Discussion: Gay Rights II [Archive] - Page 3

Mr Sparkle

02-24-2008, 11:44 AM

Homosexuals are not being denied the ability to have relationships. What consenting adults do privately is one thing. Asking for government recognition of it is another.

but this wasn't about them being "unable to be gay" the original post addressed the "wrongness" of homosexuality, gay people should have equal rights for legal protection, that is obvious.

Just think about homosexual desire for a moment. First, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that people are born predestined to have homosexual desires. Even the APA says that. There may be certain genetic markers that indicate a predisposition towards adapting said behavior once exposed to certain other factors, but predisposition is not the same as predetermination.

that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, even if they are "predisposed" this alone should be a great big wake up call to people who say it is a choice shouldn't it?
I think I've said already, SOME people are just born that way, some people turn gay for different reasons, referring to the environment, so?
how about YOU think on the homosexual desire for a moment.
think about making out with a dude ( if you are a dude) how appealing is this to you? do you think you could choose to do it with NO outside motivation?

Second, regarding the "normal" aspect: what makes it normal? It is a condition that is in contrast to the natural biological functioning of the human body. It's a life-giving dead end, because life cannot come naturally from a homosexual union. The point in raising the scenario whereby everyone was homosexual is that if such a thing occurred, a species would die out. How can something that would lead to extinction be considered "normal"?

really? wow, you know what else is in contrast to the natural bilogical functioning of the human body?
sterile couples.
should they be disbanded? not allowed to marry given the fact that life cannot continue naturally from their union?
what if everyone was sterile? the human species would die out
hence, sterile couples should not be able to marry.
that is by far the single dumbest reason to NOT allow gay marriage.
you don't really think that they'll go " well Joe, we gave it a try, but hey, it's not legal, so I guess we should turn straight, marry women and have tons of babies"

:dry:

not likely.

Even if a person was born with homosexual desires, that alone does not normalize the inclination. For example, a person can be born blind, yet that is clearly not the normal state in which the person should have been born. Something is either wrong genetically or was adversely affected in the womb to render the person without the proper and naturally determined use of his eyesight. Eyes are meant to see. When they don't, something is wrong. Male and female are meant to be attracted to each other ... it serves a biological purpose. To remove that desire acts in opposition to the biology of our bodies.

uh...that was a neat little speech.
so, unless you think that blind people shouldn't be able to marry ( if we were all blind we wouldn't be able to survive!!!!! EEEK!) you wasted like 5 minutes of your life making MY point for me.

uh...thanks.

Others have raised the points that just being homosexual does not mean being unable to reproduce (per se), and that scientific advancement allows for artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. True. Part of the problem with such thinking is that we've effectively turned children into commodities. And the way in which it relates to the above example is still that it would be an unnatural method of continuing the species to do so purely based on science, or it would require people to have sex with others, against their will to an extent, because there would be no sexual attraction or desire.

so then, sexual attraction or desire should be important in some cases but in the cases were gay people are experience it?
because again, I've never made this argument, since I don't think that gay people are the end of civilization.
but again, you just made an argument against sterile couples that USE surrogates.
sterile STRAIGHT couples.
that right5 now CAN marry under the law, CAN adopt under the law and CAN get artificial inseminations ALL while being abnormal ( according to your standards) all while being a reproductive " dead end".
me thinks I see a double standard.

Part of the difference here is that an infertile couple is meant to be able to conceive, but for one reason or another something is not working correctly. The goal in these cases should be to correct the problem so that the body does work as intended. In comparison to a homosexual couple, they are not designed to be able to procreate naturally, and will never be able to do so naturally.

ha! sorry, NO.
some of these people are BORN infertile, like blind people ( remember your "abnormal" example) and clearly infertility is not " normal" so under your
"normal" " abnormal" guidelines people that are infertile are unable to conceive even through science and then try to adopt?
nope sorry, shouldn't be allowed should it?
here, I'll use your own words as support for my theory

"that scientific advancement allows for artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. True. Part of the problem with such thinking is that we've effectively turned children into commodities. And the way in which it relates to the above example is still that it would be an unnatural method of continuing the species to do so purely based on science"

oooh, notice how that can be used for straight couples as well, even IF they were " designed" to have children, they can't.
they are " abnormal " are they not? they are a reproductive dead end are they not?
if everyone was infertile, the human race would die out, would it not?

The thing is, to insist that only "fertile" couples could marry would require even more governmental intrusion, not less, into one's life. Aren't people for gay "marriage" trying to argue against more intrusion? The assumption is that a heterosexual couple is fertile, because that is the intended and natural working state of our bodies. Homosexual unions, however, quite obviously cannot procreate naturally, fertile or not, and thus do not quite fit your analogy of why one is allowed while the other is not.

oh, so you're saying that it would just save on paperwork?
and no, actually the justification for gay marriage is not "less government intrusion" but " equal rights".
so, the moment that the doctor pinpoints a sterile couple he could render their union null and void.
neat solution huh? and the minute that two straight blind people want to marry, they would be denied that option.
like gay couples right?
a tad dystopian for my taste, but hey, if you're going to apply a reasoning to a group and justify your actions based upon said reasoning, be sure said reasoning cannot be apply to groups you have no qualms against.
good rule of thumb.

Part of it boils down to respecting the laws of nature, vs doing what we want. If people want to live in a homosexual relationship, that is up to them, but I don't see why it requires governmental and public recognition.

I'm sorry.
you're communicating with another person thousands of miles away via manufactured electronic impulses on a machine that works not unlike a tiny specialized brain which can reproduce music and moving images through a complex decoding of numbers based information.
as I type this an airplane, a machine filled with people not MEANT to fly, just flew above my house.
an airplane.
and many multi-ton hunks of metal on wheels are passing by outside my apartment, self propelling with a petroleum based fuel.

Cunning Stunts

02-24-2008, 02:12 PM

I have another question for all the Bible Thumpers here.

The Bible says we cannot be gay, apparently. Okay...

The Bible also says we cannot worship "false idols" or have "other gods" before God. So should we outlaw Bhuddism? Satanism? Any other mythologies?

She we also illegalize simply wanting someone else's property? Even if we don't intend to steal it?

Star

02-24-2008, 02:32 PM

If same sex relations were not a sin things might be different it is still vulgar .The main reason for sex in the first place is for reproductive purposes two men or two woman together cannot produce a child allthough that is ok maybe the gays will die out sometime due to the lack of ability to reproduce .I don't personaly have a problem with gays i have some friends that are gay . I am kinda torn in my beliefs and the fact that i want my fiends to be happy .If this is what makes them happy even though i don't aprove i am not going to judge them for it . It is not my place to judge anyone. That is between them and god.

Oh my god, I actually have no words for this. What the HELL is the matter with you? Do you live in a hole somewhere married to your sister ??????

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 02:34 PM

Oh my god, I actually have no words for this. What the HELL is the matter with you? Do you live in a hole somewhere married to your sister ??????

No....his cousin:oldrazz:

spike spiegel

02-24-2008, 02:39 PM

A better question for the Bible Thumpers:

Why is homosexuality wrong? Give a legitimate answer, please. "The Bible says so," does not cut it.

The Bible is not the word of God or Jesus, so don't try that one either.

Well, that comes down to what you and I believe in. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, so...yeah...that's what I believe. You believe something else. That's where the argument comes to a stop.

I have another question for all the Bible Thumpers here.

The Bible says we cannot be gay, apparently. Okay...

The Bible also says we cannot worship "false idols" or have "other gods" before God. So should we outlaw Bhuddism? Satanism? Any other mythologies?

She we also illegalize simply wanting someone else's property? Even if we don't intend to steal it?

Well, like I said before, I don't think we should ban same sex marriages. As for banning Bhuddism, Satanism, gluttony, wanting someone else's property, etc...well, who can ban sin?

:boba:

Sandman138

02-24-2008, 04:42 PM

http://www.albertsc.com/images/dalai_lama.jpg

Did you just call this man a dirty sinner?

spike spiegel

02-24-2008, 05:17 PM

http://www.albertsc.com/images/dalai_lama.jpg

Did you just call this man a dirty sinner?

:csad: .......*sigh*.......

Jake Cassidy

02-24-2008, 05:28 PM

No....his cousin:oldrazz:

No....his brother. :oldrazz: :woot:

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 08:12 PM

So you would only have sex with the intention of getting a girl pregnant? Well, that means you should only have sex when you know she's ovulating, and you should never, ever use birth control.

Have fun raising 20 children, and have a fabulous sex-life. :up:

You say you have gay friends, yet you talk about the elimination of homosexuals as a positive thing?

You're a ****ing biggot. :down

You are reading way to much into what i read i never said gays dying out was good or bad go back and re-read it just seams like a given becouse the lack of abillity to reproduce as far as ovulating if you want to go there first you have to know when the girl is ovulating and when the window is but that in itself is a weak argument becouse men dont ovulate
and no mater how many times you have sex you will never concieve a child and maybe i am as you say a ****ing biggot . But it is i who have to live my life not you just like you have to live your own life i cant and wont do it for you

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 08:17 PM

Well, that comes down to what you and I believe in. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, so...yeah...that's what I believe. You believe something else. That's where the argument comes to a stop.

Well, like I said before, I don't think we should ban same sex marriages. As for banning Bhuddism, Satanism, gluttony, wanting someone else's property, etc...well, who can ban sin?

:boba:

No one to my knowlage has benned same sex relations or allot of people would be breaking the law as far as getting maried is concered i still dont understand why gays want to do so in the first place .You know mariage is the leading cause of divorce

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 08:21 PM

No one to my knowlage has benned same sex relations or allot of people would be breaking the law as far as getting maried is concered i still dont understand why gays want to do so in the first place .You know mariage is the leading cause of divorce

Ok...I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible. Gay people want to be married so things like insurance and finances can be passed to their spouse. In the case of a medical emergency there are some instances that only a "spouse" can make a decision or be allowed to visit in the hospital.

Jerry!

02-24-2008, 08:22 PM

Right. That is what people mean when they say they just want the same rights as everyone else. People like Memphis cannot understand this.

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Jerry!

02-24-2008, 08:44 PM

The wrath you will receive for that avatar goes far beyond my imagination. Go into the Batman forums and post, should be hilarious.

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 08:47 PM

lol They need to lighten up over there.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 08:48 PM

lol They need to lighten up over there.

Let me know some of the reaction you get, if you dont mind....I could use a good laugh

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 08:50 PM

lol ok

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:02 PM

[quote=BlackLantern;14150887]Ok...I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible. Gay people want to be married so things like insurance and finances can be passed to their spouse. In the case of a medical emergency there are some instances that only a "spouse" can make a decision or be allowed to visit in the hospital.[/quote

If this is all about insurance then why cant the country set up some kinda civil union that would take care of that . You dont need a religious ceremony for that it would make gays happy and keep those bible pushers from bothering you

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:06 PM

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:14 PM

This is about equal rights, not about placating ignorant and hateful so-called 'Christians'. A civil partnership, as defined by the law, does not have all the same rights and benefits as a 'marriage'. Its also not about it being a religious ceremony...its about being recognized as spouses in the eyes of the law. In a civil union, you can't claim your partner on your taxes as you can with a spouse. In a civil union, if you die suddenly your partner gets nothing as opposed to being married, where all your posessions, finances, what have you go to your spouse....its about a whole lot more than insurance....its about equality....

Then your going about it all the wrong way you are not even talking about marriage at all this is about egual rights as defined the the us contstition and unless i am as stuped as you all think i am nowhere in it does it exclude gays .The more i get into this thread the more ignorant i realise i have been . Everyone deserves the same right regardless of race sex relion or sexual preference. i just dont understand how you cant do all those things with a civil union it makes no sence

Tally Man

02-24-2008, 09:15 PM

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:18 PM

Then your going about it all the wrong way you are not even talking about marriage at all this is about egual rights as defined the the us contstition and unless i am as stuped as you all think i am nowhere in it does it exclude gays .The more i get into this thread the more ignorant i realise i have been . Everyone deserves the same right regardless of race sex relion or sexual preference. i just dont understand how you cant do all those things with a civil union it makes no sence

It's about gay people wanting what everyone else has automatically because they CAN get married. Gay rights is such a hot button issue and is so hotly debated and contested, that no politician who wants to stay in office very long will make an attempt to change things. Because its those bible thumpers who keep them in office and ignorant people refuse to understand that being gay is logically no different than being straight.

shadowforce420

02-24-2008, 09:19 PM

but this wasn't about them being "unable to be gay" the original post addressed the "wrongness" of homosexuality, gay people should have equal rights for legal protection, that is obvious.

that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, even if they are "predisposed" this alone should be a great big wake up call to people who say it is a choice shouldn't it?
I think I've said already, SOME people are just born that way, some people turn gay for different reasons, referring to the environment, so?
how about YOU think on the homosexual desire for a moment.
think about making out with a dude ( if you are a dude) how appealing is this to you? do you think you could choose to do it with NO outside motivation?

really? wow, you know what else is in contrast to the natural bilogical functioning of the human body?
sterile couples.
should they be disbanded? not allowed to marry given the fact that life cannot continue naturally from their union?
what if everyone was sterile? the human species would die out
hence, sterile couples should not be able to marry.
that is by far the single dumbest reason to NOT allow gay marriage.
you don't really think that they'll go " well Joe, we gave it a try, but hey, it's not legal, so I guess we should turn straight, marry women and have tons of babies"

:dry:

not likely.

uh...that was a neat little speech.
so, unless you think that blind people shouldn't be able to marry ( if we were all blind we wouldn't be able to survive!!!!! EEEK!) you wasted like 5 minutes of your life making MY point for me.

uh...thanks.

so then, sexual attraction or desire should be important in some cases but in the cases were gay people are experience it?
because again, I've never made this argument, since I don't think that gay people are the end of civilization.
but again, you just made an argument against sterile couples that USE surrogates.
sterile STRAIGHT couples.
that right5 now CAN marry under the law, CAN adopt under the law and CAN get artificial inseminations ALL while being abnormal ( according to your standards) all while being a reproductive " dead end".
me thinks I see a double standard.

ha! sorry, NO.
some of these people are BORN infertile, like blind people ( remember your "abnormal" example) and clearly infertility is not " normal" so under your
"normal" " abnormal" guidelines people that are infertile are unable to conceive even through science and then try to adopt?
nope sorry, shouldn't be allowed should it?
here, I'll use your own words as support for my theory

"that scientific advancement allows for artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. True. Part of the problem with such thinking is that we've effectively turned children into commodities. And the way in which it relates to the above example is still that it would be an unnatural method of continuing the species to do so purely based on science"

oooh, notice how that can be used for straight couples as well, even IF they were " designed" to have children, they can't.
they are " abnormal " are they not? they are a reproductive dead end are they not?
if everyone was infertile, the human race would die out, would it not?

oh, so you're saying that it would just save on paperwork?
and no, actually the justification for gay marriage is not "less government intrusion" but " equal rights".
so, the moment that the doctor pinpoints a sterile couple he could render their union null and void.
neat solution huh? and the minute that two straight blind people want to marry, they would be denied that option.
like gay couples right?
a tad dystopian for my taste, but hey, if you're going to apply a reasoning to a group and justify your actions based upon said reasoning, be sure said reasoning cannot be apply to groups you have no qualms against.
good rule of thumb.

I'm sorry.
you're communicating with another person thousands of miles away via manufactured electronic impulses on a machine that works not unlike a tiny specialized brain which can reproduce music and moving images through a complex decoding of numbers based information.
as I type this an airplane, a machine filled with people not MEANT to fly, just flew above my house.
an airplane.
and many multi-ton hunks of metal on wheels are passing by outside my apartment, self propelling with a petroleum based fuel.

"And the award for the post of the thread goes to...Mr Sparkle for complete win."

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:22 PM

Separate but equal has a history of not being all that its cracked up to be in the U.S.

You know i was thinking the same think when i typed what i did kinda made me think of the jim crow laws back in the day . Sounds like we all need more tolerance and not be so quick to judge . As i see here there is plenty of that from both sides of this debate

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 09:23 PM

I just don't understand why christians think they own the idea and practice of marriage. I was married and I'm far from a christian. I have friends who where legally married at a court house, by a judge, without anything remotely religous involved whatsoever.
Thats what confuses me most about the anti-gay marriage people.
They're so small minded to think they are the only religions than perform marriages.

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:30 PM

Thats what confuses me most about the anti-gay marriage people.
They're so small minded to think they are the only religions than perform marriages.

I have not seen much other than small minded comments from either side of this debate name calling and mud slinging wont get your point across

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 09:30 PM

I do believe that in most (all maybe..i'm not american, just lived in Michigan for a few years) states you can get married in a court house, completely without religion entering into it whatsoever.

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 09:32 PM

I have not seen much other than small minded comments from either side of this debate name calling and mud slinging wont get your point across

I think the point was, my point atleast, that the it seems the main argument against same sex marriages is religious, and mostly christian, in nature.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:32 PM

I have not seen much other than small minded comments from either side of this debate name calling and mud slinging wont get your point across

Mudslinging or not, it's the truth....its the religious right in this country who are using said religion to keep those 'filthy homosexuals' from getting married.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:34 PM

I do believe that in most (all maybe..i'm not american, just lived in Michigan for a few years) states you can get married in a court house, completely without religion entering into it whatsoever.

But most court houses will not give a gay couple a marriage license

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 09:36 PM

I have not seen much other than small minded comments from either side of this debate name calling and mud slinging wont get your point across
I've had this debate many times in the other Gay themed threads. All you anti-gay marriage people ever argue is no procreation, it's "not natural" and what the bible says.
Many posters have recounted the procreation and the "not natural" argument to where it then becomes about the bible.
With how may different religions of Christian there are, because of the way they interpret the bible; Then you anti-gay marriage people think marriage should only be related to a certain Christian religion; This isn't even counting non-Christian religions' marriage ceremonies.
You anti-gay marriage people need to get your heads out of your asses and quit being ignorant bigots and learn something.
I do believe that in most (all maybe..i'm not american, just lived in Michigan for a few years) states you can get married in a court house, completely without religion entering into it whatsoever.
Yep. But for gay couples, unions are allowed everywhere except for Florida. Marriage is a different story.

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:36 PM

You are reading way to much into what i read i never said gays dying out was good or bad go back and re-read it...Actually, these were your exact words: "The main reason for sex in the first place is for reproductive purposes two men or two woman together cannot produce a child allthough that is ok maybe the gays will die out sometime due to the lack of ability to reproduce..."

Why is that, "okay?" Why would you say that? You were talking about the theoretical event in a positive manner, as though it's a problem that will just work itself out.

Secondly, it's not like this is new. Homosexuality has been around for a long, LONG time, and if it were going to be wiped out, it would have by now. If anything, their capacity to reproduce has never been better thanks to artificial means and methods.

You're an idiot. I very rarely outright say that, but you are.

... just seams like a given becouse the lack of abillity to reproduce as far as ovulating if you want to go there first you have to know when the girl is ovulating and when the window is but that in itself is a weak argument becouse men dont ovulate...Weak argument? Are you retarded? According to your argument, you should never have sex with a woman unless you know they're ovulating. Period.

Men don't ovulate? Thanks for the update, genius. :whatever: As I understand it, however, since you only condone sex between a man and a woman, and only for reproduction, one of them has to be ovulating.

I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. :up:

...and no mater how many times you have sex you will never concieve a child and maybe i am as you say a ****ing biggot . But it is i who have to live my life not you just like you have to live your own life i cant and wont do it for youNo matter how many times I have sex, I will never concieve a child? Uh, thanks for the update. I didn't realize I was filling my girlfriend with sterile ooze. :huh:

Take a ****ing English class (or better yet, just graduate high school) and come back to see me.

Biggot. :down

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 09:42 PM

But most court houses will not give a gay couple a marriage license

Exactly, and from most of the homosexual friends that I've had that wanted to get married, that's where they would do it.....if they could that is.

I just don't see why religion needs to be brought into it at all. There really is and shouldn't be any debate on the subject. Like has been said numerous times before. If homosexuals where fighting to force all churches to preform these marriages, then the highly religious would have a legitimate reason to fight against it. This is not the case though.

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:43 PM

Actually, these were your exact words: "The main reason for sex in the first place is for reproductive purposes two men or two woman together cannot produce a child allthough that is ok maybe the gays will die out sometime due to the lack of ability to reproduce..."

Why is that, "okay?" Why would you say that? You were talking about the theoretical event in a positive manner, as though it's a problem that will just work itself out.

Secondly, it's not like this is new. Homosexuality has been around for a long, LONG time, and if it were going to be wiped out, it would have by now. If anything, their capacity to reproduce has never been better thanks to artificial means and methods.

You're an idiot. I very rarely outright say that, but you are.

Weak argument? Are you retarded? According to your argument, you should never have sex with a woman unless you know they're ovulating. Period.

Men don't ovulate? Thanks for the update, genius. :whatever: As I understand it, however, since you only condone sex between a man and a woman, and only for reproduction, one of them has to be ovulating.

I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. :up:

No matter how many times I have sex, I will never concieve a child? Uh, thanks for the update. I didn't realize I was filling my girlfriend with sterile ooze. :huh:

Take a ****ing English class (or better yet, just graduate high school) and come back to see me.

Biggot. :down

I did not realise you had the ability to carry a child then get yourself pregnant with your gay partner go on those tv shows and make some money then

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:44 PM

I did not realise you cad the ability to carry a child then get yourself pregnant with your gay partner go on those tv shows and make some money thenOh, I get it, you think I'm gay. I guess the, "filling my girlfriend with ooze," comment was too subtle for you or something.

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 09:46 PM

I did not realise you cad the ability to carry a child then get yourself pregnant with your gay partner go on those tv shows and make some money then

:dry:
Have you even passed middle school/junior high? :huh:

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:46 PM

:dry:
Have you even passed middle school/junior high? :huh:I'm not gay...but that avatar is freakin' awesome. :woot:

Bill

02-24-2008, 09:47 PM

I did not realise you had the ability to carry a child then get yourself pregnant with your gay partner go on those tv shows and make some money then

Friends don't let friends post drunk.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:48 PM

I dont know Majik I just spent the last hour explaining the difference between a marriage and a civil union and why this is such a hot button topic

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:50 PM

Oh, I get it, you think I'm gay. I guess the, "filling my girlfriend with ooze," comment was too subtle for you or something.

Then you missed the hole point . i wont resort to the name calling you seem to love you are doing enough of that for the both of us my point is a man cannot impregnate another man nor can a woman another woman you are refering to hetrosexual behavor . i am refering to the homosexual act you are infering to

Sandman138

02-24-2008, 09:51 PM

I'm not gay...but that avatar is freakin' awesome. :woot:

Seriously, that avatar makes me feel dirty in all the right ways. :heart:

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:54 PM

Then you missed the hole point . i wont resort to the name calling you seem to love you are doing enough of that for the both of us my point is a man cannot impregnate another man nor can a woman another woman you are refering to hetrosexual behavor . i am refering to the homosexual act you are infering toThat's not what you said before. It could be the fact that reading your posts is akin to bashing each individual toe with a ballpeen hammer, and I need a Retard-to-English translator to read them, but that's not what I got from them. Sorry.

You said: Sex only for reproduction.

I said: IF THAT'S THE CASE, then you should never, ever have sex with a woman unless she's ovulating.

You said: Men don't ovulate, her der der.

Yeah, that makes no sense. :up:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:55 PM

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:56 PM

Are you making some sort of double entendre there?? so simply because gay people cannot have children, they shouldn't be able to marry?? I thought people got married because they loved each other....Nope, people get married for the sole purpose of becoming God-sanctioned baby factories.

****. It sounds so stupid, but that's what these people think. Jack Daniel's Sour Mash, here I come!

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 09:56 PM

I dont know Majik I just spent the last hour explaining the difference between a marriage and a civil union and why this is such a hot button topic
I see that.(I been lurking)
Then you missed the hole point . i wont resort to the name calling you seem to love you are doing enough of that for the both of us my point is a man cannot impregnate another man nor can a woman another woman you are refering to hetrosexual behavor . i am refering to the homosexual act you are infering to
Whoever said that gay men can reproduce with each other? :huh:
Do you have a reading comprehension? Gay men can procreate; Not the traditional way, but then again neither can some heterosexuals.
I'm not gay...but that avatar is freakin' awesome. :woot:
zeriously, that avatar makes me feel dirty in all the right ways. :heart:
lol Thank you.:grin:
I haven't had a gay-themed avy in a while.

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 09:57 PM

That's not what you said before. It could be the fact that reading your posts is akin to bashing each individual toe with a ballpeen hammer, and I need a Retard-to-English translator to read them, but that's not what I got from them. Sorry.

You said: Sex only for reproduction.

I said: IF THAT'S THE CASE, then you should never, ever have sex with a woman unless she's ovulating.

You said: Men don't ovulate, her der der.

Yeah, that makes no sense. :up:

You are not a bright one are you you are still missing the point besides i did not realize gays want to get married so they can have sex .

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 09:59 PM

You are not a bright one are you you are still missing the point besides i did not realize gays want to get married so they can have sex .
Dear lord, you really don't have a reading comprehension do you...

Gay people don't need to be married to have sex, just like straight people.

Bill

02-24-2008, 09:59 PM

You are not a bright one are you you are still missing the point besides i did not realize gays want to get married so they can have sex .

Perhaps if you restated the point.

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:01 PM

You are not a bright one are you you are still missing the point besides i did not realize gays want to get married so they can have sex .Nobody said they did. :huh:

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:02 PM

Perhaps if you restated the point.:pal: You freakin' sadist. :cmad:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:03 PM

bottom line....religion aside...there is no logical reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry....

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:03 PM

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:04 PM

bottom line....religion aside...there is no logical reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry....It's an abomination in the eyes of God! Oh, wait...

Sex for procreation only (because God said so)! Damnit!! Uh...

It's icky. :cmad:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:05 PM

none of us are talking about having sex...premarital or otherwise....we are talking about gay marriage....

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 10:05 PM

It's icky. :cmad:
Only if you been doing it wrong.:o

My avy, is one of the right and fun ways to do it.:cwink:

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 10:06 PM

I have completely lost q_ball's argument.
This isn't a slam or anything, I'm just very confused at the moment with what he's trying to get across here.

Bill

02-24-2008, 10:06 PM

my point is not that people should onley have sex to reproduce . It is that it takes a man and a woman to do so . As far as sex of any kind goes from your point you can add pre-marital sex of any kind to it .

So, your point is that it takes a man and woman to have sex to reproduce. Please explain how this "As far as sex of any kind goes from your point you can add pre-marital sex of any kind to it ." relates to that point.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:07 PM

Only if you been doing it wrong.:o

My avy, is one of the right and fun ways to do it.:cwink:

a little role-play never hurt anyone.....too much:oldrazz:

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:07 PM

my point is not that people should onley have sex to reproduce . It is that it takes a man and a woman to do so . As far as sex of any kind goes from your point you can add pre-marital sex of any kind to it .Artificial means of reproduction render your argument completely invalid. Congratulations on yet another epic fail. :up:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:08 PM

I have completely lost q_ball's argument.
This isn't a slam or anything, I'm just very confused at the moment with what he's trying to get across here.

we all are a bit lost....its like watching scrambled porn....you only catch bits and pieces

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:09 PM

we all are a bit lost....its like watching scrambled porn....you only catch bits and piecesWait....wait, I see an IQ point!

No, damnit...it was a nipple. :csad:

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:10 PM

LOL! Majik, that avvy is 90% hilarious and 10% awesome! :D :up:

jag

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 10:10 PM

we all are a bit lost....its like watching scrambled porn....you only catch bits and pieces

Maybe that's why I'm staying in this thread for so long. I almost have the same mindset as when I used to watch scrambled porn. You know the "maybe it'll click in if i just leave it a few more minutes" thoughts running through your head.

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 10:10 PM

I have completely lost q_ball's argument.
This isn't a slam or anything, I'm just very confused at the moment with what he's trying to get across here.
He doesn't have a point.
a little role-play never hurt anyone.....too much:oldrazz:
It's the good pain.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/Majik1387/smilies/spank.gif

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:11 PM

I have completely lost q_ball's argument.
This isn't a slam or anything, I'm just very confused at the moment with what he's trying to get across here.

He doesn't have one, he just hates gay people and is grasping at straws for a way to rationalize it in a logical fashion.

jag

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 10:12 PM

we all are a bit lost....its like watching scrambled porn....you only catch bits and pieces
Wait....wait, I see an IQ point!
No, damnit...it was a nipple. :csad:
Maybe that's why I'm staying in this thread for so long. I almost have the same mindset as when I used to watch scrambled porn. You know the "maybe it'll click in if i just leave it a few more minutes" thoughts running through your head.
You all got terrible reception.:o
LOL! Majik, that avvy is 90% hilarious and 10% awesome! :D :up:

jag
Thank ya.:funny:

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:12 PM

So, your point is that it takes a man and woman to have sex to reproduce. Please explain how this "As far as sex of any kind goes from your point you can add pre-marital sex of any kind to it ." relates to that point.

you know no matter what i say you want to find an argument for it . As i have seen this is supposed to be about marriage and not sex .

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:14 PM

you know no matter what i say you want to find an argument for it . As i have seen this is supposed to be about marriage and not sex .

Let's make this simple....in one correctly typed sentence, explain why you don't think gay people should be allowed to marry ( and no using God or the Bible as a reason)

Bill

02-24-2008, 10:14 PM

you know no matter what i say you want to find an argument for it . As i have seen this is supposed to be about marriage and not sex .

And that's fine. It's about marriage. Now, what is your point?

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:14 PM

you know no matter what i say you want to find an argument for it . As i have seen this is supposed to be about marriage and not sex .So why are you even continuing this argument? You're trying so desperately to make this completely asinine and absurd point, and now you turn around and say, "Hey, this is off topic!" ?

Christ! >.< The stupid, it burns!

thedeadite

02-24-2008, 10:15 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/thedeadite/reagan.gif

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:16 PM

Christ! >.< The stupid, it burns!

and people wonder why my rum is always gone....

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:19 PM

and people wonder why my rum is always gone....**** me, dude.

Okay, I have the solution. When you turn 18, you take a simple aptitude test. If you pass, you keep your testicles, ovaries, what-have-you.

If you fail, they are removed. For the males, if you clot, good for you. Otherwise you bleed out. :cmad:

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:20 PM

So why are you even continuing this argument? You're trying so desperately to make this completely asinine and absurd point, and now you turn around and say, "Hey, this is off topic!" ?

Christ! >.< The stupid, it burns!

my argument was never about sex you made about sex . My argument was over reproduction and the fact that others want to twist my words to however they see fit to put the worst light on them as posssible

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:22 PM

my argument was never about sex you made about sex . My argument was over reproduction and the fact that others want to twist my words to however they see fit to put the worst light on them as posssibleAccording to you, one without the other is impossible. Let me know when you get back from the year 1827. :up:

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:22 PM

**** me, dude.

Okay, I have the solution. When you turn 18, you take a simple aptitude test. If you pass, you keep your testicles, ovaries, what-have-you.

If you fail, they are removed. For the males, if you clot, good for you. Otherwise you bleed out. :cmad:

ha-ha i like that one

Jerry!

02-24-2008, 10:22 PM

Legitimate reasons. I need them. QUICKLY!!

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:23 PM

ha-ha i like that one

I think he said it hoping you were a bleeder. ;)

jag

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:26 PM

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:28 PM

[quote=Wall_Crawler_2003;14152737]According to you, one without the other is impossible. Let me know when you get back from the year 1827. :up:[/quot

you dont have to be married to have sex this is common sence this is just a sad atempt to try to make me look bad because you have no other argument

All of our arguments for gay marriage make sense while you have yet to produce a valid reason for your side of it.....so again in ONE SENTENCE....why shouldnt gay people be allowed to marry???

Sandman138

02-24-2008, 10:29 PM

Do you suffer from short term memory loss?

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:30 PM

you dont have to be married to have sex this is common sence this is just a sad atempt to try to make me look bad because you have no other argumentThis is what you said:

If same sex relations were not a sin things might be different it is still vulgar .The main reason for sex in the first place is for reproductive purposes two men or two woman together cannot produce a child allthough that is ok maybe the gays will die out sometime due to the lack of ability to reproduce .I don't personaly have a problem with gays i have some friends that are gay . I am kinda torn in my beliefs and the fact that i want my fiends to be happy .If this is what makes them happy even though i don't aprove i am not going to judge them for it . It is not my place to judge anyone. That is between them and god....therefore, this is what I'm responding to. I'm not talking about marriage at all.

I'm talking about your ignorant, biggoted post that has no place in the archives of rational thought. Whenever you want to quit trying to change the subject and own up to your own stupidity, be my guest.

Until then, I will keep shoving this post back in your face. Have a nice day. :yay:

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:31 PM

Do you suffer from short term memory loss?

After you answer that question, I have one as well. Have you ever been tested for autism?

jag

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:34 PM

After you answer that question, I have one as well. Have you ever been tested for autism?

jag

also...did you wear or do you currently wear a helmet when you leave your house??

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:34 PM

This is what you said:

...therefore, this is what I'm responding to. I'm not talking about marriage at all.

I'm talking about your ignorant, biggoted post that has no place in the archives of rational thought. Whenever you want to quit trying to change the subject and own up to your own stupidity, be my guest.

Until then, I will keep shoving this post back in your face. Have a nice day. :yay:

YOU are as much of a biggot as i am you are just hiding in the fact that you claim to be yelling injustice .

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:35 PM

YOU are as much of a biggot as i am you are just hiding in the fact that you claim to be yelling injustice .You're right. I'm biggotted against stupidity, and I'll proudly admit that. At least my biggotry isn't of the ilk that has denied people the right to live as they please, as equals.

There, no more hiding. You're still an idiot. :up:

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:36 PM

YOU are as much of a biggot as i am you are just hiding in the fact that you claim to be yelling injustice .

WTF? Seriously. Paint chips. Tasty snack, or no?

jag

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:36 PM

YOU are as much of a biggot as i am you are just hiding in the fact that you claim to be yelling injustice .

But it is an injustice....every American citizen should be allowed to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Archaic mindsets in this country stand in the way of true equality...it is the very definition of injustice.

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 10:37 PM

How is Wall Crawler a bigot?

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:38 PM

How is Wall Crawler a bigot?I can't stand stupid people. It's actually more of a problem than you think. :csad:

It's something I'm forced to hide, forced to live with in secret everyday. No more! q_ball has freed me!

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:39 PM

Wall Crawlers courageous example has inspired me. I can come out and say it... I hate stupid people....O my god...I have never felt so free

Sandman138

02-24-2008, 10:39 PM

Dammit wall crawler! Get back in the closet where you belong. Don't make me get the hose. You think I won't? :cmad:

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:41 PM

Wall Crawlers courageous example has inspired me. I can come out and say it... I hate stupid people....O my god...I have never felt so freePreach it, brother! :yay:

Dammit wall crawler! Get back in the closet where you belong. Don't make me get the hose. You think won't? :cmad::csad: My repression...it returns!!

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:43 PM

WTF? Seriously. Paint chips. Tasty snack, or no?

jag

I don't know you tell me

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:43 PM

I shall wage war on the Stupid...in the streets and the parks...in the NASCAR races and the Wal-Marts....I shall combat them with all the will and rum I can muster...

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:44 PM

I don't know you tell me

My God! You ruined your taste buds on them, didn't you! Poor man! *empathetic nod*

jag

Star

02-24-2008, 10:46 PM

threads like this are always where the crazies come out and thump their bibles in a raging fashion...

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:47 PM

My intelligence is taking a thumping tonight

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:47 PM

Continued from the previous thread...
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=304026

All of our arguments for gay marriage make sense while you have yet to produce a valid reason for your side of it.....so again in ONE SENTENCE....why shouldnt gay people be allowed to marry???

Why is this particular question so hard to answer?

jag

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:48 PM

My intelligence is taking a thumping tonightBedtime for me soon. I have to go to do something q_ball likely never will: university studies. Oh, the burden. :csad:

Star

02-24-2008, 10:48 PM

Because there is no logical reason why they shouldn't :cwink:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:49 PM

Why is this particular question so hard to answer?

jag

Maybe I should go back and misspell a couple words in that post?? that might get a response.

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:50 PM

Bedtime for me soon. I have to go to do something q_ball likely never will: university studies. Oh, the burden. :csad:

sorry i dont have the money for a university so i will have to settle for community collage

Star

02-24-2008, 10:50 PM

y iznt ghey merrige akceptable????? !1 1 sentance!!

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:51 PM

sorry i dont have the money for a university so i will have to settle for community collageSpent my first two years at a community college, nothing wrong with that at all.

Work on graduating 6th grade, first. :up:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:52 PM

sorry i dont have the money for a university so i will have to settle for community collage

Well, we all hope you find the right pictures for your collage....

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:54 PM

Well, we all hope you find the right pictures for your collage....

It's not his, actually. It belongs to the community. :up:

jag

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:56 PM

It's not his, actually. It belongs to the community. :up:

jag

well, maybe he can make a decent contribution....stick figures and such

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:56 PM

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 10:59 PM

Marriage is not exclusively a religious institution throughout history, including in our current society. Try again.

jag

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:59 PM

marriage or as you call it merrige is a religous instatution . The fact is there is supsed to be a seperation in church and state . A civil union should work like a marriage . I dont understand why the goverment wants to get involved with this at all anyway. A civil union should work just like a marriage . So that is why i dont believe in same sex marriageThe problem is that it doesn't work just like a marriage. That's the whole damned point. It's crap. Also, as much as there is supposed to be that separation, the government has very deep ties into the institution of marriage as it exists today.

You're arguing from the perspective of some reality that doesn't exist. You're arguing from some idealist fairy-tale land. Sorry.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 10:59 PM

marriage or as you call it merrige is a religous instatution . The fact is there is supsed to be a seperation in church and state . A civil union should work like a marriage . I dont understand why the goverment wants to get involved with this at all anyway. A civil union should work just like a marriage . So that is why i dont believe in same sex marriage

Marriage has existed for a long time...religions have simply hijacked it as a method of exercising control over people. So in your eyes gay people are not equal...they should just get civil unions and be happy with that??? whatever happened to equal rights for every American....or does that only apply if you are straight???

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 11:10 PM

Marriage has existed for a long time...religions have simply hijacked it as a method of exercising control over people. So in your eyes gay people are not equal...they should just get civil unions and be happy with that??? whatever happened to equal rights for every American....or does that only apply if you are straight???

the constitution says everyone has egual rights . So in this case a civil union should and needs to work like a marriage . It is time the idiots in the goverment get things right . I am not apossed to a civil union it should give gays the same things any married couple has that they want and it is not my fault it doesnt that is why you need to work to change that .i am going to get some sleep so you can bash me w/o me being here now goodnight

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 11:12 PM

here is a solution everyone should be allowed to get married....problem solved

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 11:14 PM

here is a solution everyone should be allowed to get married....problem solved

Why, that's so crazy it just might work! :up:

jag

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 11:18 PM

Why, that's so crazy it just might work! :up:

jagJeez, you guys just don't get it. It's like...oh, how to put this...

Like, we have two plates of spaghetti: mine (straight), and yours (gay). Well, then some of your spaghetti gets on my plate and I can no longer say it's completely my spaghetti. It's....tainted...with gay spaghetti.

Make sense?

jaguarr

02-24-2008, 11:19 PM

Shut up and eat your spaghetti.

jag

Majik1387

02-24-2008, 11:22 PM

That's what mom and dad always said:o

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 11:23 PM

Shut up and eat your spaghetti.

jagOkay, bad analogy. It's like...

Your group is the cool group of girls in school, and then the fat and ugly group of girls copies your fashions, accessories, etc. I mean, the nerve of them! Nevermind the fact that you stole those fashions from some other group to begin with! Regardless, you just can't let that stand.

So you sabotage them.

:yay:

Cunning Stunts

02-24-2008, 11:58 PM

Well, that comes down to what you and I believe in. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, so...yeah...that's what I believe. You believe something else. That's where the argument comes to a stop.

Sorry, bud, but I never saw a writing credit for God in any form of the book. I heard King Henry VIII wrote one version, though.

Wait, didn't he dice up a few people?

jaguarr

02-25-2008, 12:06 AM

Okay, bad analogy. It's like...

Your group is the cool group of girls in school, and then the fat and ugly group of girls copies your fashions, accessories, etc. I mean, the nerve of them! Nevermind the fact that you stole those fashions from some other group to begin with! Regardless, you just can't let that stand.

So you sabotage them.

:yay:

Really not feelin' that one, either. :dry:

jag

The Senator

02-25-2008, 12:09 AM

Sorry, bud, but I never saw a writing credit for God in any form of the book. I heard King Henry VIII wrote one version, though.

Wait, didn't he dice up a few people?

Where do God and King Henry fit in with the gay spaghetti? :huh:

jaguarr

02-25-2008, 12:11 AM

Where do God and King Henry fit in with the gay spaghetti? :huh:

The cool girls in school decide if they are a hottie or a nottie.

jag

The Senator

02-25-2008, 12:14 AM

The cool girls in school decide if they are a hottie or a nottie.

jag

And if they're a nottie, you can be damn sure that gay spaghetti will be thrown up after lunch.

Carcharodon

02-25-2008, 12:18 AM

Really not feelin' that one, either. :dry:

jagWhatever, if you don't get it I can't be arsed to explain it to you. :cmad:

spike spiegel

02-25-2008, 12:42 AM

Sorry, bud, but I never saw a writing credit for God in any form of the book. I heard King Henry VIII wrote one version, though.

Wait, didn't he dice up a few people?

Oh, well, this is what 1 Timothy said, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Like I said, I've put my faith in something that you don't believe in, and there's no argument there. We believe two different things.

I don't know a lot about King Henry VIII, but he authorized an English translation of the Bible. It was actually the first, I think. Dicing people up? He killed his wife, that I do know, Anne Boleyn.

Trainwreck2100

02-25-2008, 12:53 AM

Hotwire

02-25-2008, 01:22 AM

Today's study question:
-How may men who are against gay marriage, enjoy watching lesbian porn?
Just bumping this little question.

Damien Rage

02-25-2008, 04:26 AM

wow this thread is entertaining =)

The Senator

02-25-2008, 06:35 AM

Today's study question:
-How may men who are against gay marriage, enjoy watching lesbian porn?

Over half. Because it's not gay unless two guys do it :o

(Oh, and they're not married or promoting a gay agenda, they're just two or more girls frolicking around doing whatever it is they do to each other)

bell110

02-25-2008, 09:11 AM

Just bumping this little question.

That reminds me, I haven't rented a lesbian porn movie in a while.

BlackLantern

02-25-2008, 10:08 AM

who rents porn anymore??

Captain_BluTac

02-25-2008, 10:18 AM

Oh, well, this is what 1 Timothy said, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Like I said, I've put my faith in something that you don't believe in, and there's no argument there. We believe two different things.

I don't know a lot about King Henry VIII, but he authorized an English translation of the Bible. It was actually the first, I think. Dicing people up? He killed his wife, that I do know, Anne Boleyn.

He actually had two of his wives executed Anne Boleyn when she gave birth to a daughter so he had her trialled for witchcraft and Catherine Howard had an affair so she was beheaded for that.

Sandman138

02-25-2008, 11:01 AM

Cunning Stunts

02-25-2008, 11:15 AM

Oh, well, this is what 1 Timothy said, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Like I said, I've put my faith in something that you don't believe in, and there's no argument there. We believe two different things.

I don't know a lot about King Henry VIII, but he authorized an English translation of the Bible. It was actually the first, I think. Dicing people up? He killed his wife, that I do know, Anne Boleyn.

Actually, he demanded the execution of a number of people- including that they watch their own nuts be burned before dying.

Sounds fun.

As for the Bible, a man wrote that verse, did he not? Did God write the Bible and it suddenly appear for man to put his name in?

spike spiegel

02-25-2008, 12:16 PM

Actually, he demanded the execution of a number of people- including that they watch their own nuts be burned before dying.

Sounds fun.

As for the Bible, a man wrote that verse, did he not? Did God write the Bible and it suddenly appear for man to put his name in?

I think Muslims believe that the Koran was divinely written and dictated by God.

But what happens here is I believe that it's inspired, so that words that a man writes down are God's words and teachings and such.

Unless you're reading Paul's letters, where he specifically mentions that some the things he writes are from him, but not God, although God has given him the authority to write these things down, the instruction and teachings that Christians can accept and live them out - as much as they do, but the Lord knows "there is no one who is righteous. Not one."

Mr Sparkle

02-25-2008, 12:33 PM

Unless you're reading Paul's letters, where he specifically mentions that some the things he writes are from him, but not God, although God has given him the authority to write these things down

hahaha.
yeah, If I wrote stuff down I'd say that as well.
I am the harbinger of the lord :ss:

Jerry!

02-25-2008, 06:51 PM

Hurry up guys, this thread is about to take it's usual 2 year hiatus. Get it all out now.

Captain_BluTac

02-25-2008, 06:55 PM

That's the whole reason he started the Church of England. He wanted God's authority to be able to kill his wives and then get another marriage and the only way that he could get it was to start his own church that would say that God was totally cool with that. SEE THE SANCTITY OF THIS SACRED UNION THAT YOU EVIL QUEERS ARE TRYING TO RUIN? DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!:cmad:

Actually he created The Church OF England before he has Anne Boleyn executed, he had it created so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, who had failed to bear him a son and he found very dull, so because the archbishop of Canterbury (Beckett I believe) said he could not divorce her Henry had Beckett brutally murdered and a new church created.

Sandman138

02-25-2008, 07:13 PM

Ah... thanks. It's been quite a few years since Western Civilization.

Captain_BluTac

02-25-2008, 07:14 PM

Ah... thanks. It's been quite a few years since Western Civilization.

For some reason this comment made me think of that Gandhi quote.

Cunning Stunts

02-26-2008, 07:40 PM

I think Muslims believe that the Koran was divinely written and dictated by God.

But what happens here is I believe that it's inspired, so that words that a man writes down are God's words and teachings and such.

Unless you're reading Paul's letters, where he specifically mentions that some the things he writes are from him, but not God, although God has given him the authority to write these things down, the instruction and teachings that Christians can accept and live them out - as much as they do, but the Lord knows "there is no one who is righteous. Not one."

You know, it really doesn't seem like you're saying anything different each time you come back. How about some real proof... Some good, hard proof that can't really be easily denied. You know, like a picture of God and this guy? I don't know, something.

I find it real hard to believe all these guys were spoken to by God, yet none of us seem to have been.

Bill

02-26-2008, 07:44 PM

You know, it really doesn't seem like you're saying anything different each time you come back. How about some real proof... Some good, hard proof that can't really be easily denied. You know, like a picture of God and this guy? I don't know, something.

I find it real hard to believe all these guys were spoken to by God, yet none of us seem to have been.

You don't need proof with belief. That's what makes it such a powerful tool for the masses.

spike spiegel

02-26-2008, 08:16 PM

You know, it really doesn't seem like you're saying anything different each time you come back.

Yeah, that's true.

How about some real proof... Some good, hard proof that can't really be easily denied. You know, like a picture of God and this guy? I don't know, something.

I find it real hard to believe all these guys were spoken to by God, yet none of us seem to have been.

Faith in the unseen. One Christian author Donald Miller said he felt like something inside of him caused him to believe, and I feel the same way, and I believe that it's the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. If you ask me, if you're looking for providence, you'll see it, as long as you have faith and trust in the Lord. I feel a presence that I can't deny or see with my eyes.

In my opinion it comes down to freefalling into something that's invisible yet visible at the same time, even when you might be afraid at times that there's nothing there, but faith is something that gets stronger and grows.

Mr Sparkle

02-27-2008, 11:04 AM

One Christian author Donald Miller said he felt like something inside of him caused him to believe, and I feel the same way, and I believe that it's the Holy Spirit.

so something inside you makes you want to opress gay people?:huh:

:csad: isn't that bad?:csad:

BlackLantern

02-27-2008, 11:33 AM

No because the invisible man says it isn't bad ^^^^^

Captain_BluTac

02-27-2008, 11:33 AM

I'm not sure about Spike, but in most cases that thing inside them is a old perverts fingers.:o

spike spiegel

02-27-2008, 12:14 PM

so something inside you makes you want to opress gay people?:huh:

:dry: no. I don't think so. :yay:

Mr Sparkle

02-27-2008, 01:54 PM

:dry: no. I don't think so. :yay:

you're on to something here.

Sandman138

02-27-2008, 02:35 PM

Sparks, stop being a dick.

The Chairman

02-27-2008, 02:40 PM

spike, for the record, Donald Miller is one of the most liberal Christians out there. I'm pretty sure he supports gay marriage.

Ol'Canucklehead

02-27-2008, 02:41 PM

jaguarr

02-27-2008, 02:43 PM

Isn't it kind of funny how many conservative Americans talk about how they love America and Democracy, and that any nation based in comunisem or dictatorship is wrong and that the peoples votes should decide what happens in a country.......but when the majority of Americans say that gays should have equal rights these same people rail out against them and support when the government ignores majority rule.

Sounds like they might prefer something other than Democracy.

Everyone should be free to do what they want and live their lives exactly how they would like to, as long as they share the same spiritual and moral beliefs as me. :)

jag

BlackLantern

02-27-2008, 02:43 PM

Isn't it kind of funny how many conservative Americans talk about how they love America and Democracy, and that any nation based in comunisem or dictatorship is wrong and that the peoples votes should decide what happens in a country.......but when the majority of Americans say that gays should have equal rights these same people rail out against them and support when the government ignores majority rule.

Sounds like they might prefer something other than Democracy.

I like to call it democracy of convenience...Democracy for people who only think like you do....

Tron5000

02-27-2008, 02:44 PM

Isn't it kind of funny how many conservative Americans talk about how they love America and Democracy, and that any nation based in comunisem or dictatorship is wrong and that the peoples votes should decide what happens in a country.......but when the majority of Americans say that gays should have equal rights these same people rail out against them and support when the government ignores majority rule.

Sounds like they might prefer something other than Democracy.

I definitely prefer something other than democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule. Which sucks, 'cause the mob is often uninformed or just downright stupid. This country isn't, and never has been, a democracy.

Constitutional Republic FTW.

Cunning Stunts

02-27-2008, 04:44 PM

Yeah, that's true.

Faith in the unseen. One Christian author Donald Miller said he felt like something inside of him caused him to believe, and I feel the same way, and I believe that it's the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. If you ask me, if you're looking for providence, you'll see it, as long as you have faith and trust in the Lord. I feel a presence that I can't deny or see with my eyes.

In my opinion it comes down to freefalling into something that's invisible yet visible at the same time, even when you might be afraid at times that there's nothing there, but faith is something that gets stronger and grows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who usually say, "The voice in my head told me to [insert verb here] him/her," get put in a place we lovingly refer to as the nut house.

These days, whenever religion is involved, that verb is usually "hate" or "kill." So, dude, is this feeling you get inside telling you to deny homosexuals their rights? Or just to become a robot and do everything a man-written book says?

payneintherear

02-27-2008, 05:04 PM

Same sex marriage doesn't bother me. Infact I have cousins and friends who are gay. I think as long as someone loves each other, then its fine.

Ol'Canucklehead

02-27-2008, 06:16 PM

interesting screen name for this particular topic....... :dry:

Mr Sparkle

02-27-2008, 06:54 PM

Sparks, stop being a dick.

never!

spike spiegel

02-27-2008, 10:29 PM

you're on to something here.

I'm sure there's thought in my brain.

spike, for the record, Donald Miller is one of the most liberal Christians out there. I'm pretty sure he supports gay marriage.

Yeah, I think I heard that before, that's he's very liberal. I've only read one of his books, Blue Like Jazz, for school. I really liked it. :yay: Right now I'm reading a book by Eugene Peterson my brother got me for Christmas. Sweet stuff.

These days, whenever religion is involved, that verb is usually "hate" or "kill." So, dude, is this feeling you get inside telling
you to deny homosexuals their rights? Or just to become a robot and do everything a man-written book says?

No.

Mr Sparkle

02-28-2008, 12:05 AM

I'm sure there's thought in my brain.

then tell me.
why is homosexuality wrong?
according to YOUR own personal thought processes I mean.

ArkhamAsylum

02-28-2008, 02:42 AM

ive just read through this thread..and wow...some of the SH#% said on here...you make Fred Phelps proud.

Joe M.

02-28-2008, 03:03 AM

Two words come to mind when reading your "argument". Non-sequitur and slippery slope. Countries where gay marriage has been adopted have led to no such consequences,
Social change takes time. To say it hasn't happened yet does not mean it never will.

You cannot deny that sexual standards and behavior have changed over time, especially in the last century. Why do you think that is? It didn't happen immediately, and it didn't happen because of any one issue. People's perceptions of sex, marriage, and family are affected by multiple factors. To say that homosexual marriage will not lead to polygamists and incestuous couples seeking equal marriage rights as well denies the reality of how cultures change over time, and the changes we've already seen in the perception of sex and marriage.

... and with the many people with criminal backgrounds, such as murder, rape and pedophilia being allowed to marry and doing so, why is there not such a clamor for them?
I suspect for a couple reasons.
One, after a criminal does time and is released from prison, hopefully he has been reformed to some extent. Does it always happen? No. But to deny a released criminal his civil rights because one thinks he will commit those actions again is also unfair and defeats the purpose of him serving his sentence in the first place.

Second, it also goes back to the definition of marriage as a social institution that the government has a vested interest in because of the potential future offspring, and their contributions to society. Being a former criminal does not somehow remove a person's ability to be a parent in a natural heterosexual union. As stated before, however, homosexuals will never conceive naturally, and do not fit the natural & biological model of a parental union, ... thus there is an automatic recognition that they do not fall under the definition of the institution.

Nevertheless, if you think it's inappropriate for criminals with these backgrounds to be allowed to get married, (and where the crime is rape or pedophilia I can certainly see your point because those are crimes of a sexual nature, and being in a sexual relationship or having children may cause the person some problems with temptation), then you should protest against those situations because you think they are wrong. That would make more sense than saying "well, they get to do it and I think that's wrong, so we might as well open the door up so everyone else can do it."

I suspect the lack of outcry for these unions masks the real motives of those opposing gay marriage. It's more about opposing homosexuality. At least those who are upfront about it are honest instead of writing long-winded diatribes full of fallacious thinking.
Wow, I thought I was the only person who ever used the word "diatribe". Nice to know there's someone else out there. Personally, I always wonder if I sound a bit pretentious when I use it. Do you ever feel that way? ;)

Seriously though, I hardly think that's a fair statement to make. People in this thread had been asking for someone to provide a non-religious based explanation for why they were opposed to homosexual marriage.

The reasons for it being such a "long-winded diatribe" are several:
As I originally said, it is a serious issue that deserves some explanation, rather than a simple catchphrase like "it's icky".
There are many factors that may affect why a person feels a certain way on issues, and I tried to cover a bunch of them, because they all help shape a particular perception.
Also, I'm late to this discussion. A lot has already been brought up, and I wanted to cover a number of bases that have been addressed.
Fourth, I don't get on-line as often as some of you do, and I wanted to preemptively head-off some questions about my pov that may be raised by trying to be thorough.

It's upsetting that trying to be thorough somehow means to you that I'm "not being honest".

In the other thread where I offered a rebuttal to your post on homosexual origins, you somehow misread it to think I basically ended up in agreement with you. That was also a long post. It's curious that you complimented me on that one, saying my post was "a very insightful and well thought response", but when I'm clearly in opposition to your opinion in this thread, my post becomes a "long-winded diatribe full of fallacious thinking".

Joe M.

02-28-2008, 03:03 AM

that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, even if they are "predisposed" this alone should be a great big wake up call to people who say it is a choice shouldn't it?
I think I've said already, SOME people are just born that way, some people turn gay for different reasons, referring to the environment, so?
No, as I said in my post, there is no current definitive proof that people are born homosexual. Even the APA agrees with that point.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "predisposed" vs "predetermined". Predetermined, as I am using it, means "set in stone". Predetermined would mean decided before the person was born.

Predisposed, as I am using it, means that a person may be more likely to adapt a particular mindset after being exposed to certain influences than another person would be after being exposed to those same influences. In this case, certain genetic markers that tend to be more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals may in some way make it more easy for that person to develop homosexual inclinations after exposure to particular factors (like psychosocial factors), than a person without those particular genetic markers.

Another example for clarity's sake: obesity. People born with a genetic predisposition to obesity may be more likely to become overweight than people without this predisposition, or may have more difficulty taking the weight off. But, the predisposition alone does not mean someone will become overweight.

really? wow, you know what else is in contrast to the natural bilogical functioning of the human body?
sterile couples.
should they be disbanded? not allowed to marry given the fact that life cannot continue naturally from their union?
what if everyone was sterile? the human species would die out
hence, sterile couples should not be able to marry.
I agree that sterility is in contrast to natural biological functioning. In this case, heterosexuals still have a natural desire for the opposite sex, even if some of the "equipment" has malfunctioned. As I said, the goal is to work towards finding the problem and correcting it, not pretending the problem isn't a problem.

Regardless, as to whether they should still be allowed to marry (based along the lines of raising children): heterosexual couples still fit the natural model, and provide sexual complementarity. For purposes of adoption, they can still raise children within a naturally ordered family unit. Heterosexuals still have natural desires and provide sexual complementarity for the purpose of raising children.

Also, as I previously suggested, heterosexual unions by their nature do not inherently reinforce the idea of sex being for pleasure only, or primarily. Since heterosexual couples fit the natural model for a procreative union (yes, even sterile couples conform to the model itself), they are not inherently misrepresenting sexual behavior into purely being about one's enjoyment.

Homosexuals, by contrast, still have unnatural desires and do not provide the complementarity that is in the best interests of developing children. And, as I explained, legal recognition of homosexual behavior further reinforces the sexual standards that have developed over time regarding a "pleasure" mentality to take priority. When people are only interested in the "pleasure" aspect and are not open to the procreative possibilities, we see an increase in unwanted children, abortion, spread of disease, teen sex, etc.

so, unless you think that blind people shouldn't be able to marry ( if we were all blind we wouldn't be able to survive!!!!! EEEK!) you wasted like 5 minutes of your life making MY point for me.
Does being blind somehow impair a person's ability to be married? Does it somehow make a complementary heterosexual union non-complementary? I'm not talking about only genetically perfect people should be allowed to marry. None of us are perfect. The point goes to illustrate the purpose behind certain biological functions.

Blind people are not allowed to drive, for example, because not having vision impairs their ability to drive.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, because their union itself goes against the intention of the marriage institution and the natural ordered ability to create a family and provide complementary role models.

so then, sexual attraction or desire should be important in some cases but in the cases were gay people are experience it?
because again, I've never made this argument, since I don't think that gay people are the end of civilization.
but again, you just made an argument against sterile couples that USE surrogates.
sterile STRAIGHT couples.
that right5 now CAN marry under the law, CAN adopt under the law and CAN get artificial inseminations ALL while being abnormal ( according to your standards) all while being a reproductive " dead end".
me thinks I see a double standard.
To be fair, I'm against artificial insemination, yes, even for heterosexuals, for reasons I already expressed in my first post. So no, the double standard doesn't exist.

The difference regarding adoption for heterosexual vs homosexual couples goes into the point I made about looking to provide the best environment possible for raising children. Because of the sexual complementarity of a heterosexual couple, I feel it's the most responsible. Sterile heterosexual couples can still provide this. Homosexual couple lack sexual, biological, and psychological complementarity.

Part of the difference here is that an infertile couple is meant to be able to conceive, but for one reason or another something is not working correctly. The goal in these cases should be to correct the problem so that the body does work as intended. In comparison to a homosexual couple, they are not designed to be able to procreate naturally, and will never be able to do so naturally. ha! sorry, NO.
What do you mean, "NO"? Are you saying that a homosexual couple is designed to procreate through natural means? How does a man procreate naturally with another man?

some of these people are BORN infertile, like blind people ( remember your "abnormal" example) and clearly infertility is not " normal" so under your
"normal" " abnormal" guidelines people that are infertile are unable to conceive even through science and then try to adopt?
nope sorry, shouldn't be allowed should it?
here, I'll use your own words as support for my theory

"that scientific advancement allows for artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. True. Part of the problem with such thinking is that we've effectively turned children into commodities. And the way in which it relates to the above example is still that it would be an unnatural method of continuing the species to do so purely based on science"

oooh, notice how that can be used for straight couples as well, even IF they were " designed" to have children, they can't.
they are " abnormal " are they not? they are a reproductive dead end are they not?
if everyone was infertile, the human race would die out, would it not?
Yes, I do notice how that argument can be used for straight couples. As I said above, and intimated in my first post, I am against artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, whether for homosexuals or heterosexuals.

If all heterosexuals were infertile, the human race would die out. My point in comparing the two is that, since the biology is designed (meant) to work together, and is designed (meant) to function, science should be used to correct the problem, not skirt around it. If your car breaks down, you don't just go buy another car (well, most of us don't), but instead look for the non-working parts and fix them. The comparison I'm making is in saying that two heterosexuals are designed to reproduce but can't, so let's fix the problem so they can ... vs two homosexuals who are not designed to naturally reproduce together, and trying to find a way in which they can anyway.

The thing is, to insist that only "fertile" couples could marry would require even more governmental intrusion, not less, into one's life. Aren't people for gay "marriage" trying to argue against more intrusion? oh, so you're saying that it would just save on paperwork?
gotta think of the trees, too. :p

and no, actually the justification for gay marriage is not "less government intrusion" but " equal rights".
But homosexuals have equal rights. The same rights to get employment, get legal representation, get an education, to use public facilities, not to be slandered or physically harmed, etc. Homosexuals have all of the exact same individual rights as heterosexuals do.

But marriage is not just an "individual" right, and thus they do not get to redefine it just to conform to their desires. Marriage is about more than what one person wants. This goes to looking at what the institution of marriage was created for in the first place. It's not just about "love". If it were, then why are incestuous couples denied marriage rights? Because procreation does play a part in the definition of marriage, and it's inadvisable for siblings to procreate due to added potential for genetic problems.

Many people don't look directly at the child-rearing part of marriage when they first marry, but for most heterosexual couples, eventually that factor comes into play. And this is what the government cares about and why the government provides certain benefits to married couples. The government is interested in helping to provide a married couple with a more stable, safe, and secure environment in which to raise children ... the future contributors to society.

That is the purpose behind receiving governmental recognition and support. As others have pointed out, marriage has never been limited to religious people. It is not a religious institution. It is a social institution recognized by the government. Like I said before, the government doesn't care who you fall in love with. So why should the government recognize it and reward it? Because of the potential benefits it can give to society ... namely, the next generation. Family, and therefore sexual complementarity of the parents, is related to the definition of marriage, despite people trying to say otherwise.

so, the moment that the doctor pinpoints a sterile couple he could render their union null and void.
neat solution huh? and the minute that two straight blind people want to marry, they would be denied that option.
like gay couples right?
a tad dystopian for my taste, but hey, if you're going to apply a reasoning to a group and justify your actions based upon said reasoning, be sure said reasoning cannot be apply to groups you have no qualms against.
good rule of thumb.
I addressed that above, but again, my argument is not one of only "perfect" people being allowed to marry (no one is perfect), but lies at the heart of looking at what the institution of marriage is for. What purpose does it serve, and how does the perception of marriage and the behaviors that take place in marriage influence the shaping of our culture? Being unable to see does not inherently change what marriage is about.

Part of it boils down to respecting the laws of nature, vs doing what we want. you're communicating with another person thousands of miles away via manufactured electronic impulses on a machine that works not unlike a tiny specialized brain which can reproduce music and moving images through a complex decoding of numbers based information.
as I type this an airplane, a machine filled with people not MEANT to fly, just flew above my house.
an airplane.
and many multi-ton hunks of metal on wheels are passing by outside my apartment, self propelling with a petroleum based fuel.

Being for natural law does not automatically mean being against technology. It also depends on what use the technology is put to.

Joe M.

02-28-2008, 03:04 AM

All of our arguments for gay marriage make sense while you have yet to produce a valid reason for your side of it.....so again in ONE SENTENCE....why shouldnt gay people be allowed to marry???Why is this particular question so hard to answer?
In that format ... because it's not a question that can be answered in one sentence.

Your position boils down to the nifty catch-phrase of "equal rights", without seeking to even understand what marriage means, why it's defined the way it is, and why the government recognizes it. All you see is that some people are denied the right to do something differently than everyone else, and instead of trying to understand why, you scream "unfair."

Ol'Canucklehead

02-28-2008, 10:07 AM

Bingo!

jaguarr

02-28-2008, 10:30 AM

Marriage didn't start with Christianity, and it won't end with it.

:up:

And I'm also willing to bet I'm one of the few guys in this thread that's actually married. ;)

jag

Cunning Stunts

02-28-2008, 10:42 AM

You don't need proof with belief. That's what makes it such a powerful tool for the masses.

No, you don't need proof with belief.

I prefer it. Oh, and, while we're on the subject, I believe it's phrased, "You don't need proof with faith," not belief.

Mr Sparkle

02-28-2008, 06:15 PM

No, as I said in my post, there is no current definitive proof that people are born homosexual. Even the APA agrees with that point.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

hmmm.
here's what I said.
"this alone should be a great big wake up call to people who say it is a choice shouldn't it?"

here's what your article said :

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation"

so you're kind of agreeing with me.
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "predisposed" vs "predetermined". Predetermined, as I am using it, means "set in stone". Predetermined would mean decided before the person was born.

Predisposed, as I am using it, means that a person may be more likely to adapt a particular mindset after being exposed to certain influences than another person would be after being exposed to those same influences. In this case, certain genetic markers that tend to be more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals may in some way make it more easy for that person to develop homosexual inclinations after exposure to particular factors (like psychosocial factors), than a person without those particular genetic markers.

Another example for clarity's sake: obesity. People born with a genetic predisposition to obesity may be more likely to become overweight than people without this predisposition, or may have more difficulty taking the weight off. But, the predisposition alone does not mean someone will become overweight.

well, regardless of what any of us meant, it seems that the consensus does point to people having little to NO choice in the matter of their sexuality.
and while there's no definitive proof that people are born homosexuals there's also no definitive proof that they are not?
so again, you're kind of agreeing with me.

I agree that sterility is in contrast to natural biological functioning. In this case, heterosexuals still have a natural desire for the opposite sex, even if some of the "equipment" has malfunctioned. As I said, the goal is to work towards finding the problem and correcting it, not pretending the problem isn't a problem.

Regardless, as to whether they should still be allowed to marry (based along the lines of raising children): heterosexual couples still fit the natural model, and provide sexual complementarity. For purposes of adoption, they can still raise children within a naturally ordered family unit. Heterosexuals still have natural desires and provide sexual complementarity for the purpose of raising children.

here, you seem to get mixed up in your own idea.
the point is that even though Heterosexual couples that happen to be sterile have what you consider a natural attraction to the opposite sex, they are still by your definition evolutionary dead ends, regardless of working towards treatment of sterility.
what about couples where one of the members is sterile due to childhood illnesses or complications from surgery or infection.
there's no way to treat a hysterectomy, the equipment is not malfunctioning, it's just not there.

also, some couples choose to NOT have children, therefore willingly becoming evolutionary dead ends ( again, by YOUR standards) should couples be sanctioned with compulsory divorce unless they procreate within a certain time frame?

as to your observations on " sexual complementarity" I would suggest that you look up "complementarity" in the context of psychological research.
though widely used in the sphere of the faithful to try and justify their views on marriage, the debate on sexual complementarity is kind of sided to the homosexuals, as studies revealed that couples where both were high on the feminine aspect or tended to androgyny, the members of said couple tended to be happier.
of course the issue of sexual complementarity was altogether refuted in terms of both happiness in the couple and choosing a partner.

the purpose of the thread is to discuss marriage and not adoption, IF you're indeed saying that homosexuality is not something you are born with, but you a predisposed to, then it follows that if straight couples can produce homosexual offspring and the sexuality of their offspring is not determined from birth, then the environment provided by the heterosexual couple can be instrumental in producing a homosexual child.
making the sexuality of the parents irrelevant in the sexuality of the child.

get it?

Also, as I previously suggested, heterosexual unions by their nature do not inherently reinforce the idea of sex being for pleasure only, or primarily. Since heterosexual couples fit the natural model for a procreative union (yes, even sterile couples conform to the model itself), they are not inherently misrepresenting sexual behavior into purely being about one's enjoyment.

Homosexuals, by contrast, still have unnatural desires and do not provide the complementarity that is in the best interests of developing children. And, as I explained, legal recognition of homosexual behavior further reinforces the sexual standards that have developed over time regarding a "pleasure" mentality to take priority. When people are only interested in the "pleasure" aspect and are not open to the procreative possibilities, we see an increase in unwanted children, abortion, spread of disease, teen sex, etc.

well, even though that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying
( which was how in your view, unnatural sterile couples should marry)
I'll answer it.
it seems you have shifted gears and changed your argument, from "evolutionary dead end" to " natural model of procreative union" and the " misrepresentation" of sexual behaviour.
but really, are you being honest here? because it seems like an argument not that founded in reality.
first of all, you seem set on the idea that homosexuals both male and female are so simply because of sexual pleasure?
then if this was so, why would homosexual couples seek to adopt children at all? I don't know if you are familiar with the responsibilities that raising a kid entails but hardly seems like a thing one would do motivated on sexual pleasure alone.
then, you make a rather astounding leap in logic.
that married sexual couples, couples so committed to each other that they want to spend their lives together are going to somehow foster promiscuity,abortions and teen sex in the population?
isn't that the other way around?
in reality, wouldn't childless couples, straight childless couples foster this negative idea of sexuality you're so afraid of?
because they choose to devote their lives solely to each other, and they don't even think of adopting or having a surrogate carry their child.
under your rule,it is they, who can naturally have children but choose not to, it is they who foster negative ideas of sexuality in the impressionable youth.
again, how do you propose we handle this?
compulsory pregnancy after a certain age?

again, too dystopian for my taste, but hey, they are not mi ideas anyway.

Does being blind somehow impair a person's ability to be married? Does it somehow make a complementary heterosexual union non-complementary? I'm not talking about only genetically perfect people should be allowed to marry. None of us are perfect. The point goes to illustrate the purpose behind certain biological functions.

Blind people are not allowed to drive, for example, because not having vision impairs their ability to drive.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, because their union itself goes against the intention of the marriage institution and the natural ordered ability to create a family and provide complementary role models.

well, wasn't it you that posed the question " what if everyone was gay?" I simply posed the question " what if everyone was blind?"
you just said "certain biological functions" and the " natural ordered" ability.
but then, in nature many, many creatures simply mate and that's it, that's the entire involvement of the father to be "sire" to his offspring.
I think you would do well to keep the idea of the "natural" outside this discussion, as dolphins along with other animals have sex purely for recreation.
they are part of nature, making their impulses " natural " I can't tell you if this increases both Dolphin abortion, or Teen Dolphin pregnancy though, I'm not sure if those stats are readily available.
oh, and on the matter of complementary role models?
remember, if like you said, no one is born gay and heterosexual couples produce homosexual children then the " sexual complementarity" aspect of your argument WOULD have to be ignored.

To be fair, I'm against artificial insemination, yes, even for heterosexuals, for reasons I already expressed in my first post. So no, the double standard doesn't exist.

yes, it does, as we are discussing marriage, you allow one couple who can't reproduce the right to marry, even though they might already know they can't reproduce, you allow the right to people that KNOW that they don't intend to have children ( making their sexual union purely for pleasure in your view) and yet deny it to others for the same reasons you now ignore.

so yes, the double standard is there.

The difference regarding adoption for heterosexual vs homosexual couples goes into the point I made about looking to provide the best environment possible for raising children. Because of the sexual complementarity of a heterosexual couple, I feel it's the most responsible. Sterile heterosexual couples can still provide this. Homosexual couple lack sexual, biological, and psychological complementarity.

again, the complementarity argument, has already been kind of refuted in the sphere of psychological study, and the weirdest thing is that it found that androgynous couples were the happiest, so please....stop it with the ill researched psychology.
and, let's say it was a valid argument, how would you know that homosexual couples are unable to provide each other with complementarity, except in the biological arena what you propose makes no sense, as their sexual and emotional complementarity would be high enough for them to WANT to get married.
I mean, you don't need to get married in order to have sex, so why do they want to get married at all if they are only moved by sexual satisfaction?

What do you mean, "NO"? Are you saying that a homosexual couple is designed to procreate through natural means? How does a man procreate naturally with another man?

no, that's not what I meant.

Yes, I do notice how that argument can be used for straight couples. As I said above, and intimated in my first post, I am against artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, whether for homosexuals or heterosexuals.

If all heterosexuals were infertile, the human race would die out. My point in comparing the two is that, since the biology is designed (meant) to work together, and is designed (meant) to function, science should be used to correct the problem, not skirt around it. If your car breaks down, you don't just go buy another car (well, most of us don't), but instead look for the non-working parts and fix them. The comparison I'm making is in saying that two heterosexuals are designed to reproduce but can't, so let's fix the problem so they can ... vs two homosexuals who are not designed to naturally reproduce together, and trying to find a way in which they can anyway.

yes, but you're using an argument that has no bearing on the issue of marriage as illustrated by people whose sterility has no cure ( they are not denied the right to marry are they?) or people who plan to never have children at all, though their reproductive systems are in perfect order, both are allowed to marry regardless, why then does it only become an issue when it comes to homosexuals?

But homosexuals have equal rights. The same rights to get employment, get legal representation, get an education, to use public facilities, not to be slandered or physically harmed, etc. Homosexuals have all of the exact same individual rights as heterosexuals do.

But marriage is not just an "individual" right, and thus they do not get to redefine it just to conform to their desires. Marriage is about more than what one person wants. This goes to looking at what the institution of marriage was created for in the first place. It's not just about "love". If it were, then why are incestuous couples denied marriage rights?Because procreation does play a part in the definition of marriage, and it's inadvisable for siblings to procreate due to added potential for genetic problems.

and since homosexuals can't have children, potential genetic damage to them is not possible.
problem solved.
sees like two people that love each other with no direct blood relation and no possibility of harming another through their actions wanting to spend the rest of their lives together ( and you seem to forget that after a certain amount of years the sex will be the least important component in theri marriage)
but tell me, what is marriage about?
you seem to not be able to see that it's not about procreation at all ( as my argument on childless couples who choose to be so, proves) but about harming another by your decisions.
if the union of two homosexuals harms no one, then what use is denying it?
as I've already mentioned, seems to me that denying them the right to marry does more harm then good ( under your logic not mine) so why do it at all?

Many people don't look directly at the child-rearing part of marriage when they first marry, but for most heterosexual couples, eventually that factor comes into play. And this is what the government cares about and why the government provides certain benefits to married couples. The government is interested in helping to provide a married couple with a more stable, safe, and secure environment in which to raise children ... the future contributors to society.

no, you are wrong.
it is a component, but by no means the only component, the government also cares about the rights of the spouse, rights held by husbands and wives are quite unique and thus it is this that gay couples seek to attain, therefore, they are being denied the rights they should hold.
why exactly?
let's say a gay man marries and during his marriage he becomes a painter and a famous painter and artist with his works being sold for tens of thousands of dollars.
and he dies suddenly, the married man would be much more protected that if he was simply his " partner ", he then ( unless specified in a prenuptial agreement) would have an easier claim to the remaining artwork and money, and this is so important that many straight couples marry to protect their mates in case they happen to die, maybe do they receive the benefits that are allowed to the spouse if death comes upon a person, maybe to make the process of deciding who gets what after a loved one's death easier and more secure.

That is the purpose behind receiving governmental recognition and support. As others have pointed out, marriage has never been limited to religious people. It is not a religious institution. It is a social institution recognized by the government. Like I said before, the government doesn't care who you fall in love with. So why should the government recognize it and reward it? Because of the potential benefits it can give to society ... namely, the next generation. Family, and therefore sexual complementarity of the parents, is related to the definition of marriage, despite people trying to say otherwise.

and you have just switched your argument from " evolutionary dead end" to " complementarity" to " the next generation" sorry, but despite your intellectual dishonesty you are simply wrong.
again, explain to me then couples that remain childless even if they are fertile?
how come their unions are not dissolved or unrecognized by the government the mere fact that to have spousal rights a couple need not have children should be indicative enough of how wrong you are.
how about single parents, should their children be removed so that they are raised in houses with " complementarity" ?

"wow, better pray that my wife never dies suddenly, because they will take my kids away if I don't remarry after the grace period for mourning"

again, what an awful dystopia this would be if it were up to people like you.

I addressed that above, but again, my argument is not one of only "perfect" people being allowed to marry (no one is perfect), but lies at the heart of looking at what the institution of marriage is for. What purpose does it serve, and how does the perception of marriage and the behaviors that take place in marriage influence the shaping of our culture? Being unable to see does not inherently change what marriage is about.

well the definition of marriage according to Princeton is something like this:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
I don't know if you noticed but it never says " compulsory procreation" or " obligatory child rearing" heck I didn't even see it as defined between a man and a woman as illustrated by the marriage of music and dance.
hey, even if we go with the government recognized "union between a man and a woman" one:

A legally recognized union of a man and a woman by ceremony or common law.

you'll notice again how it doesn't say anything about children.
so seems that marriage is about " union" to deny gay couples this " union" for no reason whatsoever is to deny them a right, to deny them equality.

Being for natural law does not automatically mean being against technology. It also depends on what use the technology is put to.

you mean natural law like the roman natural law? or what?
because if you took civic lessons then you know natural law, the thing is that you can't say that such a thing exists without the existence of .....

natural rights.:csad:

see, natural rights in the US go something like this:
Natural rights - rights, freedoms and privileges which are such a basic part of human nature that they cannot be taken away. These are different from rights which are given to people by the law. According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

the same right you choose to deny gay people.

woops.

spike spiegel

02-28-2008, 07:47 PM

then tell me.
why is homosexuality wrong?
according to YOUR own personal thought processes I mean.

I've already said why I think it is wrong.

I think the Bible is holy. You don't seem to. What comes next?

I cannot imagine thinking wrong of homosexual behavior if I were not a believer. But I've read words that I hold to be true.

Marraige? I believe God created it. I believe it is something that started with God's creation. And we've made a mess of it in many ways. Without homosexuality being mentioned in Scripture, I think I would still recognize it as a sin.

It feels like something that goes against what was meant to be. It doesn't feel right to me. I feel more like sex, love, and marriage were meant to exist between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Can there be consummation between a man and a man? Or a woman and a woman? And using language from Genesis, can a man become one flesh with a man? Or a woman become one flesh with a woman?

There is one union I believe is right. For me, it comes down to God giving us a gift that we took and ruined.

Equal rights? I'm not denying homosexuals their right.

spike spiegel

02-28-2008, 07:47 PM

Bill

02-28-2008, 08:59 PM

Social change takes time. To say it hasn't happened yet does not mean it never will.

You cannot deny that sexual standards and behavior have changed over time, especially in the last century. Why do you think that is? It didn't happen immediately, and it didn't happen because of any one issue. People's perceptions of sex, marriage, and family are affected by multiple factors. To say that homosexual marriage will not lead to polygamists and incestuous couples seeking equal marriage rights as well denies the reality of how cultures change over time, and the changes we've already seen in the perception of sex and marriage.

Of course not, but is that really what this is all about? Let's try to keep this is perspective and actually address the point of the thread. Polygamists and incestuous couples have been crying to for "equal rights" for years before homosexual couples came into the scene. What I find quite disturbing is why is homosexuality lumped in with polygamy and incest?

thinks[/I] he will commit those actions again is also unfair and defeats the purpose of him serving his sentence in the first place.

Second, it also goes back to the definition of marriage as a social institution that the government has a vested interest in because of the potential future offspring, and their contributions to society. Being a former criminal does not somehow remove a person's ability to be a parent in a natural heterosexual union. As stated before, however, homosexuals will never conceive naturally, and do not fit the natural & biological model of a parental union, ... thus there is an automatic recognition that they do not fall under the definition of the institution.

Your slip is showing. Isn't this really all about homosexuals not being about to marry because they are homosexuals? Infertile couples will never conceive naturally, but they are allowed to marry. Do they fit within your "natural & biological model of a parental union" because they are man and woman, even though they are unable to naturally provide "potential future offspring." The issue of marriage for homosexuals isn't always about the end-result of having children or attempting to fit into some preconceived notion of biologic aptitude for the purpose of ensuring the future survival of the human race. It is often about something as simple as allowing them the same financial and legal rights of a married couple. And most are not asking for the conventional "marriage," but merely a legalized union that provides them with those rights. Is it really that big of a deal?

Nevertheless, if you think it's inappropriate for criminals with these backgrounds to be allowed to get married, (and where the crime is rape or pedophilia I can certainly see your point because those are crimes of a sexual nature, and being in a sexual relationship or having children may cause the person some problems with temptation), then you should protest against those situations because you think they are wrong. That would make more sense than saying "well, they get to do it and I think that's wrong, so we might as well open the door up so everyone else can do it."

I suggested it because there seems to be a type of double-standard at work.

Seriously though, I hardly think that's a fair statement to make. People in this thread had been asking for someone to provide a non-religious based explanation for why they were opposed to homosexual marriage.

The reasons for it being such a "long-winded diatribe" are several:
As I originally said, it is a serious issue that deserves some explanation, rather than a simple catchphrase like "it's icky".
There are many factors that may affect why a person feels a certain way on issues, and I tried to cover a bunch of them, because they all help shape a particular perception.
Also, I'm late to this discussion. A lot has already been brought up, and I wanted to cover a number of bases that have been addressed.
Fourth, I don't get on-line as often as some of you do, and I wanted to preemptively head-off some questions about my pov that may be raised by trying to be thorough.

It's upsetting that trying to be thorough somehow means to you that I'm "not being honest".

And I applaud you for the effort. But your responses aren't that different that anything a religious person might present. In fact, they are often very similar. You are offering a line of reasoning in your responses that you are only following until you reach your desired conclusion, but not to the conclusions that the lines of reasoning you're using would naturally reach. That's one of the reasons why it denotes fallacious thinking.

If you've reduced the reason for getting married to providing offspring for the prolonging of the human race, then obviously infertile couples are no longer viable candidates for marriage. Also, fertile couples who have no intention of having offspring should likewise be prohibited from getting married. In fact, since polygamy provides more offspring efficiently, I fail to see why there is an outcry against it. It seems to fit the government's natural and biologic model for loads of future beneficial offspring quite well.

If you are going to provide a line of reasoning, but neglect to follow it to its logical conclusion, then no, you are not being honest.

As a side note, I've been married for 12 years and have yet to see the Government's regulations for marriage and the need for future offspring. Got a link for that?

In the other thread where I offered a rebuttal to your post on homosexual origins, you somehow misread it to think I basically ended up in agreement with you. That was also a long post. It's curious that you complimented me on that one, saying my post was "a very insightful and well thought response", but when I'm clearly in opposition to your opinion in this thread, my post becomes a "long-winded diatribe full of fallacious thinking".

In the other thread, what you offered was a "rebuttal" to points that I wasn't always trying to make. I never thought you were in agreement, nor did I misread it. The "environmental and biologic influences" that you kept bolding in some of those links, well, that was referring to factors inside the womb. Cognitive factors can certainly affect some of the homosexual population, but that certainly lacks sufficient explanation for homosexuals in a normal "cognitive" environment.

Bill

02-28-2008, 09:03 PM

No, you don't need proof with belief.

I prefer it. Oh, and, while we're on the subject, I believe it's phrased, "You don't need proof with faith," not belief.

OK, I need to get me a sarcasm visual aid.

Mr Sparkle

02-28-2008, 09:38 PM

It feels like something that goes against what was meant to be. It doesn't feel right to me. I feel more like sex, love, and marriage were meant to exist between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Can there be consummation between a man and a man? Or a woman and a woman? And using language from Genesis, can a man become one flesh with a man? Or a woman become one flesh with a woman?

There is one union I believe is right. For me, it comes down to God giving us a gift that we took and ruined.

Equal rights? I'm not denying homosexuals their right.

actually you are denying them their rights.
you have a chance to fall in love and share your life with someone, you get to choose when and how to do this.
regardless of what a gay man or woman feels about your choice, you have it, regardless if to them your union " feels" against what is meant to be.
which by the way is the most hollow of all arguments.
specially coming from people typing into computers.

I'm sure THAT was god's perfect plan right?
computers?

or planes for that matter, but yeah I digress.
gay people don't get to be married because YOU and people like YOU don't want them to.
not because it affects you in any way, but simply because you don't think it's right.
yeah seems totally fair.
but though they don't seek to impose their way of life upon you you seek to impose your own morality and beliefs upon them.

again, seems fair.

spike spiegel

02-28-2008, 09:44 PM

gay people don't get to be married because YOU and people like YOU don't want them to.

I didn't say I don't want them to have the right to be married. Nor do I feel that they should be denied that right.

not because it affects you in any way, but simply because you don't think it's right.
yeah seems totally fair.
but though they don't seek to impose their way of life upon you you seek to impose your own morality and beliefs upon them.

again, seems fair.

I'm not imposing my own morality and beliefs upon them.

Mr Sparkle

02-28-2008, 09:47 PM

I didn't say I don't want them to have the right to be married. Nor do I feel that they should be denied that right.

I'm not imposing my own morality and beliefs upon them.

so then, you think that gay people should be allowed to marry?
and have the same rights as straight people?

Sandman138

02-29-2008, 02:09 PM

He's said many a time that he doesn't like the idea of it but that he is staying out of it. You didn't listen because you went straight to attacking his beliefs. Beliefs that he has said were his and his alone.

Mr Sparkle

02-29-2008, 02:11 PM

I believe in attacking people.
it's a belief that's mine and mine alone.

Marx

02-29-2008, 04:38 PM

gay people don't get to be married because YOU and people like YOU don't want them to.
not because it affects you in any way, but simply because you don't think it's right.
yeah seems totally fair.
but though they don't seek to impose their way of life upon you you seek to impose your own morality and beliefs upon them.

again, seems fair.

I always find it interesting that some people who are for equal rights, are selective when it comes to the subject. Equal rights are not selective. To me, love is love...IS LOVE.

Joe M.

03-03-2008, 02:52 AM

Sorry about the lateness of my reply. This is one reason I tend to avoid getting involved in serious discussion on-line, but I did want to address some things you said.

What I find quite disturbing is why is homosexuality lumped in with polygamy and incest?
I have lumped them together because if the idea is that marriage is to be defined as simply as nothing more than a union of consenting adults, as some claim, then polygamists and incestuous couple cannot be denied those rights either.

Your slip is showing.
:wow:

Wait a minute ...

I'm not wearing a slip.

Isn't this really all about homosexuals not being about to marry because they are homosexuals? Infertile couples will never conceive naturally, but they are allowed to marry. Do they fit within your "natural & biological model of a parental union" because they are man and woman, even though they are unable to naturally provide "potential future offspring." The issue of marriage for homosexuals isn't always about the end-result of having children or attempting to fit into some preconceived notion of biologic aptitude for the purpose of ensuring the future survival of the human race. It is often about something as simple as allowing them the same financial and legal rights of a married couple. And most are not asking for the conventional "marriage," but merely a legalized union that provides them with those rights. Is it really that big of a deal?
Yes, I believe it is a big deal, because I also believe it plays into the perceptions of sex and family within our culture, as expressed elsewhere.

If so many homosexuals merely want certain financial and legal rights, then it would be far less confrontational to their cause to simply pursue said rights without seeking to redefine "marriage". But like others have pointed out: separate but equal isn't equal. Many want homosexual marriage, maybe not for themselves personally, but because it will help validate homosexual behavior in the public eye. Well, as I have expressed before, based on biological necessity and compatibility, it is not natural behavior. Also, scientists have not proven that people are born homosexual, and the exact causes are still questionable. For these reasons I don't believe it's responsible to reinforce desires as normal that we don't even understand the source of, that may not be exclusively biological, and that don't make sense within a natural model.

I suggested it because there seems to be a type of double-standard at work.
You're citing double standard, because you keep thinking that I'm approaching marriage as representing nothing more and having no real purpose beyond two consenting people wanting to spend their lives together (until the divorce, that is).

I do place more importance on the marital institution than just that, and I think this is what you aren't understanding.

If you've reduced the reason for getting married to providing offspring for the prolonging of the human race, then obviously infertile couples are no longer viable candidates for marriage. Also, fertile couples who have no intention of having offspring should likewise be prohibited from getting married.
I haven't boiled down marriage solely to providing offspring, but have presented a package scenario as to why I think it's an appropriate institution to be recognized by the government, and how altering the definition of what goes into creating a marriage thereby affects the point and perception of marriage specifically, sex and family generally, among the culture.

btw, I do not place existing changes in sexual attitudes, marriage, divorce, etc. squarely at the feet of homosexuals. I recognize that heterosexuals have done plenty of damage themselves to the perception of marriage and related issues. But just because the ship is burning doesn't mean one should also set it on fire, and I feel that homosexual "marriage" crosses the line.

In the other thread, what you offered was a "rebuttal" to points that I wasn't always trying to make. I never thought you were in agreement, nor did I misread it. The "environmental and biologic influences" that you kept bolding in some of those links, well, that was referring to factors inside the womb. Cognitive factors can certainly affect some of the homosexual population, but that certainly lacks sufficient explanation for homosexuals in a normal "cognitive" environment.
The point of that post by me was to argue against your assertion that current homosexuals were predestined to be homosexual from the point that they popped out of their mother's womb (i.e. "born gay"). That is why I also referenced a comment by Dr. Marc Breedlove, a scientist referenced in one of the links you provided, that experience may also play a role, "as scientists have always believed". I also referenced a comment by the APA that mentioned that sexual orientation is often "shaped at an early age." Not "shaped in the womb". And when people are referred to as having been "shaped", it's typically in relation to cognitive and social factors. Also, as the link I provided in a previous post to Mr Sparkle indicated, there is no current definitive proof that people are born with homosexual inclinations. That would defeat the purpose of the APA also including a comment indicating that many scientists believe that "nature and nurture both play complex roles".

And what is a "normal cognitive environment"? No one family environment is exactly the same as another, which doubtless contributes to the difficulty in recognizing the exact social influences that may contribute to the development of same-sex attraction. While I believe sexual complementarity among the parents is the ideal environment in which a child should be raised, I never said that that factor alone would prevent children from developing homosexual inclinations. Some theories as to social factors that may contribute to the development of homosexual attraction refer to things like sexual abuse, or poor (or absent) parental relationships, particularly among fathers. Also, who said all of these factors (like abuse, for instance) need to occur in the home itself? The point is that unlike our genetics which are encoded very early on to develop a certain way, our brains take years to fully mature and develop, and especially in our formative years are more prone to being shaped by whatever experiences we go through.

Some people are very quick to look for and accept any biological factors they can when it comes to understanding homosexuality, but seem quick to dismiss any potential sociological factors.

Joe M.

03-03-2008, 02:52 AM

like I said in Bill's post, sorry about the lateness with my reply

hmmm.
here's what I said.
"this alone should be a great big wake up call to people who say it is a choice shouldn't it?"

here's what your article said :

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation"

so you're kind of agreeing with me.
I had never said otherwise regarding the matter of choice. The point of posting that paragraph was to illustrate that homosexuality is not proven to be something that people are born with, as you claimed. It was also meant to demonstrate that the factors that may go into giving someone a homosexual inclination are not proven to be purely biological (whether genetic, or through hormones/other factors). Many scientists believe that social factors also play a role.

well, regardless of what any of us meant, it seems that the consensus does point to people having little to NO choice in the matter of their sexuality.
and while there's no definitive proof that people are born homosexuals there's also no definitive proof that they are not?
so again, you're kind of agreeing with me.
See my comments above.

here, you seem to get mixed up in your own idea.
the point is that even though Heterosexual couples that happen to be sterile have what you consider a natural attraction to the opposite sex, they are still by your definition evolutionary dead ends, regardless of working towards treatment of sterility.
what about couples where one of the members is sterile due to childhood illnesses or complications from surgery or infection.
there's no way to treat a hysterectomy, the equipment is not malfunctioning, it's just not there.

also, some couples choose to NOT have children, therefore willingly becoming evolutionary dead ends ( again, by YOUR standards) should couples be sanctioned with compulsory divorce unless they procreate within a certain time frame?
Let me clarify things a bit. Individually, a sterile person may be unable to reproduce. As a societal institution, though, marriage between a man and a woman represents the ordered union in general, not each person specifically. On the other hand, individually, a homosexual is not necessarily an "evolutionary dead end" because so long as that person is fertile he or she can still reproduce, just not with their selected partner. However, as an institution, "marriage" between two people of the same gender can never procreate naturally, or even give the appearance of procreation, and does not represent a naturally ordered union.

This is why I tried to explain that public perception is also important, because of the influence perception has on guiding people's views ... on anything. No issue exists that won't in some way shape a person's view on another issue. A heterosexual union, even if infertile, does not inherently represent a disordered and unnatural union. Observers have no way of knowing if the couple is infertile, chooses not to have kids, or is trying but just hasn't succeeded yet. To a casual observer it is still capable of reinforcing sexual, biological, and psychological complementarity as a natural union, it is designed for procreation of the species, and therefore also the most appropriate environment for the raising of a family.

Look at it this way: take a whole bunch of couples: old, young adult, fertile, infertile, homosexual, heterosexual.
By outward appearances, you will never be able to tell who's fertile, who isn't, who plans on having children, who doesn't, or if the old couples beyond child-bearing age ever had children or not. But one type will always stand out as an unnatural union of two people, and that's the homosexual couples.

Because I believe that public perception is also important, for reasons which I've stated before, I don't believe the government should legally recognize homosexual unions. They have every right to have the type of consenting relationship they like. But the relationships themselves do not demand legal recognition.

as to your observations on " sexual complementarity" I would suggest that you look up "complementarity" in the context of psychological research.
though widely used in the sphere of the faithful to try and justify their views on marriage, the debate on sexual complementarity is kind of sided to the homosexuals, as studies revealed that couples where both were high on the feminine aspect or tended to androgyny, the members of said couple tended to be happier.
of course the issue of sexual complementarity was altogether refuted in terms of both happiness in the couple and choosing a partner.

the purpose of the thread is to discuss marriage and not adoption, IF you're indeed saying that homosexuality is not something you are born with, but you a predisposed to, then it follows that if straight couples can produce homosexual offspring and the sexuality of their offspring is not determined from birth, then the environment provided by the heterosexual couple can be instrumental in producing a homosexual child.
making the sexuality of the parents irrelevant in the sexuality of the child.
I never cited the "complementarity" argument in terms of what is best solely for the couple. I cited it in relation to what is the naturally constructed biological pairing. Also, in relation to the most responsible (all other factors being equal) environment in which children should be raised.

btw, I never cited this point out of the belief that two homosexual parents will "turn their kids gay", nor did I deny that heterosexual parents may have children who develop homosexual inclinations. I cited it because men and women are different in many ways, and children deserve to have both in their lives. Two of the same gender parent does not create the same environment as one of each gender parent. For example, as I mentioned in my first post, there are studies that demonstrate how children are more likely to perform better in school, avoid substance abuse, etc. when they have an active father in their life. Father. Not "second mommy".

One of these unions of two people makes sense biologically and environmentally. The other does not. The government should legally recognize the one that does.

first of all, you seem set on the idea that homosexuals both male and female are so simply because of sexual pleasure?
then if this was so, why would homosexual couples seek to adopt children at all? I don't know if you are familiar with the responsibilities that raising a kid entails but hardly seems like a thing one would do motivated on sexual pleasure alone.
then, you make a rather astounding leap in logic.
that married sexual couples, couples so committed to each other that they want to spend their lives together are going to somehow foster promiscuity,abortions and teen sex in the population?
isn't that the other way around?
in reality, wouldn't childless couples, straight childless couples foster this negative idea of sexuality you're so afraid of?
because they choose to devote their lives solely to each other, and they don't even think of adopting or having a surrogate carry their child.
under your rule,it is they, who can naturally have children but choose not to, it is they who foster negative ideas of sexuality in the impressionable youth.
I never said homosexuals experience their desires because they happen to enjoy the sexual pleasure that comes from that union. Also, on the issue of influence of sexual behavior, you completely misrepresent my point, which I also explained in my first post.

My point is that homosexual sex is not, and never will be, able to produce life. By recognizing an activity that should on some level be open to procreation, but absolutely can never possibly be, perception of the sexual act has changed in general. If it is perfectly acceptable (in this case recognized by the government) for homosexuals to engage in sexual behavior that will never have the chance to produce life (even if they have no choice in the matter), the perception is reinforced that procreation is not an important element in sex. When that attitude takes hold, people are less likely to be open to children, more likely to have sex more casually, and leads to some of the results I cited in my first post.

The difference here with sterile heterosexual couples is that, representing a naturally ordered union, and again, making a fair assumption that the "equipment" works, that union doesn't inherently represent non-procreation. No one is guaranteed to get pregnant ... it's never a sure thing just because fertile people have sex. Even when the timing is 'just right', there's still only something like a 25% chance. It's like the example I posted above with many different couples in a room. Not knowing a couple specifically, how is one to make the deduction that they are infertile vs the timing just hasn't worked out?

btw, I do not place the blame for this perception squarely on homosexuals. Heterosexuals have done their fair share of changing sexual perception, and thus (IMO) fostering many of these negative consequences. My point is that recognition of homosexual sex is simply adding to the reinforcement of what I perceive to be an already questionable approach that many have about sex.

well, wasn't it you that posed the question " what if everyone was gay?" I simply posed the question " what if everyone was blind?"
you just said "certain biological functions" and the " natural ordered" ability.
but then, in nature many, many creatures simply mate and that's it, that's the entire involvement of the father to be "sire" to his offspring.
I think you would do well to keep the idea of the "natural" outside this discussion, as dolphins along with other animals have sex purely for recreation.
they are part of nature, making their impulses " natural " I can't tell you if this increases both Dolphin abortion, or Teen Dolphin pregnancy though, I'm not sure if those stats are readily available.
oh, and on the matter of complementary role models?
remember, if like you said, no one is born gay and heterosexual couples produce homosexual children then the " sexual complementarity" aspect of your argument WOULD have to be ignored.
In nature, offspring don't generally take 16+ years to reach an age of reasonable independence either. Animals tend to be less complex, mature much faster, and therefore be less dependent on the parent(s). I don't see how non-complementary (or absent) role models and providers is quite the same in the animal kingdom as among humans.

On the matter of dolphins, etc ... they may have sex for pleasure, but they are open (to the extent they can be) about any life that may come from it. I never said sex was only about pleasure, but that sexual behavior, even when done for pleasure, should still be open to the possibility of producing life. I said this in my first post.

Reinforce the mentality of "pleasure" while at the same time removing the concept of being open to whatever life that may result, and you will increase teen pregnancy, abortion rates, single parents, etc.

As to the point on sexual complementarity and why I brought it up, see above.

yes, it does, as we are discussing marriage, you allow one couple who can't reproduce the right to marry, even though they might already know they can't reproduce, you allow the right to people that KNOW that they don't intend to have children ( making their sexual union purely for pleasure in your view) and yet deny it to others for the same reasons you now ignore.

so yes, the double standard is there.
Can you tell looking at a heterosexual couple that they are infertile? No. They don't inherently misrepresent the marital union.
Can you tell looking at a homosexual couple that they cannot produce children with each other, are not sexually compatible, and don't form a natural biological union? Yes.

One union does not inherently alter perception of the marital union to bystanders who observe that a marriage exists between those people. The other union does.

again, the complementarity argument, has already been kind of refuted in the sphere of psychological study, and the weirdest thing is that it found that androgynous couples were the happiest, so please....stop it with the ill researched psychology.
and, let's say it was a valid argument, how would you know that homosexual couples are unable to provide each other with complementarity, except in the biological arena what you propose makes no sense, as their sexual and emotional complementarity would be high enough for them to WANT to get married.
I mean, you don't need to get married in order to have sex, so why do they want to get married at all if they are only moved by sexual satisfaction?
Addressed above ... I was not referring to complementarity for the sake of the couple specifically, but for a demonstration of the natural order and creating the most responsible family raising environment.

yes, but you're using an argument that has no bearing on the issue of marriage as illustrated by people whose sterility has no cure ( they are not denied the right to marry are they?) or people who plan to never have children at all, though their reproductive systems are in perfect order, both are allowed to marry regardless, why then does it only become an issue when it comes to homosexuals?
Again, addressed above, about the importance of representing and reinforcing a naturally ordered union.

Also, considering that scientists have not proven that people are born that way, nor that it is completely dependent on biological factors, and according to the biological purposes of our physiology such a union doesn't make sense naturally, I don't believe it's responsible to legally reinforce these desires as completely normal.

to be continued

Joe M.

03-03-2008, 02:53 AM

continued from above

sees like two people that love each other with no direct blood relation and no possibility of harming another through their actions wanting to spend the rest of their lives together ( and you seem to forget that after a certain amount of years the sex will be the least important component in theri marriage)
but tell me, what is marriage about?
you seem to not be able to see that it's not about procreation at all ( as my argument on childless couples who choose to be so, proves) but about harming another by your decisions.
if the union of two homosexuals harms no one, then what use is denying it?
as I've already mentioned, seems to me that denying them the right to marry does more harm then good ( under your logic not mine) so why do it at all?
Homosexuals are not denied the right to love each other and spend the rest of their lives together.

The phrase "no possibility of harming another through their actions" is relative. What does that mean? I already admitted, in my first post, that homosexual "marriage" would not directly harm or affect any one individual. But, as I pointed out, we live in a society, and thus the attitudes we foster today will influence how the culture develops in the future. I used the example in my first post of how easy acceptance of and access to birth control has shaped the way people look at sex outside of marriage, abortion, etc. No issue exists independently, and government recognition of same-sex "marriage" will further affect future attitudes on these issues in, I feel, a negative way.

no, you are wrong.
it is a component, but by no means the only component, the government also cares about the rights of the spouse, rights held by husbands and wives are quite unique and thus it is this that gay couples seek to attain, therefore, they are being denied the rights they should hold.
why exactly?
let's say a gay man marries and during his marriage he becomes a painter and a famous painter and artist with his works being sold for tens of thousands of dollars.
and he dies suddenly, the married man would be much more protected that if he was simply his " partner ", he then ( unless specified in a prenuptial agreement) would have an easier claim to the remaining artwork and money, and this is so important that many straight couples marry to protect their mates in case they happen to die, maybe do they receive the benefits that are allowed to the spouse if death comes upon a person, maybe to make the process of deciding who gets what after a loved one's death easier and more secure.
Look to what some of those rights regarding property and benefits help establish: a more stable and secure situation upon the death of a partner, for the benefit of the existing family. It wouldn't do any good for dad to die, and for mom to suddenly be denied a legal right to the home and money in the bank account which she requires to help raise their three orphaned children. Such a denial makes it harder to raise their children and puts an unnecessary emotional, stressful, and financial burden on her/their shoulders, on top of the one suffered by losing dad.

Regarding inheritance and property ... those factors can be set up with legal counsel. If the question becomes recognition of the wills and actually following through with the last wishes of the deceased, then that is a separate issue that should be taken care of. We should not need to redefine the institution of marriage just so that we can ensure people get property legally left to them in a will.

and you have just switched your argument from " evolutionary dead end" to " complementarity" to " the next generation" sorry, but despite your intellectual dishonesty you are simply wrong.
again, explain to me then couples that remain childless even if they are fertile?
how come their unions are not dissolved or unrecognized by the government the mere fact that to have spousal rights a couple need not have children should be indicative enough of how wrong you are.
how about single parents, should their children be removed so that they are raised in houses with " complementarity" ?

"wow, better pray that my wife never dies suddenly, because they will take my kids away if I don't remarry after the grace period for mourning"

again, what an awful dystopia this would be if it were up to people like you.
To the issue of couples without children, again, touched on above. There's an element to marriage of reinforcing a naturally ordered union.

Also, without micro-managing (you do want less governmental interference in your life, don't you?), the government will never know what the heterosexual couple's intentions are with regards to children, or even if children are currently possible for them. There's a natural assumption that they can have children, because people are meant to be biologically capable of having children. Also, as mentioned above, how does one know that the timing isn't just "off"? The government is giving the couple the benefit of the doubt that everything works.

Homosexual couples do not represent a natural biological union, and it's also obvious to any observer that they cannot have children naturally. It is not obvious with a heterosexual couple.

As for your scenario regarding the death of a parent and removal of the children, go back to my first post. I never made any such claim or support for that sort of action. I even made a comment that sometimes unfortunate situations result in the loss of a partner creating a less than ideal situation, but I did not advocate that that should be cause for removing children from their remaining parent.

well the definition of marriage according to Princeton is something like this:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
I don't know if you noticed but it never says " compulsory procreation" or " obligatory child rearing" heck I didn't even see it as defined between a man and a woman as illustrated by the marriage of music and dance.
hey, even if we go with the government recognized "union between a man and a woman" one:

A legally recognized union of a man and a woman by ceremony or common law.you'll notice again how it doesn't say anything about children.
so seems that marriage is about " union" to deny gay couples this " union" for no reason whatsoever is to deny them a right, to deny them equality.
That definition only recognizes what creates a marriage, but not the purpose of one, nor why the government has a vested interest in recognizing one. Thus, you may feel that it doesn't support my argument, but it doesn't support yours either.

because if you took civic lessons then you know natural law, the thing is that you can't say that such a thing exists without the existence of .....

natural rights.:csad:

see, natural rights in the US go something like this:
Natural rights - rights, freedoms and privileges which are such a basic part of human nature that they cannot be taken away. These are different from rights which are given to people by the law. According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

the same right you choose to deny gay people.
Addressed in a previous post. They are not denied the right to have homosexual relationships. Homosexuals have all of the exact same individual rights as heterosexuals. Technically, they even have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else: To marry one consenting adult, non-related, of the opposite gender.

Homosexuals are not inherently denied marriage, what they are denied is the right to redefine marriage to fit their purposes. Individually, marriage for some may be little more than a public declaration of their love. But, looking at the big picture, as a governmentally recognized societal institution marriage stands for more than just "consenting people who love each other".

SurfDUI

03-03-2008, 02:57 AM

continued from above

Homosexuals are not denied the right to love each other and spend the rest of their lives together.

Homosexuals are not inherently denied marriage, what they are denied is the right to redefine marriage to fit their purposes.

Quite right

Bill

03-03-2008, 06:46 AM

I have lumped them together because if the idea is that marriage is to be defined as simply as nothing more than a union of consenting adults, as some claim, then polygamists and incestuous couple cannot be denied those rights either.

I can't argue against polygamists either. Incestuous relationships are easier because the potential for offspring with harmful birth defects is high enough to warrant it. I see homosexuality as a neutral effect, since no offspring can come of it and most only wish to have the legal and financial benefits of the union.

:wow:

Wait a minute ...

I'm not wearing a slip.

More than you know.

Yes, I believe it is a big deal, because I also believe it plays into the perceptions of sex and family within our culture, as expressed elsewhere.

If so many homosexuals merely want certain financial and legal rights, then it would be far less confrontational to their cause to simply pursue said rights without seeking to redefine "marriage". But like others have pointed out: separate but equal isn't equal. Many want homosexual marriage, maybe not for themselves personally, but because it will help validate homosexual behavior in the public eye. Well, as I have expressed before, based on biological necessity and compatibility, it is not natural behavior. Also, scientists have not proven that people are born homosexual, and the exact causes are still questionable. For these reasons I don't believe it's responsible to reinforce desires as normal that we don't even understand the source of, that may not be exclusively biological, and that don't make sense within a natural model.

Again, you want to compact marriage down to nothing more than "biologic necessity and compatibility." I'm quite happy my wife and I didn't look at it in so sterile a manner.

And what is so "bad" about homosexual behavior other than the catch-phrase, "it's not natural." It certainly occurs in nature. Perhaps you mean to say that it's not normal? Does the homosexual population hold such power as to taint the gender roles of our younger generation to the point that we may go extinct? I'm curious as to where this line of reasoning will lead.

You're citing double standard, because you keep thinking that I'm approaching marriage as representing nothing more and having no real purpose beyond two consenting people wanting to spend their lives together (until the divorce, that is).

I do place more importance on the marital institution than just that, and I think this is what you aren't understanding.

You're not presenting anything complicated here. You see it for merely pragmatic reasons. I recognize that, but, being married, can see that there is far and away more to it than that.

I haven't boiled down marriage solely to providing offspring, but have presented a package scenario as to why I think it's an appropriate institution to be recognized by the government, and how altering the definition of what goes into creating a marriage thereby affects the point and perception of marriage specifically, sex and family generally, among the culture.

btw, I do not place existing changes in sexual attitudes, marriage, divorce, etc. squarely at the feet of homosexuals. I recognize that heterosexuals have done plenty of damage themselves to the perception of marriage and related issues. But just because the ship is burning doesn't mean one should also set it on fire, and I feel that homosexual "marriage" crosses the line.

But you have, and have reinforced it throughout your posts. It's a tool for the further success of the human race, and any union that does not further that goal is invalid. Yes, I get it. Thank you

I hope your future, or current, mate knows how you really see them.

I also find it a bit silly that homosexuality will downgrade our culture, sexual or otherwise, as a whole. It's this kind of slippery slope thinking that taints your points as a whole.

Damien Rage

03-03-2008, 07:03 AM

...homosexuality will downgrade our culture, sexual or otherwise, as a whole.

dang it...how did you find out our master plan???

I don't care what its called I would just like the legal stuff the "normal" have.

Seriously I would want my other half to be allowed to make any and all decisions regarding me and be entitled to anything and everything he deserves (of what is mine), more so than my blood related family since he knows me better than they ever will (because they are all crazy...hence I live far far away).

Joe M.

03-03-2008, 10:06 AM

Incestuous relationships are easier because the potential for offspring with harmful birth defects is high enough to warrant it.
Considering you and Mr Sparkle have told me that procreation is not related to marriage, yet you would deny incestuous couples the right to marry based upon procreation, well, now I see a double standard. On the one hand procreation is relevant to marriage, but on the other it's not.

Again, you want to compact marriage down to nothing more than "biologic necessity and compatibility."

and

You see it for merely pragmatic reasons.
No, I never said either of those things. What I said was that when it comes to being recognized by the government and society in general, it is about more than just love.

Does the homosexual population hold such power as to taint the gender roles of our younger generation to the point that we may go extinct?
No, I never made such a claim either. I even said in my post to you: "While I believe sexual complementarity among the parents is the ideal environment in which a child should be raised, I never said that that factor alone would prevent children from developing homosexual inclinations." As I also said in Sparkle's post, nor do I believe that being raised in a homosexual environment expressly makes children "turn gay".

Joe M.

03-03-2008, 10:07 AM

Seriously I would want my other half to be allowed to make any and all decisions regarding me and be entitled to anything and everything he deserves (of what is mine), more so than my blood related family since he knows me better than they ever will (because they are all crazy...hence I live far far away).

And I'm fine with that. Everyone should have the right to determine through legal representation who inherits their property, and also to determine who is allowed to make medical decisions for or visit in the hospital, etc. But I don't think it should require altering marriage to be able to ensure that people can get those rights, and to be reasonably certain that their final wishes will actually be respected and carried out.

BlackLantern

03-03-2008, 10:19 AM

And I'm fine with that. Everyone should have the right to determine through legal representation who inherits their property, and also to determine who is allowed to make medical decisions for or visit in the hospital, etc. But I don't think it should require altering marriage to be able to ensure that people can get those rights, and to be reasonably certain that their final wishes will actually be respected and carried out.

For the time being, marriage is the only thing that allows for such decisions. I also don't think homosexuals are trying to destroy or confuse anyone, for the most part, they simply want to be treated like everyone else.

Marx

03-03-2008, 11:22 AM

For the time being, marriage is the only thing that allows for such decisions. I also don't think homosexuals are trying to destroy or confuse anyone, for the most part, they simply want to be treated like everyone else.

Which is inherently the problem. Gay rights are equal rights. Homosexuals are not the downfall of civilization as we know it. To think that they are, and that there is a "Gay Agenda" to end all things in the world, is ignorant. Gays should be treated just like everyone else is and should have the same rights as straight people. As Majik has stated before, marriage didn't begin with Christianity and it surely won't end with it.

vibeke_T

03-03-2008, 11:46 AM

no.

TLH

03-03-2008, 11:59 AM

I voted no simply because I'm a status quo kind of person. But I guess it doesn't bug me either way.

Marx

03-03-2008, 03:07 PM

I voted no simply because I'm a status quo kind of person. But I guess it doesn't bug me either way.

With all due respect Thinner, the "status quo" is extremely dated. It's time we came to live in a world where everyone is truly equal and respected. Equality is not selective.

echostation

03-03-2008, 04:21 PM

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 04:22 PM

Adoption :heart:

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 04:25 PM

My girlfriend works for Home Depot. Though we lived together for 2 years, we would have to be married in order for me to be covered under her health/dental insurance policies.

However, if I were a female and we were lesbians who had co-habitated for 1 year, I would be covered.

So I say, if I have to get married, then they should too, dammit. The man's coming down on us heterosexual folk.

Jerry!

03-03-2008, 04:25 PM

I voted no simply because I'm a status quo kind of person. But I guess it doesn't bug me either way.

Well that's a horrible reason.

TLH

03-03-2008, 04:25 PM

With all due respect Thinner, the "status quo" is extremely dated. It's time we came to live in a world where everyone is truly equal and respected. Equality is not selective.

Alright then, how come women get to leave a sinking ship before men do, if you catch my drift? Apparently equality is selective, although I don't believe in that. It's just the way things are.

TLH

03-03-2008, 04:26 PM

Well that's a horrible reason.

Well, I don't have any reason to vote Yes at this point. I really don't care either way. Let homosexuals get married and be miserable like everybody else. :D (that's a joke from Bobby Slayton, if you didn't know.) Always liked it.

Jerry!

03-03-2008, 04:27 PM

Then you shouldn't have voted.

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 04:29 PM

Then you shouldn't have voted.

This is how Bush got elected.

Twice.

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 04:30 PM

Alright then, how come women get to leave a sinking ship before men do, if you catch my drift? Apparently equality is selective, although I don't believe in that. It's just the way things are.

:dry:

TLH

03-03-2008, 04:30 PM

Then you shouldn't have voted.

No, I just shouldn't have said what I voted. In truth I don't care either way.

Cain

03-03-2008, 04:32 PM

Doesn't bother me none. I don't even believe in marriage. If people want to go through it they should have the right to regardless of who they're marrying.

Jerry!

03-03-2008, 04:36 PM

No, I just shouldn't have said what I voted. In truth I don't care either way.

Apparently you cared enough to vote not to allow it.

echostation

03-03-2008, 04:38 PM

Kashtis Kashtis... let's talk about how we can try to adopt others... I'll adopt you Thinner6... and then you can adopt me... then Harry Ellis can be adopted

TLH

03-03-2008, 04:39 PM

You want to adopt a Rugby player?

Marx

03-03-2008, 04:46 PM

i think they should marry... maybe they'll make better parents than the huge 50% divorce rate type among heterosexuals... furthermore, with such massive overpopulation... more kids need to be adopted... so i'm totally for gay marriage so that they can adopt other kids if they want to... practical thinking

Adoption :heart:

Well that's a horrible reason.

Alright then, how come women get to leave a sinking ship before men do, if you catch my drift? Apparently equality is selective, although I don't believe in that. It's just the way things are.

I understand what you are saying Thinner, but we have got to come to a point where EVERYONE is truly equal. Whether it be racial, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Everyone has the right to be treated equally and with respect. No one should be treated as a second class citizen.

echostation

03-03-2008, 04:47 PM

I think the only guy who shouldn't be allowed to be vote on this topic categorically and undeniably is this young fellow:

2YSrWQ1S8SE

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 04:52 PM

I understand what you are saying Thinner, but we have got to come to a point where EVERYONE is truly equal. Whether it be racial, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Everyone has the right to be treated equally and with respect. No one should be treated as a second class citizen.

If everyone should be treated as an equal, does that mean we should do away with quotas, as far as admitting students, hiring practices, etc?

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 04:55 PM

If everyone should be treated as an equal, does that mean we should do away with quotas, as far as admitting students, hiring practices, etc?

If everyone were treated as equal, there'd be no need for such quotas.

Marx

03-03-2008, 04:57 PM

If everyone were treated as equal, there'd be no need for such quotas.

Exactly.

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:01 PM

If everyone were treated as equal, there'd be no need for such quotas.

So while we yearn for equality, we spurn the idea by instituting unequal practices for admitting students and hiring employees for a job. Interesting.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:05 PM

So while we yearn for equality, we spurn the idea by instituting unequal practices for admitting students and hiring employees for a job. Interesting.

That's not what is being said here and you know it. Nice twist on words though!

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:08 PM

That's not what is being said here and you know it. Nice twist on words though!

I'm not twisting words around. I just don't see how someone can claim to be for equality while also being in favor of forced standards that create unequal opportunities.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:12 PM

I'm not twisting words around. I just don't see how someone can claim to be for equality while also being in favor of forced standards that create unequal opportunities.

I have never said that I support "forced standards that create unequal opportunities." What was mentioned earlier was that if everyone were truly equal, "forced standards" wouldn't exist. Those standards are an attempt at correcting the situation, but it doesn't suit the purpose it was created for. IMO. Does that make more sense?

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:16 PM

I have never said that I support "forced standards that create unequal opportunities." What was mentioned earlier was that if everyone were truly equal, "forced standards" wouldn't exist. Those standards are an attempt at correcting the situation, but it doesn't suit the purpose it was created for. IMO. Does that make more sense?

Yes, it does make sense.

"Forced standards that create unequal opportunities" is how I view mandatory quotas used in admissions and hiring practices. I agree that these quotas were instituted, generally, for a good purpose, but unfortunately, I feel that they actually achieve the opposite of what they set out to accomplish.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:21 PM

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 05:21 PM

Yes, it does make sense.

"Forced standards that create unequal opportunities" is how I view mandatory quotas used in admissions and hiring practices. I agree that these quotas were instituted, generally, for a good purpose, but unfortunately, I feel that they actually achieve the opposite of what they set out to accomplish.

I think the debate over affirmative action and the like is valid, and I'm not completely decided on that issue. However, I think it is good that someone tried to do something, now its time to (re)evaluate and change.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:22 PM

I think the debate over affirmative action and the like is valid, and I'm not completely decided on that issue. However, I think it is good that someone tried to do something, now its time to (re)evaluate and change.

Exactly http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:26 PM

I think the debate over affirmative action and the like is valid, and I'm not completely decided on that issue. However, I think it is good that someone tried to do something, now its time to (re)evaluate and change.

Word.

...I was gonna say something else, but after trying to think of something to say...Nah, that's about it. Word.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:28 PM

Word.

...I was gonna say something else, but after trying to think of something to say...Nah, that's about it. Word.

I just wanted to apologize to you Tron for saying that you were "twisting" words. I completely read that wrong. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:29 PM

I just wanted to apologize to you Tron for saying that you were "twisting" words. I completely read that wrong. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

It's all gravy, baby. No apology necessary. It's all Kool & the Gang.

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 05:29 PM

Aw, feel the love. :heart:

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:30 PM

Aw, feel the love. :heart:

Blowin' up in here. Feel like I ate some X or something.

Logan's Runt

03-03-2008, 05:32 PM

Ohhhhh... my clothes feel aawesomeeeee....

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:34 PM

Ohhhhh... my clothes feel aawesomeeeee....

I've got a Vick's inhaler and some candy...

Captain_BluTac

03-03-2008, 05:35 PM

Woah this thread, has got way off track. :o

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:35 PM

Woah this thread, has got way off track. :o

Bad timing. Close the door, please.

Captain_BluTac

03-03-2008, 05:37 PM

Bad timing. Close the door, please.

I will close the door, but I'm telling some perverts, I know the lounge guys should work.:o

Carcharodon

03-03-2008, 05:39 PM

If everyone should be treated as an equal, does that mean we should do away with quotas, as far as admitting students, hiring practices, etc?Supreme court made these quotas illegal in the 70's. Anybody still working an Affirmative Action quota system should be reported for breaking a federal law.

If everyone were treated as equal, there'd be no need for such quotas.See above.

Tron5000

03-03-2008, 05:42 PM

OK, time to run. Party's over.

Marx

03-03-2008, 05:46 PM

Woah this thread, has got way off track. :o

Nope, just bad timing Cap'n :cwink:

Sun_Down

03-03-2008, 05:49 PM

I don't know how this thread turned towards affirmative action, but I thought I'd pop in and clear up some obvious misconceptions that seem to be dominating the conversations.

Affirmative action does not require hiring quotas. Quotas have been used in the past, but that is now illegal to the best of my understanding.

The actual language of most AA policies is simply an encouragement to seek out all qualified candidates and if you have two candidates who are equally qualified, consider your institutions diversity and consider the minority candidate. These aren't exclusive policies, they're inclusive. The whole point is just to encourage employers and universities to consider all candidates, not to hire/admit a less deserving candidate based on race.

Sandman138

03-03-2008, 05:51 PM

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/magneto-was-right.jpg

Bill

03-03-2008, 08:42 PM

Considering you and Mr Sparkle have told me that procreation is not related to marriage, yet you would deny incestuous couples the right to marry based upon procreation, well, now I see a double standard. On the one hand procreation is relevant to marriage, but on the other it's not.

Actually, I never said that I would deny incestuous couples anything, just that it would be harder to argue for it based on harmful birth defects. It is a more definitive and universal blight on morality than either polygamy or homosexuality if you want to argue in that direction.

Honestly, just because you allow homosexuals to marry doesn't mean that incestuous couples need to get anything. I don't argue the "consenting adults" line, so perhaps Mr. Sparkle should answer that. I'm not arguing that procreation is relevant to marriage, but I am arguing that there is a strong possibility that such a union, that more than likely will result in procreation, will cause a child to be born with defects. IOW, Homosexual and polygamist relationships are damaging to a "perception" of marriage or sexual culture. Incestuous relationships cause measurable genetic damage that is real and not perceptual.

I doubt, and would rather hope, that the number of incestuous couples waiting in the wings for their relationships to be validated is less than miniscule in size. Otherwise, I should think that homosexuality is the least of your problems.

No, I never said either of those things. What I said was that when it comes to being recognized by the government and society in general, it is about more than just love.

I didn't say you said anything. I said you're seeing it from a pragmatic perspective, which is exactly what you're doing.

No, I never made such a claim either. I even said in my post to you: "While I believe sexual complementarity among the parents is the ideal environment in which a child should be raised, I never said that that factor alone would prevent children from developing homosexual inclinations." As I also said in Sparkle's post, nor do I believe that being raised in a homosexual environment expressly makes children "turn gay".

But that is what you have been implying, rather strongly, throughout your posts. That the "validation" of the homosexual lifestyle by being allowed to marry will somehow harm the "perceptions of sex and family within our culture." This hasn't happened in countries where it is legal, so this is what you are providing as a negative lacking any practical evidence that it will occur.

I seriously doubt the rate of divorces or people getting married will suddenly bottom out if homosexuals are allowed to marry. I don't really see any real harmful effects other than some people getting their panties in a bunch over another group of people who they see as icky (let's be honest here) getting something they thought was their Gawd-given right.

I think that most homosexuals aren't looking to change the face of marriage, but they are looking for validation that they are more than just "abnormal" humans and that the relationships they form are no less important than their heterosexual counterparts.

As to the possible incest and polygamy folks getting in on the game, I don't think you can place blame on the homosexuals. Polygamists have been trying for years, and cousins can marry in 20 states. Society seems to be still chugging along and people are still getting married.

Marx

03-03-2008, 09:26 PM

Marx

03-03-2008, 09:29 PM

But that is what you have been implying, rather strongly, throughout your posts. That the "validation" of the homosexual lifestyle by being allowed to marry will somehow harm the "perceptions of sex and family within our culture." This hasn't happened in countries where it is legal, so this is what you are providing as a negative lacking any practical evidence that it will occur.

I completely agree Bill. That implication is totally baseless.

Mr Sparkle

03-04-2008, 09:24 PM

I had never said otherwise regarding the matter of choice. The point of posting that paragraph was to illustrate that homosexuality is not proven to be something that people are born with, as you claimed. It was also meant to demonstrate that the factors that may go into giving someone a homosexual inclination are not proven to be purely biological (whether genetic, or through hormones/other factors). Many scientists believe that social factors also play a role.

but wasn't this about the "normalcy" of the homosexual impulse?
I mean, one could prove that a man liking blonde women is brought on by social factors, so what?

See my comments above.

and you should see my comments from before.
"I think I've said already, SOME people are just born that way, some people turn gay for different reasons, referring to the environment, so?"

again, you're kind of agreeing with me.
I don't see how any of this would prove that homosexuals are "abnormal"

Let me clarify things a bit. Individually, a sterile person may be unable to reproduce. As a societal institution, though, marriage between a man and a woman represents the ordered union in general, not each person specifically. On the other hand, individually, a homosexual is not necessarily an "evolutionary dead end" because so long as that person is fertile he or she can still reproduce, just not with their selected partner. However, as an institution, "marriage" between two people of the same gender can never procreate naturally, or even give the appearance of procreation, and does not represent a naturally ordered union.

so, now we have gone from the argument "if everyone was homosexual...." to " complementarity" to "marriage is a symbol" this is the third shift in the conversation, perhaps you should see how it's starting to come apart.

This is why I tried to explain that public perception is also important, because of the influence perception has on guiding people's views ... on anything. No issue exists that won't in some way shape a person's view on another issue. A heterosexual union, even if infertile, does not inherently represent a disordered and unnatural union. Observers have no way of knowing if the couple is infertile, chooses not to have kids, or is trying but just hasn't succeeded yet. To a casual observer it is still capable of reinforcing sexual, biological, and psychological complementarity as a natural union, it is designed for procreation of the species, and therefore also the most appropriate environment for the raising of a family.

Look at it this way: take a whole bunch of couples: old, young adult, fertile, infertile, homosexual, heterosexual.
By outward appearances, you will never be able to tell who's fertile, who isn't, who plans on having children, who doesn't, or if the old couples beyond child-bearing age ever had children or not. But one type will always stand out as an unnatural union of two people, and that's the homosexual couples.

Because I believe that public perception is also important, for reasons which I've stated before, I don't believe the government should legally recognize homosexual unions. They have every right to have the type of consenting relationship they like. But the relationships themselves do not demand legal recognition.

well, here I believe the argument falls apart.
marriage as an institution was not born out of a religious need.
this is something you need to recognize.
in some cultures, like the native Americans ( some tribes I forget which)
Homosexuals were regarded as special, in touch with both their female and male sides.
weird to us, but completely normal to them.
and yet, they didn't die out because of it, men didn't turn into homosexuals for it, and the Indian tribe didn't die out.
hell, one could go back to the greeks, and many other places were homosexuality was not seen as an aberration, they didn't " die out" because of it, they didn't even stop having children because of it.
even though the " public perception" regarded homosexuality as acceptable.
there are hundreds of examples of this throughout history.

I never cited the "complementarity" argument in terms of what is best solely for the couple. I cited it in relation to what is the naturally constructed biological pairing. Also, in relation to the most responsible (all other factors being equal) environment in which children should be raised.

btw, I never cited this point out of the belief that two homosexual parents will "turn their kids gay", nor did I deny that heterosexual parents may have children who develop homosexual inclinations. I cited it because men and women are different in many ways, and children deserve to have both in their lives. Two of the same gender parent does not create the same environment as one of each gender parent. For example, as I mentioned in my first post, there are studies that demonstrate how children are more likely to perform better in school, avoid substance abuse, etc. when they have an active father in their life. Father. Not "second mommy".

One of these unions of two people makes sense biologically and environmentally. The other does not. The government should legally recognize the one that does.

then, this would be useful in two fronts.
what of homosexual couples not wishing to adopt?
they would be allowed to marry since their lack of " complementarity" wouldn't be an issue would it.
and this happens to be an argument on gay marriage, not adoption.
you keep citing the most responsible environment and effects on the children, but there are studies that have proven that no ill effects occur to the child (http://www.csun.edu/%7Epsy453/harm_n.htm) from having homosexual parents.
so again, it comes down to which studies you choose to listen to.
I don't know if you meant it, but the study most often cited to point the finger at the homosexual unions is the " single parent" study.
yet, single parents are still allowed by law to raise their children.
so I actually see no point in this, unless you are suggesting that children from single parent families should be removed by the state and placed in "normal" homes.

I never said homosexuals experience their desires because they happen to enjoy the sexual pleasure that comes from that union. Also, on the issue of influence of sexual behavior, you completely misrepresent my point, which I also explained in my first post.

sorry.
but then this
"Also, as I previously suggested, heterosexual unions by their nature do not inherently reinforce the idea of sex being for pleasure only"
since their unions reinforce that idea, I thought you were implying that sex in the heterosexual union was not seen as such.

My point is that homosexual sex is not, and never will be, able to produce life. By recognizing an activity that should on some level be open to procreation, but absolutely can never possibly be, perception of the sexual act has changed in general. If it is perfectly acceptable (in this case recognized by the government) for homosexuals to engage in sexual behavior that will never have the chance to produce life (even if they have no choice in the matter), the perception is reinforced that procreation is not an important element in sex. When that attitude takes hold, people are less likely to be open to children, more likely to have sex more casually, and leads to some of the results I cited in my first post.

I'm sorry but that is simply insane.
you're operating based on the assumption that people will star becoming more promiscuous IF homosexual marriage is accepted in society?
based on what?
again, then high profile single men and women over their prime reproductive age should be outlawed as well, as THEY are more likely culprits in this matter.
again, this seems to take symbols and give a lot of importance to some and ignore the importance of others.

The difference here with sterile heterosexual couples is that, representing a naturally ordered union, and again, making a fair assumption that the "equipment" works, that union doesn't inherently represent non-procreation. No one is guaranteed to get pregnant ... it's never a sure thing just because fertile people have sex. Even when the timing is 'just right', there's still only something like a 25% chance. It's like the example I posted above with many different couples in a room. Not knowing a couple specifically, how is one to make the deduction that they are infertile vs the timing just hasn't worked out?

btw, I do not place the blame for this perception squarely on homosexuals. Heterosexuals have done their fair share of changing sexual perception, and thus (IMO) fostering many of these negative consequences. My point is that recognition of homosexual sex is simply adding to the reinforcement of what I perceive to be an already questionable approach that many have about sex.

" naturally ordered" ?
again, why do you ignore the many examples in nature of the father abandoning the child and mother, even in humans this used to be the norm.
it's a SOCIAL construct.
you keep revisiting your points and frankly they have no bearing on the discussion.
childless couples misrepresent sexual behaviour to you.
should they be outlawed as well as homosexual couples?
should single parents be outlawed?

In nature, offspring don't generally take 16+ years to reach an age of reasonable independence either. Animals tend to be less complex, mature much faster, and therefore be less dependent on the parent(s). I don't see how non-complementary (or absent) role models and providers is quite the same in the animal kingdom as among humans.

but yet some of those animals do have lifelong mates.
and some mammals that take a longer time to mature, like the elephant, are raised by groups composed solely of females, while the father is in isolation.
elephants take about 9-12 years to reach maturity, and are quite helpless their first years.
oh, and elephants exhibit homosexual behaviour.
that's nature for you.

On the matter of dolphins, etc ... they may have sex for pleasure, but they are open (to the extent they can be) about any life that may come from it. I never said sex was only about pleasure, but that sexual behavior, even when done for pleasure, should still be open to the possibility of producing life. I said this in my first post.

I'm sorry, but that's a no.
Dolphins engage in sexual acts before reaching sexual maturity making it impossible for them to have offspring.:cwink:

Reinforce the mentality of "pleasure" while at the same time removing the concept of being open to whatever life that may result, and you will increase teen pregnancy, abortion rates, single parents, etc.

As to the point on sexual complementarity and why I brought it up, see above.

actually, if one reinforced the mentality of pleasure without being open to life being produced from it you'd REDUCE the amount of teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
I don't know about single parents, because well, they have always existed and they have nothing to do with sexuality in most cases, but with psychology.

Can you tell looking at a heterosexual couple that they are infertile? No. They don't inherently misrepresent the marital union.
Can you tell looking at a homosexual couple that they cannot produce children with each other, are not sexually compatible, and don't form a natural biological union? Yes.

but then, Older people marrying younger mates would misrepresent the " natural" union, as to the sexual compatibility, if they are homosexuals they are clearly sexually compatible.
again, the marital union as you call it was not made simply to foster childbirth and you know it, why are you pretending that this is so?
and while sterile couples don't outwardly misrepresent the natural union, a pederast that's also a priest doesn't outwardly misrepresent the church.
yet it's still illegal the last time I checked.

One union does not inherently alter perception of the marital union to bystanders who observe that a marriage exists between those people. The other union does.

but those unions already exist, homosexuals have sex and live in couples regardless of their legal status, does it not have the same impact to see homosexual couples walking hand in hand, than it is to know that they are recognized by the state?
also, I was thinking, I was a teenager not long ago, and me wanting to have sex was certainly NOT motivated by homosexual couples, was your sexuality closely tied to homosexual trends and legality?

if so, I ...uh...have some news for you.

you better take a seat.

Addressed above ... I was not referring to complementarity for the sake of the couple specifically, but for a demonstration of the natural order and creating the most responsible family raising environment.

which of course makes the point moot about gay marriage, very material in gay adoption which this thread is not about.

Again, addressed above, about the importance of representing and reinforcing a naturally ordered union.

addressed above as well, as the sexuality of heterosexuals is not related to that of homosexuals, at least not in my case, I know my girl didn't do me when I was a teenager because she saw "the Birdcage" maybe you had different luck, also as expressed above, both dolphins and elephants ( which are part of nature I assume) engage in sex for pleasure and homosexuality making the " naturally ordered union" bit completely immaterial.

Also, considering that scientists have not proven that people are born that way, nor that it is completely dependent on biological factors, and according to the biological purposes of our physiology such a union doesn't make sense naturally, I don't believe it's responsible to legally reinforce these desires as completely normal.

ah, but the fact that homosexuals are allowed to practice their sexuality outside the bond of marriage makes their desires completely normal, as, at least so far, I have seen no penalty for homosexuality imposed on anyone.
was it not you who said:

"Homosexuals are not being denied the ability to have relationships. What consenting adults do privately is one thing. Asking for government recognition of it is another."

last time I checked, private child abuse was still illegal, making homosexuality government recognized as legal.
hence this

No issue exists independently, and government recognition of same-sex "marriage" will further affect future attitudes on these issues in, I feel, a negative way.

the practice of homosexuality is already recognized and " accepted" so a marriage seems the logical step in order to protect the parties involved in a legal sense.

also, I researched something.

Belgium has really low abortion and teen pregnancy rates.
abortion rates are the same now as they were in the 30's and are impossibly low, topped only by the Netherlands.
Belgium allows Gay marriage since 2003, the Netherlands since 2001.
so, it seems that your assumption on government recognized homosexual unions is wrong.

Mr Sparkle

03-04-2008, 09:40 PM

Look to what some of those rights regarding property and benefits help establish: a more stable and secure situation upon the death of a partner, for the benefit of the existing family. It wouldn't do any good for dad to die, and for mom to suddenly be denied a legal right to the home and money in the bank account which she requires to help raise their three orphaned children. Such a denial makes it harder to raise their children and puts an unnecessary emotional, stressful, and financial burden on her/their shoulders, on top of the one suffered by losing dad.

Regarding inheritance and property ... those factors can be set up with legal counsel. If the question becomes recognition of the wills and actually following through with the last wishes of the deceased, then that is a separate issue that should be taken care of. We should not need to redefine the institution of marriage just so that we can ensure people get property legally left to them in a will.

actually, how about we look at them as " spousal rights" IE rights of the spouse, marriage protects many things unrelated to children so, no.
the institution of marriage is not redefined since it was never defined in the first place.
it was and has always been a union.
it seems that, since I already proved that gay marriage has no adverse social effects you're actually denying benefits to the spouses in gay couples based on......

NOTHING.

that's right, nothing.

To the issue of couples without children, again, touched on above. There's an element to marriage of reinforcing a naturally ordered union.

actually, the naturally ordered union argument has already been debunked by instances of homosexuality in animals.
not to mention the fact that union in most animals is mostly reproductive and not social.

Also, without micro-managing (you do want less governmental interference in your life, don't you?), the government will never know what the heterosexual couple's intentions are with regards to children, or even if children are currently possible for them. There's a natural assumption that they can have children, because people are meant to be biologically capable of having children. Also, as mentioned above, how does one know that the timing isn't just "off"? The government is giving the couple the benefit of the doubt that everything works.

like I said, once the infertility is detected, couldn't the doctor void the marriage on the spot?
also, women who have had a hysterectomy, men who have had a vasectomy would ineligible for marriage?
scary.

also, again, marriage in governments definition does not include children.
even when it's defined as a " a man and a woman "
as I already demonstrated.

Homosexual couples do not represent a natural biological union, and it's also obvious to any observer that they cannot have children naturally. It is not obvious with a heterosexual couple.

actually they do.
since a couple is not necessarily about a children.
again.

As for your scenario regarding the death of a parent and removal of the children, go back to my first post. I never made any such claim or support for that sort of action. I even made a comment that sometimes unfortunate situations result in the loss of a partner creating a less than ideal situation, but I did not advocate that that should be cause for removing children from their remaining parent.

I'm sorry, but you're talking about symbols.
single parents most certainly do NOT represent a natural biological union.
nor, for instance, older couples adopting young children.
yet both of these are legal.
so again.
make sure your criteria cannot be applied to situations you have no trouble with.

That definition only recognizes what creates a marriage, but not the purpose of one, nor why the government has a vested interest in recognizing one. Thus, you may feel that it doesn't support my argument, but it doesn't support yours either.

actually, it does support mine.
it's the definition of marriage.
if the interest of the government in recognizing marriage is solely for procreation like you keep implying ( you don't say it, you just imply it a lot) then surely the definition of marriage would include a note about compulsory procreation.
so actually much like the Belgium and Netherlands argument, it DOES support my argument.

Addressed in a previous post. They are not denied the right to have homosexual relationships. Homosexuals have all of the exact same individual rights as heterosexuals. Technically, they even have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else: To marry one consenting adult, non-related, of the opposite gender.

actually, they don't have the same rights, because as a couple they don't get the same benefits.
also, I have to say, it's quite disgusting that you basically said:

" they have a right to NOT be gay"

seriously, disgusting.

Homosexuals are not inherently denied marriage, what they are denied is the right to redefine marriage to fit their purposes. Individually, marriage for some may be little more than a public declaration of their love. But, looking at the big picture, as a governmentally recognized societal institution marriage stands for more than just "consenting people who love each other".

fit their purposes individually?
what exactly are their purposes and how do they differ from the purposes of heterosexual couples? and, looking at the big picture, what would marriage stand for?

Venomfan

03-06-2008, 06:21 PM

its wrong and this is my reasoning:cwink:
c88x35Nq0Ck

Carcharodon

03-06-2008, 07:11 PM

That's not reasoning, though. That's an assertion based on the notion of, "purpose," as though that should have any affect on the way a person is allowed to live their life. The purpose of a vacuum cleaner is to clean, but if I want to masturbate with it, I should be legally allowed to.

Fail. :yay:

Venomfan

03-06-2008, 08:40 PM

Noir

03-29-2008, 10:14 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847511/

OXNARD, Calif. - Larry King was a gay eighth-grader who used to come to school in makeup, high heels and earrings. And when the other boys made fun of him, he would boldly tease them right back by flirting with them.That may have been what got him killed.
On Feb. 12, another student, Brandon McInerney, 14, shot him twice in the head at the back of the computer lab at their junior high school, police say.

The slaying of the 15-year-old boy has alarmed gay rights activists and led to demands that middle schools do more to educate youngsters about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Police would not discuss McInerney's motive. But the day before the shooting, King told McInerney he liked him, eighth-grader Eduardo Segure told the Ventura County Star.
If King had flirted with the other boy, "that can be very threatening to someone's ego and their sense of identity," said Jaana Juvonen, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Hate-crime allegation
McInerney was jailed on $770,000 bail on an adult murder charge that could put him behind bars for life. Prosecutors also filed a hate-crime enhancement, which could bring three more years if McInerney is found to have acted on the basis of the victim's race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation.
The shooting has galvanized Oxnard, a city of nearly 200,000 people about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Several vigils for King have been held, including a march that drew about 1,000 people to this strawberry-growing section of Ventura County.
Like the killings of some other gay students — such as Matthew Shepard in Wyoming and Brandon Teena, the Nebraska transsexual whose story was the subject of the movie "Boys Don't Cry" — King's death has drawn national attention and outraged many gays.
Comic Ellen DeGeneres, who is a lesbian, said on her talk show Feb. 28: "Larry was not a second-class citizen. I'm not a second-class citizen. It is OK if you are gay."
'He wasn't afraid'
Students at E.O. Green Junior High said the other kids used to taunt King, call him names and throw wet paper towels at him in the boys' restroom, and he would bravely fire back by flirting with them and chasing them.
"He didn't like people insulting him," said his friend Miriam Lopez, 13. "Larry was brave enough to bring high heels and makeup to school and he wasn't afraid of anything."
Jerry Dannenberg, superintendent of the Hueneme School District, would not discuss details of what went on between King and McInerney but said students are encouraged to come forward if they have been threatened.
He also said that King was free to wear women's accessories with his uniform of white shirt and dark pants because the dress code prohibits only those items that could be a safety threat, such as steel-toed shoes.
"If girls are wearing jewelry, you can't stop boys from wearing it, too," he said. "Each gender has the right to wear what the other does." The school system said that it has tolerance programs in its middle schools, but that sexual orientation is often not dealt with until high school. Since the killing, school officials have been meeting with gay leaders about changing the program.

"With young people coming out at younger ages, our schools — especially our junior highs and middle schools — need to be proactive about teaching respect for diversity based on sexual orientation and gender identity," said Carolyn Laub, executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. "The tragic death of Larry King is a wake-up call for our schools to better protect students from harassment at school."

Abuse and harassment
A 2005 survey by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network found that more than 64 percent of gay and lesbian students report verbal, sexual or physical harassment at school, and 29 percent said they missed at least a day of school in the previous month out of fear for their safety. The group is holding its annual "Day of Silence" in memory of King on April 25.

The families of both boys have refused to comment. An e-mail message left for McInerney's attorney was not immediately returned.

Both teens have been described as good kids.

King and his mother crocheted hundreds of scarves that were shipped to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. The avid singer planned to belt out the national anthem at his brother's opening-day baseball game this spring.

"He had an amazing voice and was always singing," said Averi Laskey, 13, a friend since elementary school. "He would stick up for you no matter what. Larry was the best kind of person you could meet."

McInerney was described as the typical eighth-grader, goofy and fun to be around. He trained to be a lifeguard and took martial arts. He also enrolled in the Young Marines, a group similar to the Army's Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps.

Rough upbringings
The two had at least one thing in common: rough upbringings.

King had been in foster care at a center for abused and neglected children since November, said Steve Elson, the facility's chief executive. Confidentiality laws prevented him from saying why.

McInerney's parents accused each other of domestic violence and filed dueling restraining orders, according to court records. Several months before McInerney was born, his father was accused of shooting his mother in the elbow. Kendra McInerney told a local paper she struggled with drug addiction for many years. The couple divorced in 2002.

Jay Smith, director of the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance, a gay rights organization, questioned whether teachers have enough training to deal with gay teens.

"Those of us being out remember being bullied and we don't want to see that happen to another kid," he said.

:csad: