NationStates Jolt Archive

The topic of gay marriage isn't -- well, shouldn't be -- a political issue. The president shouldn't have any more say in the gay marriage issue than I do, because it has nothing to do with the presidency. Gay marriage, whether you think it is right or wrong, should still be legal. The case against gay marriage is a religious one, it is that gay marriage wrong because it goes against the bible, against God. While that may be, I don't think the White House needs to tell us what is right by the bible. That's the church's job, and the church should have a say in whether they marry gay couples, not the government. People say that it should be illegal because it is unchristian -- well, sorry to break it to you, but in case you hadn't heard, there are quite a few people out there who, amazingly, don't believe in the same things that you do. That means that a large part of the population is (gasp!) not christian. I don't know of too many atheists who worry about whether what they are doing is OK with God, and they shouldn't have to, because religion is a choice. You say gay marriage isn't Christian, well neither are a lot of people. Even if I thought gay marriage was wrong, unholy, (which I don't) I would still believe that it should be legal.

Definitely agree. This country has far more important things to worry about than what people do with their own freaking lives.

Definitely agree. This country has far more important things to worry about than what people do with their own freaking lives.

Ditto!

I look at it this way...Reverse the situation...Lets say that a straight guy fell in love with a straight girl. All they want to do is get married. But all kinds of controversy is poping up and laws are trying to be made to make it to where they cant get married. Just because they are straight, they cant get married. Now you know the reality of this situation. They are just simple people who want to be married. The definiton of gay is happy, and I dont think that too many gays are happy.

No, it shouldn't. At the very least it shouldn't be an issue on a federal level. Marriage is a states rights issue and, if the government is going to be involved either way (which I personally believe it shouldn't be), then it should be at a state level. For the federal government to be debating it, one way or another, is pure and simple a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Although I don't follow the gay/happy thing (two different usages for the same word), I definitely agree. Gays have just as much of a right to marriage as anyone else. And really I don't care what the president has to say about it, it's not even a political problem! What does God and Christianity have to do with the presidency? When George joins the clergy maybe I'll listen to his religious views but until then, I think whether gays are married is the call of the church doing the marrying.

No, it shouldn't. That Federal Marriage Amendment thing was a shameful thing for those who call themselves Republicans to support.

Let's just throw that whole 'small government' thing right out the window...

nope! :cool:

Well, if it currently weren't a political issue, that would mean that nobody was talking about it, and therefore would remain illegal. This wouldn't be a good thing. However, ideally, I agree that it shouldn't be an issue, and that they should get legalizing it over with as quickly as possible.

They shouldn't have been supporting it OR proclaiming that they didn't support it, because no one in the government should have any more influence on gay marriage than me, you, your friends, etc. It-is-not-political-it-is-a-religious-thing.

Definitely agree. This country has far more important things to worry about than what people do with their own freaking lives.

Okay, well my own life, I want to own a lot of guns and a lot of ammunition. Don't worry, I'm trained in safety handling and I got a 100% on my safety test and I took over 12 hours of safety classes.

Does it bother you that I think I should be able to own an RPG-7, M-249 SAW, M-60, M-79, M-203, MP5, etc.

(Note you can legally own all of the items I just listed, but it's a pain to get the permit, takes 6 months and 200 dollars, but if you can afford a 20,000 machine gun, a one-time payable 200 dollar fee is nothing)


But I'd like to scrap the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act) and treat machine guns like any other gun.

I'm basically for repealing all gun regulations except a few (violent criminals, drug addicts, insane, domestic abuse, illegal aliens, drunks, etc, cannot own guns) And maybe set the rifle and shotgun purchase age to 16-17, and the handgun age to 18.


What I don't get is why you can join the army at 18 (17 with parental permission), you can drive a tank, carry a mortar, an M-16, but you cannot buy a beer or buy a pistol until 21.


Note the possession age for a pistol is 18, the purchase age is 21, so a parent can buy one and give it to the 19 year old son who wants it.

Also note there is a purchase age of 18 on all rifles and shotguns, but there is no possession age in most states.

I agree (Jello).

Does it bother you that I think I should be able to own an RPG-7, M-249 SAW, M-60, M-79, M-203, MP5, etc.
I don't see where a gay couple poses any potential threat whatsoever to the safety of their neighbors. It's your own marriage, but it's someone else's life if your guns go wrong.

I'm not saying you do or would, I'm just saying it's a bad analogy.

I'm not sure that was even an analogy, was it? He just wanted an excuse to talk about guns, it think.

Okay, well my own life, I want to own a lot of guns and a lot of ammunition. Don't worry, I'm trained in safety handling and I got a 100% on my safety test and I took over 12 hours of safety classes.

Does it bother you that I think I should be able to own an RPG-7, M-249 SAW, M-60, M-79, M-203, MP5, etc.

(Note you can legally own all of the items I just listed, but it's a pain to get the permit, takes 6 months and 200 dollars, but if you can afford a 20,000 machine gun, a one-time payable 200 dollar fee is nothing)


But I'd like to scrap the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act) and treat machine guns like any other gun.

I'm basically for repealing all gun regulations except a few (violent criminals, drug addicts, insane, domestic abuse, illegal aliens, drunks, etc, cannot own guns) And maybe set the rifle and shotgun purchase age to 16-17, and the handgun age to 18.


What I don't get is why you can join the army at 18 (17 with parental permission), you can drive a tank, carry a mortar, an M-16, but you cannot buy a beer or buy a pistol until 21.


Note the possession age for a pistol is 18, the purchase age is 21, so a parent can buy one and give it to the 19 year old son who wants it.

Also note there is a purchase age of 18 on all rifles and shotguns, but there is no possession age in most states.


This is all very interesting, but what does it have to do with same-sex marriage?

I don't see where a gay couple poses any potential threat whatsoever to the safety of their neighbors. It's your own marriage, but it's someone else's life if your guns go wrong.

I'm not saying you do or would, I'm just saying it's a bad analogy.


Gun safety: "Never load a gun until you are at the place you wish to shoot and you are aware of your surroundings and you are ready to shoot."

I wouldn't leave an armed RPG-7 sitting on the living room floor (maybe when the UN soldiers arrive at start marching down Pennsylvania avenue)

This is the way I look at it.. two consenting adults should have the right to marry, whether they are two men, two women or a man and a women. This is where I think people have a right to decide. If any church doesn't want to marry gay people, I also think that should be their right. There are judges and such that can marry people who don't wish to marry in the church. I do believe the church has the right to refuse to marry who they wish. That's where it ends. Gay people should have as much right to get married as any one else. It's their life and their decision. My husband and I didn't get married in a church, we did get a non-denomination minister to marry us and we asked that no religious text be used and we choose our own readings that weren't from the bible and she agreed to do it. So, I think that's fair. I'm straight and I didn't need to get married in a church.. and so that's how I see it.

Gun safety: "Never load a gun until you are at the place you wish to shoot and you are aware of your surroundings and you are ready to shoot."

I wouldn't leave an armed RPG-7 sitting on the living room floor (maybe when the UN soldiers arrive at start marching down Pennsylvania avenue)

I think that the implication is that a person who wishes to own a gun could potentially wish to own a gun for the purpose of shooting their neighbors.

I say that gays have the same right to lose half their stuff in a divorce as a straight person :D. I don't think this is a state or federal issue. I think this is going to be one of the things people are going to look back on and say "what the hell were we thinking." It is the same as the Cival Rights issue back in the 60s.

I think that the implication is that a person who wishes to own a gun could potentially wish to own a gun for the purpose of shooting their neighbors.


My neighbor may own the SUV for the implication of wishing to run me down!

Makes sense. One thing that bothers me is that people say it should be illegal because it is non-christian. Well, so are a lot of people!

I think that the implication is that a person who wishes to own a gun could potentially wish to own a gun for the purpose of shooting their neighbors.

How many knives are in your house? You could tuck some into a bag, get one in each hand, and go crazy!

(There are knife rampages in japan, one man killed 8 children in a school after he walked in with a 12 inch knife)

Hopefully he went off and got married to another man afterwards so you didn't just go completely off topic.

Oh yeah, and going crazy with knives is totally like a hobby of mine too.

I think that the implication is that a person who wishes to own a gun could potentially wish to own a gun for the purpose of shooting their neighbors.


If my nearest neighbor is 1-3 miles away, then can I own a gun.... Comrade Stalin!

Ask the experts, gun control works!

(Stalin, Mao, Castro, Qaddafi, Hussein, etc)

Oh yeah, and going crazy with knives is totally like a hobby of mine too.


Well I've never went crazy with a gun, except at a row of about 20 bottles that were really starting to tick me off!

I look at it this way...Reverse the situation...Lets say that a straight guy fell in love with a straight girl. All they want to do is get married. But all kinds of controversy is poping up and laws are trying to be made to make it to where they cant get married.

Is that typo intentional? ;)

The whole problem of gay rights is what lead me to devise the basic idea of homocratic government. Since we represent every social and political group, we're representative of the population, but if we're the whole electorate, no party can attempt to increase it's votes by acting for or against us. If the Democrats in the US or the Liberal Democrats in the UK were to come out in emphatic support of gay marriage, and not just civil unions, they'd get a lot of us on their side. That means 2-11% of the population given a good reason to vote for them. Equal rights should be a basic assumption.

I'm not going to comment on State vs federal, since I'm British and don't know shit about that. In Britain mostly everything is decided by Westminster, who are in favour of watered-down, cop-out civil unions.

My neighbor may own the SUV for the implication of wishing to run me down!

Yes, but people don't own SUVs for the sole purpose of killing.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of the United States is against gay marriage, most of michigan is ok with it i know...who is doing these polls?!

Actually, I just bought an SUV for just that.

Yes, but people don't own SUVs for the sole purpose of killing.

I don't own guns with the intention to kill.

I own them with the intention to save lives. The lives of my family and loved ones, and if need be, my neighbors who know I will help them.


I am sorry but my family means more to me than some messed up group of junkies with a knives breaking down the door at 3 am looking for money for a quick fix.

I don't own guns with the intention to kill.

I own them with the intention to save lives. The lives of my family and loved ones, and if need be, my neighbors who know I will help them.


I am sorry but my family means more to me than some messed up group of junkies with a knives breaking down the door at 3 am looking for money for a quick fix.

And you would kill them with your gun if you had to, right?

And you would kill them with your gun if you had to, right?


What if they had guns too?

What if they had guns too?

Then they would kill Communist Mississippi if they had to.

I am sorry but my family means more to me than some messed up group of junkies with a knives breaking down the door at 3 am looking for money for a quick fix.

You do know that those junkies are statistically more likely to kill you with the guns you have in your house than anything else? Are you aware that here, in Britain, the last time any school shooting occured was almost a decade ago, before we banned all hand guns? And what the fuck does this have to do with gay marriage, unless you're saying queers should owns guns to defend themselves from the religious right, in which case that might be a good idea.

I don't own guns with the intention to kill.

I own them with the intention to save lives. The lives of my family and loved ones, and if need be, my neighbors who know I will help them.


I am sorry but my family means more to me than some messed up group of junkies with a knives breaking down the door at 3 am looking for money for a quick fix.

So okay, what has this all to do with Gay marriage??
I'm totally against weapons, but for me it's easy to say. I live in Belgium and we don't have a government who scares the hell out of us (and neither we have a silly president who has the most off his brain drowned in the alcoholic lush of the past). Over here the gay people already can get maried by law, but not in church. The next step is adoption.

And you would kill them with your gun if you had to, right?


No, I'd let them brutally rape and torture my female family members, brutally slaughter the males, and then kill me.

What do you think!!!!!

Therefore you own your gun for the sole purpose of killing, whether it's killing for food, killing out of self-defense, or killing for spite, it's nonetheless killing.

No, I'd let them brutally rape and torture my female family members, brutally slaughter the males, and then kill me.

What do you think!!!!!


I dunno, I'd subdue them that call the police myself

You do know that those junkies are statistically more likely to kill you with the guns you have in your house than anything else?


Liberal lie conducted on a study based on 1 town, 1 town, 1 town. Just one!

They went to some town that had very bad luck.

I keep all my guns in my safe, except the one I sleep with, and nobody moves in my house without waking me up.

Anyway, I'll take my chances and defend myself rather than "Throwing myself at the mercy of the junkie"

I also know one of your worst school shootings was done by a pedophile. Maybe you outlaw being a pedophile, oh wait it already is outlawed. Could it be criminals don't obey the law.


--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

I dunno, I'd subdue them that call the police myself


What if you're an old lady who lives on her own?

Your solution doesn't work for everybody.


What if there are 3 of them and they're built like Arnie of "Callie-Forna"

Liberal lie conducted on a study based on 1 town, 1 town, 1 town. Just one!

They went to some town that had very bad luck.

I keep all my guns in my safe, except the one I sleep with, and nobody moves in my house without waking me up.

Anyway, I'll take my chances and defend myself rather than "Throwing myself at the mercy of the junkie"

I also know one of your worst school shootings was done by a pedophile. Maybe you outlaw being a pedophile, oh wait it already is outlawed. Could it be criminals don't obey the law.


--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.


I actually have little to comment on, other then...you sleep with a gun?

Kinky...

What if you're an old lady who lives on her own?

Your solution doesn't work for everybody.


What if there are 3 of them and they're built like Arnie of "Callie-Forna"

Leg shots :p

Therefore you own your gun for the sole purpose of killing, whether it's killing for food, killing out of self-defense, or killing for spite, it's nonetheless killing.


My primary reason for firearms ownership is for peace of mind, target shooting, and as a tool to stop government tyranny should it become necessary to flock to the hills to join a rightist guerilla band against a tyrannical leftwing style government.

I actually have little to comment on, other then...you sleep with a gun?

Kinky...


I vary which one I sleep with, sometimes it's a Glock pistol, other times an Ar-15 rifle.

I've fallen asleep with my hip holster still on.

Leg shots :p


Doesn't always work, it's easier to hit the body mass than the legs, larger target. Also leg shots don't stop them. I've heard stories of people with 8 shots in the chest even and still moving forward.

2 to the body, 1 to the head.

Doesn't always work, it's easier to hit the body mass than the legs, larger target. Also leg shots don't stop them. I've heard stories of people with 8 shots in the chest even and still moving forward.

2 to the body, 1 to the head.

8 shots to the chest?

I'm working on the assumption that PCP isn't involved :p

8 shots to the chest?

I'm working on the assumption that PCP isn't involved :p


Well if PCP wasn't involved, it wouldn't take more than 1 shot.


I remember once around here when it took 4 male police and hospital security, 2 male nurses, 3 female nurses, and 1 ER doctor, to restrain a 17 year old girl high on PCP.

Well if PCP wasn't involved, it wouldn't take more than 1 shot.


I remember once around here when it took 4 male police and hospital security, 2 male nurses, 3 female nurses, and 1 ER doctor, to restrain a 17 year old girl high on PCP.

Wow. I skipped to the 4th page expecting a flame war about gay marriage, and instead you guys are talking about the best way of shooting to incapacitate. How messed up is that?

Wow. I skipped to the 4th page expecting a flame war about gay marriage, and instead you guys are talking about the best way of shooting to incapacitate. How messed up is that?

LOL

Honestly, at least people can learn something from this discussion. In most gay marrige flame wars, it becomes "God says so/slippery slope/other retarded argument!"

"You're wrong because blahblah!"

"...You're going to hell!"

LOL

Honestly, at least people can learn something from this discussion. In most gay marrige flame wars, it becomes "God says so/slippery slope/other retarded argument!"

"You're wrong because blahblah!"

"...You're going to hell!"

Yeah, you're teaching them how to escape after they've robbed a bank.

Well I am tired now, I'm going to sleep. I think I'll keep my holster on, it's a blackhawk tactical hip holster.

http://www.blackhawkindustries.com/product_detail.asp?product_id=1937&d=

I think the problem is that Bush has been screwing us for four years and now he just doesn't want to make an honest country out of us.

(I just wanted to be involved and I know very little about guns other than I don't much like them.)

Therefore you own your gun for the sole purpose of killing, whether it's killing for food, killing out of self-defense, or killing for spite, it's nonetheless killing.
Someone seems a bit against gun ownership. He never said he'd kill them the moment they set foot on his doorstep, much less inside his house. Ever hear of a non-fatal gunshot? Judging by the way you're talking about this, methinks not. Hell, as soon as I'm old enough(I'm 19 now), I'm getting one because you never know when you might need it.

Back on topic!! Or at least the initial topic. I'm a firm believer that being gay is not something that occurs naturally, i.e. being born gay, its a decision one makes at some point in his or her life. I also believe that gay people will go to hell, (gee whiz, have you guessed I'm religious yet? :D ) unless *yadayadayadayoudon'tcarethisisreligioustalkthatobviouslyisabunchofbullshit butyou'vealreadydiscreditedmypointofviewbecauseI'mantigayreligiousnot liberalenoughetcetcclosedmindedjerk* but I don't think gay marriage is a bad thing. Legally, that is. If two people want to marry, so be it. Let them do so. Give them the same legal rights as straight couples. Im also with Muordoa on the issue of Churches deciding who they marry and who they don't.

I also believe that gay people will go to hell, (gee whiz, have you guessed I'm religious yet? :D )

Wow, I love how you condemn someone to hell for a completely arbitrary reason and end it with a smiley.

Someone seems a bit against gun ownership. He never said he'd kill them the moment they set foot on his doorstep, much less inside his house. Ever hear of a non-fatal gunshot? Judging by the way you're talking about this, methinks not. Hell, as soon as I'm old enough(I'm 19 now), I'm getting one because you never know when you might need it.

Back on topic!! Or at least the initial topic. I'm a firm believer that being gay is not something that occurs naturally, i.e. being born gay, its a decision one makes at some point in his or her life. I also believe that gay people will go to hell, (gee whiz, have you guessed I'm religious yet? :D ) unless *yadayadayadayoudon'tcarethisisreligioustalkthatobviouslyisabunchofbullshit butyou'vealreadydiscreditedmypointofviewbecauseI'mantigayreligiousnot liberalenoughetcetcclosedmindedjerk* but I don't think gay marriage is a bad thing. Legally, that is. If two people want to marry, so be it. Let them do so. Give them the same legal rights as straight couples. Im also with Muordoa on the issue of Churches deciding who they marry and who they don't.


**jumps up with mouth open, ready to refute**

**re-reads post**

...but...awwwww...

**sits back down sullenly**

I'm against gay marriage but it's not really for the whole idea that marriage is sacred and holy, marriage TODAY is a sham, 60% end in divorce, adultery is commonplace. Notice I say today, decades ago it really meant something.

The only thing that marriage does is give the semblance of normality and acceptance to a couple. If gays are allowed to marry, soon they'll be accepted as normal, that is what scares me. Society will eventually forget that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong.

Marriage is just a concept, it's worth what you make it. There is little more we can do today to make marriage worse than it is. But allowing gay marriage just might do that.

Wow, I love how you condemn someone to hell for a completely arbitrary reason and end it with a smiley.
lol...and a big smiley at that

The only thing that marriage does is give the semblance of normality and acceptance to a couple. If gays are allowed to marry, soon they'll be accepted as normal, that is what scares me.
OMG no!! Then hate crimes against them might stop and stuff, that would be awful! :rolleyes:
edit: if anything, that's a reason FOR gay marriages

I'm against gay marriage but it's not really for the whole idea that marriage is sacred and holy, marriage TODAY is a sham, 60% end in divorce, adultery is commonplace. Notice I say today, decades ago it really meant something.

The only thing that marriage does is give the semblance of normality and acceptance to a couple. If gays are allowed to marry, soon they'll be accepted as normal, that is what scares me. Society will eventually forget that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong.

Marriage is just a concept, it's worth what you make it. There is little more we can do today to make marriage worse than it is. But allowing gay marriage just might do that.


What's unnatural and/or wrong about it?


Yeah, I just opened the flood gates :p

What's unnatural and/or wrong about it?


Yeah, I just opened the flood gates :p

I'm just being honest, most people that are against it could care less that they're getting married, it's just a matter of them becoming accepted as normal.

Someone seems a bit against gun ownership. He never said he'd kill them the moment they set foot on his doorstep, much less inside his house. Ever hear of a non-fatal gunshot? Judging by the way you're talking about this, methinks not. Hell, as soon as I'm old enough(I'm 19 now), I'm getting one because you never know when you might need it.

Back on topic!! Or at least the initial topic. I'm a firm believer that being gay is not something that occurs naturally, i.e. being born gay, its a decision one makes at some point in his or her life. I also believe that gay people will go to hell, (gee whiz, have you guessed I'm religious yet? :D ) unless *yadayadayadayoudon'tcarethisisreligioustalkthatobviouslyisabunchofbullshit butyou'vealreadydiscreditedmypointofviewbecauseI'mantigayreligiousnot liberalenoughetcetcclosedmindedjerk* but I don't think gay marriage is a bad thing. Legally, that is. If two people want to marry, so be it. Let them do so. Give them the same legal rights as straight couples. Im also with Muordoa on the issue of Churches deciding who they marry and who they don't.

Actually, I'm not against gun ownership, but I do feel that the purpose of owning a gun is to kill. Communist Mississippi himself said that leg shots are difficult, so no one would own a gun expecting to be able to always incapacitate someone.

Anyway, back on topic, while I disagree with you about being "born gay" I think that it is a very intelligent opinion to have. At least you're not a religious supremacist.

I'm just being honest, most people that are against it could care less that they're getting married, it's just a matter of them becoming accepted as normal.

Perhaps homosexuality should be accepted as normal because it is?

No, what I meant was, what's so unnatural/wrong about homosexuality?

I mean, oh no, two guys like each other. Or two girls. How can two consenting adults do such a thing?

Actually, I'm not against gun ownership, but I do feel that the purpose of owning a gun is to kill. Communist Mississippi himself said that leg shots are difficult, so no one would own a gun expecting to be able to always incapacitate someone.




Often times the mere presence of an armed homeowner will send the crook scurrying.


If you break into my house and you hear me slam the slide back on an Ar-15 rifle or pump a 12 gauge shotgun, you're going to run like hell!

Wow, I love how you condemn someone to hell for a completely arbitrary reason and end it with a smiley.
I hardly consider my religious beliefs arbitrary.

What's unnatural and/or wrong about it?
What's unnatural about it? How often do you see gay dogs? Gay cats? Gay crocodiles? Gay pigeons? Need I continue? Or are humans no longer in the animal kingdom? I could bring reproduction into the mix, but I'll leave that be for now.

Whats wrong about it? Refer to said beliefs. Being religious, of course I don't think the concept of gay is right. Thinking scientifically, too, it is still illogical.

Perhaps homosexuality should be accepted as normal because it is?


Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



How can it be normal? Sex is supposed to result in procreation.

What's unnatural about it? How often do you see gay dogs? Gay cats? Gay crocodiles? Gay pigeons? Need I continue? Or are humans no longer in the animal kingdom?

Whats wrong about it? Refer to said beliefs.
someone hasn't been around here long
I don't know all the homosexual animals...it's like over 200
but...bonobos, dolphins, emperor penguins, and many others display homosexual tendencies...someone else surely knows better than I do, I've just heard it ten million times

And for all of you who wants to live by the bible, remember that in that same bible:
-women only are good enough to have children and do what there husbands tell them,
- A thief should be cut off his hands
- A woman who sleeps with another man should be stoned to dead
And so further on.

someone hasn't been around here long
I don't know all the homosexual animals...it's like over 200
but...bonobos, dolphins, emperor penguins, and many others display homosexual tendencies...someone else surely knows better than I do, I've just heard it ten million times
Link me.

And for all of you who wants to live by the bible, remember that in that same bible:
-women only are good enough to have children and do what there husbands tell them,
- A thief should be cut off his hands
- A woman who sleeps with another man should be stoned to dead
And so further on.
Gay marriage, gun control, now religion. Quite the thread this is turning out to be. :rolleyes:
Also, remember that that Bible you're talking about, that just about everyone (Christians, duh) uses now is just a translation by biased monks and clerics under King James.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



How can it be normal? Sex is supposed to result in procreation.
my belief system: If a man wants to sleep with another man, it's all groovy as long as everyone is a consenting adult

How can it be normal? Because sex is supposed to be fun

Besides, this isn't about their sex
it's about their marriage
which is supposed to result in what?

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



How can it be normal? Sex is supposed to result in procreation.

A homosexual wouldn't lie with a man as they would with a woman. You could use that quote to argue against bisexuals, but that's about it.
And if sex is supposed to result in procreation, I guess oral sex is abnormal, too, eh? (Not to mention all of the heterosexuals that engage in anal sex.)

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



How can it be normal? Sex is supposed to result in procreation.


Well fuck, there goes all my forms of birth control.

I suppose barren/old/people who've been fixed or whatever can never have sex?

And I guess all kinkiness is gone as well. Sorry rapper, but buttsex isn't allowed.

I can't have oral now, either, can I?


Oh, and I'm not even going to get started on Leviticus. I pray you arn't wearing something of two materials, 'cause if so...well, I'll be seeing you in hell.

Link me.
to a thread or to an actual website?
...lemme find one...

Don't forget this. If we took care of a few of the weirdo kids, we'd have less school shootings because the youth would have respect!


Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Link me.


Here's one.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693965406.html?oneclick=true

to a thread or to an actual website?
...lemme find one...
Preferable something more credible than a thread on a gaming board. ;)

Well fuck, there goes all my forms of birth control.

I suppose barren/old/people who've been fixed or whatever can never have sex?

And I guess all kinkiness is gone as well. Sorry rapper, but buttsex isn't allowed.

I can't have oral now, either, can I?


Oh, and I'm not even going to get started on Leviticus. I pray you arn't wearing something of two materials, 'cause if so...well, I'll be seeing you in hell.


My fabric is all 100% of one material or the other. It is 100% cotton usually.

Don't forget this. If we took care of a few of the weirdo kids, we'd have less school shootings because the youth would have respect!


Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Earlier in the thread you stated that you disliked tyrannical governments. Or did you only mean left-wing tyranny, that right-wing tyranny was okay?

A homosexual wouldn't lie with a man as they would with a woman. You could use that quote to argue against bisexuals, but that's about it.
And if sex is supposed to result in procreation, I guess oral sex is abnormal, too, eh? (Not to mention all of the heterosexuals that engage in anal sex.)



The church has maintained the only acceptable sexual practice is heterosexual sexual intercourse with the man on top. Anything else is an abomination.

...Holy shit, I hope you're joking. Being stoned to death for being uppity to your parents?

I'd be so dead.


Of course, we all know that parents are always right, never wrong, and never cause strife. In fact, as long as a man and a woman are married together, they will ALWAYS raise their child the correct way and never, ever be illogical or give them reason to show disrespect.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Homosexuality+in+animals
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main
and just found this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Or did you only mean left-wing tyranny, that right-wing tyranny was okay?

Exactly!

But note I consider Bush a left-winger. (He's part of the masons, the Internationalist types, and the New World Order elitists)

The church has maintained the only acceptable sexual practice is heterosexual sexual intercourse with the man on top. Anything else is an abomination.


Out of curiosity, why is it so important that the man is on top?

'Cause, and I'm no expert on the matter, but wouldn't it be nicer for the girl to be on top? That way she goes by her own thing and what not. And, since guys get, you know, a whole friggin ONE orgasm (sorry, some manage two :p), I would think it slightly important that she gets the pleasure that she can out of it :p

Or is liking sex a no-no?

The church has maintained the only acceptable sexual practice is heterosexual sexual intercourse with the man on top. Anything else is an abomination.

Why would someone base laws upon what the church says? This isn't a theocracy. Furthermore, to follow that code of sexuality would be abnormal in today's society.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important that the man is on top?

'Cause, and I'm no expert on the matter, but wouldn't it be nicer for the girl to be on top? That way she goes by her own thing and what not. And, since guys get, you know, a whole friggin ONE orgasm (sorry, some manage two :p), I would think it slightly important that she gets the pleasure that she can out of it :p

Or is liking sex a no-no?


If women or---- during sex, it means they're possessed by demons.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important that the man is on top?

'Cause, and I'm no expert on the matter, but wouldn't it be nicer for the girl to be on top? That way she goes by her own thing and what not. And, since guys get, you know, a whole friggin ONE orgasm (sorry, some manage two :p), I would think it slightly important that she gets the pleasure that she can out of it :p

Or is liking sex a no-no?
female orgasm increases fertility....or something
it's more likely she gets pregnant if she gets off

If women or---- during sex, it means they're possessed by demons.


.....now I KNOW you're just fucking around :p

Exactly!

But note I consider Bush a left-winger. (He's part of the masons, the Internationalist types, and the New World Order elitists)

What if the church decided that owning guns was a bad thing?

This isn't a theocracy..


Yet

If women or---- during sex, it means they're possessed by demons.
lol
so THAT'S what that is

(heh...looks like i'm posting too fast....uh oh)

What if the church decided that owning guns was a bad thing?


I'd turn my guns in...























Bullets first!

Being gay myself i'm always on the bottom, but in the past when i was trying out the girlies, i preferred they were on top.

You would, then? What if the church decided that homosexual sex was the only acceptable form of sex? Would you then change your sexual habits?

.....now I KNOW you're just fucking around :p


Yeah, that was a joke. Just because women or----, doesn't mean they're evil. Maybe they're nymphomaniacs and need to be cured.


How do you cure a nympho? You have to ride her hard about her problem and don't let her be in denial about it.

That was the one sexual joke that you'll be hearing from me for probably a few months.

You would, then? What if the church decided that homosexual sex was the only acceptable form of sex? Would you then change your sexual habits?


No, I'd change my church.

so if a girl is more likely to become impregnated if she orgasms, and the point of sex is to become pregnant...shouldn't you encourage female orgasm?

anyway, are you one of those folks who thinks that a girl shouldn't waste any of her eggs?
I have met a few people that try to argue that

(oh good, that was a joke, I suspected but wasn't sure)

Are the boards bleeping out orgasm, or is that just selective bleeping by the poster?

so if a girl is more likely to become impregnated if she or-----, and the point of sex is to become pregnant...shouldn't you encourage female or----?

anyway, are you one of those folks who thinks that a girl shouldn't waste any of her eggs?
I have met a few people that try to argue that


I suppose if a woman does have a greater chance of conceiving if she or-----, then it stands to reason she should be brought to or---- during sex.

Just out of curiousity how many diffrent churches are there in the U.S.A.
I think they lost the count.

Are the boards bleeping out orgasm, or is that just selective bleeping by the poster?


That's just me being what some might call a "prude".

No, I'd change my church.

Then clearly your religion isn't all that important to you.

Then clearly your religion isn't all that important to you.
no, I think that's legitimate
he cares about the issues more than the church

if they advocate homosexual-only sex, then they aren't adhering to the bible anymore

Then clearly your religion isn't all that important to you.


Well I never really agreed with the idea of organized religion these days, too corrupt and politicized in the wrong areas, and not political enough in the right areas.

As long as I have my bible, my home can be my church.


The bible is the ultimate authority on religious matters anyway.

Well, its late. My final word- I still believe homosexuality to be wrong, I dont give a flying fuck what you think of me for thinking that, because you are nothing but text on a screen. I don't look at gay people too much differently than I do straight people, so what's the big deal anyway? Nine times out of ten, an argument over an issue of this magnitude will not change either party's beliefs, so it's pointless to continue.


But I am getting tired of gay people getting so much special treatment in the media. It's like they think that anything "new" (lets face it, homosexuality is relatively new as far as tv and such go) should be immediately accepted, and anyone who disagrees is ridiculed for his or her beliefs, making it all quite hypocritic if you ask me.

Gay marriage should be banned. Even the thought of two people of the same sex getting married and having sex makes me feel sick. Gay marriage should be banned, gay sex should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty

Gay marriage should be banned. Even the thought of two people of the same sex getting married and having sex makes me feel sick. Gay marriage should be banned, gay sex should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty


Leviticus 20:13

Well I never really agreed with the idea of organized religion these days, too corrupt and politicized in the wrong areas, and not political enough in the right areas.

As long as I have my bible, my home can be my church.


The bible is the ultimate authority on religious matters anyway.

I suppose that that is true, of course there are many many many different interpretations of the bible. How do you know yours is the right one?

what? im not religious

How do you know yours is the right one?

Works for me, that's how I know. :D

Even the thought of two people of the same sex getting married and having sex makes me feel sick.
Sorry, I agree with you on that point but thats it. What harm will they do you if two men/women practice horizontal disco?

Gay marriage should be banned. Even the thought of two people of the same sex getting married and having sex makes me feel sick. Gay marriage should be banned, gay sex should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty

The idea of people having your opinion and stating it makes me sick. Your opinion should be banned, stating it should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty.
See how absurd that whole idea is?

Ya know, as much as it's supposed to be a comedy, I think the movie 'Dogma' makes some very good points.

Works for me, that's how I know. :D

Well, it's good that people are capable of finding their own religions. But why should laws be based upon your religion?

The idea of people having your opinion and stating it makes me sick. Your opinion should be banned, stating it should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty.
See how absurd that whole idea is?
DOWN WITH OPINIONS!!!!

Ya know, as much as it's supposed to be a comedy, I think the movie 'Dogma' makes some very good points.

Such as?

what? im not religious
lol...if you were religious at least you'd have an excuse

Ya know, as much as it's supposed to be a comedy, I think the movie 'Dogma' makes some very good points.

That was a good movie, wasn't it?

The idea of people having your opinion and stating it makes me sick. Your opinion should be banned, stating it should be made illegal and punishable with the death penalty.
See how absurd that whole idea is?

you must be gay to think that

Ya know, as much as it's supposed to be a comedy, I think the movie 'Dogma' makes some very good points.
yes it does, that's why he made it...to make a point comedically :cool:

Well, it's good that people are capable of finding their own religions. But why should laws be based upon your religion?


Because I believe if it works for me, it should work for everybody. And if I can gain enough followers, then we'll see it happen. If not, well then maybe I can plea "attempting to overthrow the government" down to, "Incitement to riot."

Hey all I have to do is be a CEO who's friends with Ashcroft, then I could loot my own worker's pension fund and never get charged.

Such as?
Most of the stuff Chris Rock's character said. Too tired to quote it right now.

you must be gay to think that

Nah, I'm not gay, and I don't think you should be allowed to have an opinion either. I think alot of people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.

Nah, I'm not gay, and I don't think you should be allowed to have an opinion either. I think alot of people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.
Like you? Yeah. Sounds good. No opinion por j00.

Nah, I'm not gay, and I don't think you should be allowed to have an opinion either. I think alot of people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.
ditto

actually, I am for letting people have opinions
even if their opinion is wrong

Because I believe if it works for me, it should work for everybody. And if I can gain enough followers, then we'll see it happen. If not, well then maybe I can plea "attempting to overthrow the government" down to, "Incitement to riot."

Hey all I have to do is be a CEO who's friends with Ashcroft, then I could loot my own worker's pension fund and never get charged.

Lol. Good luck.

Like you? Yeah. Sounds good. No opinion por j00.

Hey, I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. You're still allowed to have one.

Hey, I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. You're still allowed to have one.
well his opinion seems to be that you can't have one

good thing it's just an opinion, eh

(I'm very close to 1000 posts, how exciting)

well his opinion seems to be that you can't have one

good thing it's just an opinion, eh

(I'm very close to 1000 posts, how exciting)

Well, as you may or may not know, I am God, so I am the law when it comes to these things.

Because I believe if it works for me, it should work for everybody.

Being gay works for me, but some people have this crazy idea it wouldn't work for everybody.

I think that hetrosexuality is wrong and unnatural. It should be banned.


Oh and anyone saying "Dogs aren't gay" or whatever, yes they are. One of my sister's friends has a dog that does it with other male dogs and my two rabbits were both male and humped each other ALL THE TIME.

Also is it just me or do the Religious Right have the dumbest signs?
I saw one that said "CAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE PRODUCE THIS:" with lots of pictures of babies. Well yes. Artificial insemination, turkey basting and even for gay couples advanced surrogacy mean same sex couples can yeild offspring.

Oh and also some said "SODOMY IS A SIN THAT JESUS CAN FORGIVE".
Can and will dumbarse, if the gays pray for forgivness to God or Jesus whether they mention bum sex or not they will be forgiven. Also what about lesbians and gays that do not sodomise? Are the RR less concerned about their convertion?

Also is it just me or do the Religious Right have the dumbest signs?
I saw one that said "CAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE PRODUCE THIS:" with lots of pictures of babies. Well yes. Artificial insemination, turkey basting and even for gay couples advanced surrogacy mean same sex couples can yeild offspring.

Oh and also some said "SODOMY IS A SIN THAT JESUS CAN FORGIVE".
Can and will dumbarse, if the gays pray for forgivness to God or Jesus whether they mention bum sex or not they will be forgiven. Also what about lesbians and gays that do not sodomise? Are the RR less concerned about their convertion?

I want to talk to one of those guys, the ones that hold the "sodomy is a sin that jesus can forgive" signs. I want to ask for forgiveness. And I will be as blunt as possible about it. I will go into full detail of having butt sex xD

I want to talk to one of those guys, the ones that hold the "sodomy is a sin that jesus can forgive" signs. I want to ask for forgiveness. And I will be as blunt as possible about it. I will go into full detail of having butt sex xD


According to some studies those dumb homophobes are actualy more responsive to gay porn that normal strait people who are not stupidly bigoted. Maybe you would turn them on...

According to some studies those dumb homophobes are actualy more responsive to gay porn that normal strait people who are not stupidly bigoted. Maybe you would turn them on...

Oh, maybe I could ask them to teach me MORE about Jesus, in their house or something...when they're alone...

...and I'll bring a camera and a tazer! Mwa!

There response would probably be "AHHH! I'M NOT GAY! GAY! GAY, WHO SAID GAY! AHHH!!! LEVITICUS!!!" or something...

There response would probably be "AHHH! I'M NOT GAY! GAY! GAY, WHO SAID GAY! AHHH!!! LEVITICUS!!!" or something...
I imagine they'd punch you
living in new orleans, I've seen some of those crazy sign holders

except, their signs say "God hates fucking queers and he'll grind up your body and burn it to ashes in hell- Leviticus 7:14"

(note I made those numbers up, and I don't care if they're totally incorrect- the point is that I don't think the bible says that quote ANYWHERE in it)

If God hates fucking queers, why does just not do it? I think He's taking his all-loving title too literally.

All rise for an announcement by The Most Magnanimous and Honourable King-like Leader Guy of the The Unpropitious Intractable Tor of Swan-Upping, of the corkage-free region of desolate-wonderlands; Trouser Experience.

"Lesbians, cool."

You may be seated The Most Magnanimous and Honourable King-like Leader Guy of the The Unpropitious Intractable Tor of Swan-Upping, of the corkage-free region of desolate-wonderlands; Trouser Experience, has left.

I imagine they'd punch you
living in new orleans, I've seen some of those crazy sign holders

except, their signs say "God hates fucking queers and he'll grind up your body and burn it to ashes in hell- Leviticus 7:14"

(note I made those numbers up, and I don't care if they're totally incorrect- the point is that I don't think the bible says that quote ANYWHERE in it)

I shall endevour to make this quote I found on a far right website as accurate to what the bigoted fool actualy said as I can but I am relying only on memory:

I think that every married man occassionaly feels like sex with another man would be better but I know that it is wrong. Will I protesting this weekend against the foul gay marraiges? Why yes I will as I like the feel of a nice hard piece of placard sign wood inbetween my hands and it reminds me that alot of gay scum would like to put something else in there...

I mean seriously, I have seen some creepy far left stuff but that...Ugh, alot of anti-gay dudes are totally fucked.

Also is it just me or do the Religious Right have the dumbest signs?
I saw one that said "CAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE PRODUCE THIS:" with lots of pictures of babies. Well yes. Artificial insemination, turkey basting and even for gay couples advanced surrogacy mean same sex couples can yeild offspring.

Oh and also some said "SODOMY IS A SIN THAT JESUS CAN FORGIVE".
Can and will dumbarse, if the gays pray for forgivness to God or Jesus whether they mention bum sex or not they will be forgiven. Also what about lesbians and gays that do not sodomise? Are the RR less concerned about their convertion?


Christ will only forgive it if you make an honest attempt to stop.

You can't expect to get forgiveness for past adultery while you're screwing the next person, screaming, "Oh God! Forgive me!"

Same thing with the homosexuals, they need to stop their sinful and destructive behavior.

since there are laws against gay marriage, it has to be a political issue if the laws are to ever be changed

as to whether or not it should be part of PRESIDENTIAL politics....
i find it disturbing that a republican should be so careless of STATES RIGHTS as to propose a contitutional ammendment about something that is clearly a states issue.

it doesnt belong on the national scale, it should be decided the same way interracial marriage was decided. we didnt need a constitutional ammendment to fix that.

I think this thread is asking the wrong question all together. Gay Marriage should be a political issue yes, the real question is, should it be such as high a priority issue as it has been? In which case the answer is no, we have far more important things to deal with in the country than gay marriage IMO.

Full faith and credit means homosexual marriage is not and can not be left as a state's rights issue, because one state can force it on the other 49.

Full faith and credit means homosexual marriage is not and can not be left as a state's rights issue, because one state can force it on the other 49.


Your right, we should just make it legal for everyone :p

I agree that it shouldn't be a federal issue. If you want to argue religion, remember this: The first definition of marriage was two people (regardless of gender) agree to build a house.

Once more, it is possible to be married by someone who isn't involved in the clergy.

If this has already been stated, sorry and ignore this.

i'm of the personal opinion that marriage is a social institution and should not be a legal institution at all.

Since gay marriage is against the law, marrying someone of the same sex is a criminal offense, so gay people CAN get married, they just go on probation afterwards and the minister gets his liscence suspended :)

And for all of you people that may take this post seriously, I was just joking.

Full faith and credit means homosexual marriage is not and can not be left as a state's rights issue, because one state can force it on the other 49.

No more so than Nevada is currently forcing quickie marriages on the other 49 states. It is a states rights issue because the federal government has no jurisdiction over it and no mandate to involve itself in it.

The argument cuts both ways. A state that legally decides to recognize same-sex marriage should not be forced by another state that doesn't recognize it to conform.

Indeed, there is no good solution, but kicking this issue up the chain of government is the worst of all possible solutions because it tacitly says that the government is controlled by religion and will base it's policies on religious tenants that not all religious institutions agree with.

I would just like to point out something.

On Michael Badnarik's campaign site, he has a banner.

http://badnarik.org/swf/politicians.gif

I would now like to say:
Vote Libertarian.

Should people really get all these added legal benefits just because they’ve been declared certified allocated mating partners anyways?

At least comment on the topic WITH your spam if you absolutely HAVE to spam.

At least comment on the topic WITH your spam if you absolutely HAVE to spam.
hm dunno if you were directing that to me... ill just reply as if you were.

the banner says that he will let YOU run your own life. I think the topic of gay marriage fall under the range of "your life".
If you elect him, he wont waste time on trying to dictate your life.

I'd say, just let them, love is the strongest human emotion.. don't see why some people should be denied it..!

bump

Why doesn't the government just butt out of marriage altogether. It is, after all, between two people and God. Let the Church decide who it will marry.

Obviously, the state gives advantages to married couples, so this practice should stop. If two people want the advantages of being married, they should sign a civil partnership - whatever their sex. Then the people can elect a government who say "lets allow two men to be in a civil partnership" or "lets not, they are gay".

The church can marry who they want, because thats got nothing to do with the government. Then homo-phobic, straight, religeous people can be happy "I don't recognise that church... its the devil", gays can be happy "yay, we're married", the government can do what it was elected to do (see above), and all the arguments will end.

Why doesn't the government just butt out of marriage altogether. It is, after all, between two people and God. Let the Church decide who it will marry.

Obviously, the state gives advantages to married couples, so this practice should stop. If two people want the advantages of being married, they should sign a civil partnership - whatever their sex. Then the people can elect a government who say "lets allow two men to be in a civil partnership" or "lets not, they are gay".

The church can marry who they want, because thats got nothing to do with the government. Then homo-phobic, straight, religeous people can be happy "I don't recognise that church... its the devil", gays can be happy "yay, we're married", the government can do what it was elected to do (see above), and all the arguments will end.
Well you see it’s not just between two people and god. In general it’s between two people and legal benefits that come with being certified. Anything else is an extra. Me I don’t believe that people should get any added legal bonuses, and I personally don’t even believe in marriage for quite a few reasons. One of which is all the legal crap involved.

Well you see it’s not just between two people and god. In general it’s between two people and legal benefits that come with being certified. Anything else is an extra. Me I don’t believe that people should get any added legal bonuses, and I personally don’t even believe in marriage for quite a few reasons. One of which is all the legal crap involved.

If you read the post (North Fields is a puppet of mine), you would have noticed that I suggest that marriage should have no government recognition. In the metod I suggest, if you want tax-breaks, legal recognition etc you have to sign a civil partnership agreement. You can get married, but to the government it will mean zip. If you want a tax break, sign a civil partnership. You can get married and sign a civil partership, or one and not the other, because in the method I am suggesting the government has completely butted out.

I suppose if a woman does have a greater chance of conceiving if she or-----, then it stands to reason she should be brought to or---- during sex.


orgasm in females has nothing to do with fertilization and does not affect the chances of conception whatsoever. it is purely about enjoyment (and pain relief... release of endorphines.) which is why so many men who wrote interpretations of scripture decided that anything that might cause pleasure in the female is anathema even though that goes directly against part of the scripture (song of solomon) which even talks about oral sex as being an acceptable and beautiful thing.

Should people really get all these added legal benefits just because they’ve been declared certified allocated mating partners anyways?

exactly what i say. marriage is a social institution.. it should not be a legal one.

No more so than Nevada is currently forcing quickie marriages on the other 49 states. It is a states rights issue because the federal government has no jurisdiction over it and no mandate to involve itself in it.

The argument cuts both ways. A state that legally decides to recognize same-sex marriage should not be forced by another state that doesn't recognize it to conform.

Indeed, there is no good solution, but kicking this issue up the chain of government is the worst of all possible solutions because it tacitly says that the government is controlled by religion and will base it's policies on religious tenants that not all religious institutions agree with.

Technically it can become a federal issue because marriage is part of the Tax Code.

orgasm in females has nothing to do with fertilization and does not affect the chances of conception whatsoever. it is purely about enjoyment (and pain relief... release of endorphines.) which is why so many men who wrote interpretations of scripture decided that anything that might cause pleasure in the female is anathema even though that goes directly against part of the scripture (song of solomon) which even talks about oral sex as being an acceptable and beautiful thing.
http://www.ivillagehealth.com/experts/fertility/qas/0,,166253_171746-2,00.html
"Orgasm can certainly play a role in conception. During orgasm, vaginal and uterine contractions help the sperm move into the fallopian tubes, where fertilization takes place. In fact, studies show that when the women achieves climax before the man does, fertility may be slightly increased due to enhanced sperm movement in the woman's genital tract."

http://conception.lifetips.com/
"8. Orgasm
Orgasm helps to increase the chances of conception. Orgasm increases the blood-flow to the reproductive organs helping them to function better. Orgasm also helps the cervix to "suck" up sperm in the vagina, thus helping the sperm to reach the awaiting egg.
*Note: Conception is possible without female orgasm - it just increases the chances of conception occuring. "

http://www.reallifesolutions.co.uk/FORHERfertilityFAQ.htm
"Can orgasm affect your ability to conceive?
Generally speaking, probably not. But interestingly enough, female orgasms usually increase the quantity and flow of the natural alkaline secretions that occur around ovulation. An alkaline environment is preferred by male sperm. And the orgasmic contractions may help transport sperm into the cervix, where cervical crypts produce fertile quality cervical fluid. In the end, though, female orgasm is helpful, but by no means critical."


sorry, I know this is off topic kinda, but...YAAAY for the female orgasm!

Since gay marriage is against the law, marrying someone of the same sex is a criminal offense, so gay people CAN get married, they just go on probation afterwards and the minister gets his liscence suspended :)

And for all of you people that may take this post seriously, I was just joking.
wellll now, its not all that much of a joke.
the county clerk of sandoval county new mexico was issuing same sex marriage licenses. it was her opinion that the law doesnt specify one man/one woman in new mexico.
she was threatened with legal sanctions if she didnt stop.