thoughts.

[GoldenAgeHero]

i can see some similarities. but overall no, gays are nothing like blacks. close thread.

[jaguarr]

They really strike me as being two completely different persecuted groups who don't have a lot in common other than they've both been horribly mistreated throughout history. Comparing them seems silly, IMHO.

jag

[Franklin Richards]

Gay Men are just like Black Women.


Right?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[triplefive]

They really strike me as being two completely different persecuted groups who don't have a lot in common other than they've both been horribly mistreated throughout history. Comparing them seems silly, IMHO.

jag
I would have to say "the gays" and "the blacks" realize this too.

As fun as it is to generalize people based on one defining characteristic.

[Mr Sparkle]

no, of course they are different.

[vibeke_T]

I think black people have suffered more than gay people...
You can hide your sexuality, but you cant hide your skin color.
Also, sexuality is a BEHAVIOR. Skin color is not. It's not the same. Thanks.
So, do not compare Civil Rights struggles to gay rights. Thats silly. Black people just wanted to go somewhere that their white counterparts went..to the movie theatre and actually see the movie, not sit far away in the balcony. They wanted to drink from a proper water fount and not a bird bath. They wanted to know that they could venture out from their house without being lynched, castrated, raped or burned. They wanted to know that they were human. They wanted to know that they were smart and could get an education and achieve things. They wanted to be treated better than dogs. They wanted to erase the pain of 400 years of bondage. They wanted people to realize that they are not their skin color.

[Kevin]

I honestly can't answer because I'm both.

[WeaponZ2]

I think black people have suffered more than gay people...
You can hide your sexuality, but you cant hide your skin color.
Also, sexuality is a BEHAVIOR. Skin color is not. It's not the same. Thanks.
So, do not compare Civil Rights struggles to gay rights. Thats silly. Black people just wanted to go somewhere that their white counterparts went..to the movie theatre and actually see the movie, not sit far away in the balcony. They wanted to drink from a proper water fount and not a bird bath. They wanted to know that they could venture out from their house without being lynched, castrated, raped or burned. They wanted to know that they were human. They wanted to know that they were smart and could get an education and achieve things. They wanted to be treated better than dogs. They wanted to erase the pain of 400 years of bondage. They wanted people to realize that they are not their skin color.

:ninja: *CLAP!**CLAP!**CLAP!*

[Godchilla]

you can't compare skin color with sexual orientation... the only thing they got in common is that they have been mistreated, but thats it

[Warhammer]

Different.

[the_ultimate_evil]

but what of a person who is black and also gay

[Mr Sparkle]

I think black people have suffered more than gay people...
You can hide your sexuality, but you cant hide your skin color.
Also, sexuality is a BEHAVIOR. Skin color is not. It's not the same. Thanks.
So, do not compare Civil Rights struggles to gay rights. Thats silly. Black people just wanted to go somewhere that their white counterparts went..to the movie theatre and actually see the movie, not sit far away in the balcony. They wanted to drink from a proper water fount and not a bird bath. They wanted to know that they could venture out from their house without being lynched, castrated, raped or burned. They wanted to know that they were human. They wanted to know that they were smart and could get an education and achieve things. They wanted to be treated better than dogs. They wanted to erase the pain of 400 years of bondage. They wanted people to realize that they are not their skin color.

to be fair, Gays where also persecuted in the past, and sometimes still get attacked for being gay, sure it's not as easy to spot but it still happens.
the thing is that the comparison is drawn because both movements want the same thing, equal rights, comparing how much one or the other suffered is inmaterial.
for instance, homosexuals also wnat people to know that they are human beings, just like them, regardless of sexuality.

[Franklin Richards]

So... you're saying people aren't born gay?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Colossal Spoons]

I created this exact thread a while ago.

[Colossal Spoons]

I created this exact thread a while ago.

[Kevin]

I created this exact thread a while ago.Yes you did. It was because you had that convo with your moms.

[vibeke_T]

I created this exact thread a while ago.

I just get pissed off. Seriously

[jaguarr]

I think black people have suffered more than gay people...
You can hide your sexuality, but you cant hide your skin color.
Also, sexuality is a BEHAVIOR. Skin color is not. It's not the same. Thanks.
So, do not compare Civil Rights struggles to gay rights. Thats silly. Black people just wanted to go somewhere that their white counterparts went..to the movie theatre and actually see the movie, not sit far away in the balcony. They wanted to drink from a proper water fount and not a bird bath. They wanted to know that they could venture out from their house without being lynched, castrated, raped or burned. They wanted to know that they were human. They wanted to know that they were smart and could get an education and achieve things. They wanted to be treated better than dogs. They wanted to erase the pain of 400 years of bondage. They wanted people to realize that they are not their skin color.

This is not a dig at you, but I seriously find something wrong with the idea of basically saying what amounts to "I'm more worthy of martyrdom than you are because MY people have suffered more than your people!". You might as well call the Jews in and give them the big trophy if this is some sort of sick contest. Atrocities have happened to all kinds of groups. Grow from them. Use them to bond not only within your own community but with other communities that have suffered as well. As long as you keep yourself segregated instead of pulling together with other human beings (and that's what we all are, mind you), then you will never oust the a-holes in power that perpetuate some of these inequalities.

Just thinking out loud.

jag

[Kevin]

Why did you start this thread, anyway? Just asking.

[Colossal Spoons]

Yes you did. It was because you had that convo with your moms.

Damn good memory my man. :up:

I just get pissed off. Seriously

See, we were arguing to diff points in out threads though. I was actually arguing in favor of the homosexual population, that their struggle should be taken more seriously. Everybody agrees that the two struggles are def different though.

[vibeke_T]

Why did you start this thread, anyway? Just asking.


the gay penguin thread. really.

[vibeke_T]

Damn good memory my man. :up:



See, we were arguing to diff points in out threads though. I was actually arguing in favor of the homosexual population, that their struggle should be taken more seriously. Everybody agrees that the two struggles are def different though.


More seriously in what way?

[vibeke_T]

This is not a dig at you, but I seriously find something wrong with the idea of basically saying what amounts to "I'm more worthy of martyrdom than you are because MY people have suffered more than your people!". You might as well call the Jews in and give them the big trophy if this is some sort of sick contest. Atrocities have happened to all kinds of groups. Grow from them. Use them to bond not only within your own community but with other communities that have suffered as well. As long as you keep yourself segregated instead of pulling together with other human beings (and that's what we all are, mind you), then you will never oust the a-holes in power that perpetuate some of these inequalities.

Just thinking out loud.

jag
I'm not saying that blacks are more worthy of whatever...I'm just saying black people have definitely suffered more than gays and like I said...blacks suffered for something that was entirely outside of their control (except is cases like michael jackson) but you can control your behavior.

[Colossal Spoons]

More seriously in what way?

I feel like it gets downplayed because it's a choice(I believe in the "choose to be gay" over the "born gay" way of thinking). Us black people can't hide our skin color, that's true; but the homosexual struggle is still quite serious and some atrocious things have happened to them as well.

[vibeke_T]

I feel like it gets downplayed because it's a choice(I believe in the "choose to be gay" over the "born gay" way of thinking). Us black people can't hide our skin color, that's true; but the homosexual struggle is still quite serious and some atrocious things have happened to them as well.


tell me?

[Kevin]

the gay penguin thread. really.I didn't even go in that thread yet. Something told me not to because it would upset me in the end.

[Colossal Spoons]

tell me?

I don't have specific facts memorized but I think I know what you're getting at. There hasn't been a mass event on the scale of slavery for homosexuals, no. But they were targetted by the Nazis during the Holocaust; it's just that Jewish people get the recognition for that. Homosexuals have been shot, stabbed, lit on fire, dragged by cars, castrated, etc just for their sexual orientation. Of course they could "just hide it" but back in the day; if somebody even suggested that you were gay, a witch hunt was orchestrated to condemn you.

Also, I don't believe anybody's been disowned by their family for being black lol.

[Franklin Richards]

It's not a choice. Homosexuality appears in nature. Animals are slaves to instinct. Instinct is not a choice. If it were, it would be morally wrong for a tiger mom to eat her cubs. But it's not, because it's an instinct.

In some people, being homosexual is just the way they are born.


Watch that Doodlebops show and tell me some people aren't born gay.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Colossal Spoons]

It's not a choice. Homosexuality appears in nature. Animals are slaves to instinct. Instinct is not a choice. If it were, it would be morally wrong for a tiger mom to eat her cubs. But it's not, because it's an instinct.

In some people, being homosexual is just the way they are born.


Watch that Doodlebops show and tell me some people aren't born gay.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I hear and understand the born gay argument but I side with the "choosing to be gay" argument. I'm Christian :shrug:

[Trooper]

Gay Men are just like Black Women.


Right?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

LOL :woot:

[jaguarr]

Also, I don't believe anybody's been disowned by their family for being black lol.

I was, once. :csad:

jag

[Franklin Richards]

I hear and understand the born gay argument but I side with the "choosing to be gay" argument. I'm Christian :shrug:


Ahhh... in that case being gay is all a part of God's Plan.

:D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Colossal Spoons]

I was, once. :csad:

jag

Damn, you can come to my house for Thanksgiving then. Bring the wife.

[Colossal Spoons]

Ahhh... in that case being gay is all a part of God's Plan.

:D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Man, who knows what the G-man's plan is lol. I just don't think he'd go around calling something an abomination if he created the damn thing. If he created it and it chose to abominate itself, then that makes sense.

[Franklin Richards]

Sometimes being black will get you in a house. Ask Willis, Arnold, and Webster.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[jaguarr]

Damn, you can come to my house for Thanksgiving then. Bring the wife.

It depends. Are you still dating that White She-Devil?! :cmad:


:D

jag

[Colossal Spoons]

It depends. Are you still dating that White She-Devil?! :cmad:


:D

jag

Yeah man, I'll never break up w/ my "get out of jail" ticket :D

[Franklin Richards]

Man, who knows what the G-man's plan is lol. I just don't think he'd go around calling something an abomination if he created the damn thing. If he created it and it chose to abominate itself, then that makes sense.

I think you have too much faith in those backwards old men who wrote and edited that book.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Colossal Spoons]

I think you have too much faith in those backwards old men who wrote and edited that book.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Everyday, I consider the fact that every word in that book could be a damn lie. I just hope it's not. I'm hardly a God-zombie lol.

[jaguarr]

Yeah man, I'll never break up w/ my "get out of jail" ticket :D

LMFAO! :D

jag

[Franklin Richards]

Fair enuff.

:up:


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[vibeke_T]

I was, once. :csad:

jag


YOURE BLACK?

[vibeke_T]

I think you have too much faith in those backwards old men who wrote and edited that book.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

oh please.

[jaguarr]

YOURE BLACK?

No. That's what made it so horrible. :csad:

jag

[Kevin]

lol

[Colossal Spoons]

No. That's what made it so horrible. :csad:

jag

That's what you get for going to the beach w/o your tanning lotion, Jagizzle.

[WeaponZ2]

I hear and understand the born gay argument but I side with the "choosing to be gay" argument. I'm Christian :shrug:


I (personally) think your born gay. No idea why. Its just makes sense. I don't think its something you can change your mind on.
I like women. I think the female body is a work of art and the male body is sick and disgusting.
I think men mentally are for the most part retarded (self included) all my male friends seem to get off on causing destruction and being asses.
Where my female friends, I find mentally stimulating. I love talking to them and being around them. I like to think this is because of their shinning personalty's but I'm sure the reality of the whole thing is the fact that they have a vagina (Thats not what I think, but I'm sure subcounsiously (sp?) its the truth

[Spider-Bite]

it depends on the circumstance. Being black in america at the moment is worse than being gay in Europe.

But being gay in america at the moment is worse than being black in america.

I think you guys feel to understand the reality of lonliness. you expect them to just keep it a secret and all will be fine.

Not to mention, every time I met a gay person it was obvious as hell.

here's to hoping for a day when no group suffers and people learn to live in peace with their fellow man and woman no matter what group he or she belongs to.

[Spider-Bite]

I (personally) think your born gay. No idea why. Its just makes sense. I don't think its something you can change your mind on.
I like women. I think the female body is a work of art and the male body is sick and disgusting.
I think men mentally are for the most part retarded (self included) all my male friends seem to get off on causing destruction and being asses.
Where my female friends, I find mentally stimulating. I love talking to them and being around them. I like to think this is because of their shinning personalty's but I'm sure the reality of the whole thing is the fact that they have a vagina (Thats not what I think, but I'm sure subcounsiously (sp?) its the truth

One could easily argue that women are *****y for stupid reasons a lot of the time, totheir boyfriends. that's why married men learn the words "yes dear" just so they wont have to deal with it.

I'm not saying all women are like that, but not all men are the same either.

[Franklin Richards]

Undeniable truth that people are born gay.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/3Swimming.jpg


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Spider-Bite]

You can hide your sexuality, but you cant hide your skin color.


that's nonsense. just look at michael jackson.

[jaguarr]

That's what you get for going to the beach w/o your tanning lotion, Jagizzle.

Many folks don't realize that people can catch feelings from a sunburn. :csad:

jag

[Spider-Bite]

I think it's counter productive and stupid to argue and fret about which group suffers or suffered more. if a group is being opressed than that opression needs to stop. period. end of story. nothing else meaninful or relevant can be said on the subject.

[WeaponZ2]

One could easily argue that women are *****y for stupid reasons a lot of the time, totheir boyfriends. that's why married men learn the words "yes dear" just so they wont have to deal with it.

I'm not saying all women are like that, but not all men are the same either.

Men and women can be just as *****y. My dad bit my head off the other night for waking him up 2 minutes late.
And I didn't mean to make a generaliztion about all men, I ment to genralize my friends. Guys: Derstuctive ass holes. Last weekend we covered a golf ball in gas lit it and played night golf....
Gals: Intresting converstaionalist. Last week we played cards and talked.
.......what am I going on about anyway?

[Kevin]

:confused:<---- WZ2, is that what you are?

[AndThePickles]

Yeah man, I'll never break up w/ my "get out of jail" ticket :D

After all the street cred I earned you, that's all I am to you? :csad:

[blind_fury]

You may not choose to be gay but you can certainly choose to be a flaming homosexual or discreet. Blacks never can be discreet about their skin color and for 400 years suffered terribly because of it.

When people compare the gay struggle to the slavery of blacks it's really insensitive. It's like Paris Hilton comparing herself to Anne Frank because she has bad press.

[jaguarr]

After all the street cred I earned you, that's all I am to you? :csad:

I'm not gonna come over for Thanksgiving if all you two are going to do is fight. :csad:

jag

[Franklin Richards]

Oh please. I'm a Cherokee. You guys have had it easy. All of ya!

:p


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Colossal Spoons]

Many folks don't realize that people can catch feelings from a sunburn. :csad:

jag

I do believe you were "straight fiya" :dry:


I'm not gonna come over for Thanksgiving if all you two are going to do is fight. :csad:

jag

Isn't that the worst; being around a bickering couple? I can't think of too many things more awkward. It really sux when they "take it into another room".

[Erzengel]

You may not choose to be gay but you can certainly choose to be a flaming homosexual or discreet. Blacks never can be discreet about their skin color and for 400 years suffered terribly because of it.

When people compare the gay struggle to the slavery of blacks it's really insensitive. It's like Paris Hilton comparing herself to Anne Frank because she has bad press.

Between your view on repartions, you paying for sex and I forgot that you said you don't work, that's the last thing I want to do as an American is give an unemployed black person money to have sex because of some "white guilt".

[Colossal Spoons]

Oh please. I'm a Cherokee. You guys have had it easy. All of ya!

:p


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Psh, we all had to learn our "don't trust the white man" lesson. You just got a head start. You're just jealous yours didn't come with a cruise. :dry:



:D

[AndThePickles]

I'm not gonna come over for Thanksgiving if all you two are going to do is fight. :csad:

jag

But I need someone to protect me from the domestic abuse :csad:

[Franklin Richards]

No... but we did get herpes and syphilis.

Woot! :up:


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Kevin]

yeah, that is kinda grimes.

[Majik1387]

This is not a dig at you, but I seriously find something wrong with the idea of basically saying what amounts to "I'm more worthy of martyrdom than you are because MY people have suffered more than your people!". You might as well call the Jews in and give them the big trophy if this is some sort of sick contest. Atrocities have happened to all kinds of groups. Grow from them. Use them to bond not only within your own community but with other communities that have suffered as well. As long as you keep yourself segregated instead of pulling together with other human beings (and that's what we all are, mind you), then you will never oust the a-holes in power that perpetuate some of these inequalities.

Just thinking out loud.

jag
Agreed.