NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States of America... the land of the free... but only if you are heterosexual, rich, white, christian, republican, supporting US imperialism.

Land of the free... my ass...

Ahem! That failed. This is a state issue and 71% of Missouri Voters voted for this amendment to the MO Constitution.

civil rights are proven to be a federal issue, not a state issue.

civil rights are proven to be a federal issue, not a state issue.

Because the majority can never be trusted with the safety of the minority.

Maybe it is too soon for the US to allow for gay marriage. Until only a while ago, being gay in most countries either meant death or "re-education".

You mean places like this (http://www.narth.com/)? There's a whole whack of other churchy psychiatrists and research groups in the US. :rolleyes:

And although I see the US as being quite progressive, in such matters the US tends to be quite reactionary

It's 21st century 'Monkey Trials'.

civil rights are proven to be a federal issue, not a state issue.

Correct me if i'm wrong. Did not a similar situation exist in the 60's or 70's when some schools did not want to de-segregate? The government intervened?

You mean places like this (http://www.narth.com/)? There's a whole whack of other churchy psychiatrists and research groups in the US. :rolleyes:



It's 21st century 'Monkey Trials'.

That NARTH thing made me want to puke...Ugh.

What are Monkey Trials?

You mean places like this (http://www.narth.com/)? There's a whole whack of other churchy psychiatrists and research groups in the US. :rolleyes:

Probably the sort of man that believes in HOME, FAMILY, GOOD CHRISTIAN VALUES, THE AMERICAN WAY, AND ROGERING A 13 YEAR OLD WHEN THE WIFES NOT LOOKING! (sarcasm)

Probably the sort of man that believes in HOME, FAMILY, GOOD CHRISTIAN VALUES, THE AMERICAN WAY, AND ROGERING A 13 YEAR OLD WHEN THE WIFES NOT LOOKING! (sarcasm)

Amen to that! Let us rid ourselves of the fags and then move on to the shrimp eaters who live among us! www.godhatesshrimps.com

Amen to that! Let us rid ourselves of the fags and then move on to the shrimp eaters who live among us! www.godhatesshrimps.com

MAMA tolds me dos shrimps WERE DE DEVIL!!!!!!

Correct me if i'm wrong. Did not a similar situation exist in the 60's or 70's when some schools did not want to de-segregate? The government intervened?


YES! Finally, someone hits on the point I've tried to make repeatedly.

Schools wanted to remain segregated, but with 'equal' facilities. Hence, exactly the same standards, but some schools were white-only and some were black-only. Comparible to the marriage-for-straights and civil-unions-for-gays.

It was ruled that equal but seperate is unconstitutional. If it is truly equal, there is no need for a different name, or a different location. If it is to be constitutional, it must be the same for all people who it should apply to.


The obvious conclusion is that 'civil unions' should cover the governments part (go down to a registry office and fill out the forms that grant you all the legal rights of marriage), whereas a 'marriage' should be only religious - an added clause to a civil union. That way, no church has to recognise any other churches 'marriages', the government does not have to intervene in any way with religion, and gays get equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

And now I get to watch my post ignored. What fun :rolleyes:

And now I get to watch my post ignored. What fun :rolleyes:

You needed to put CAPS LOCK ON and use alot more explantion marks and fucking swear words and insults you stupid little ****!!!!!!!!!!

But honestly, talking about religion. You must admit that our morals, or better said, western morals are based on christianity. Thankfully it is a system that is open to interpretation and change. Women do not seem to be highly regarded all in all in christian religious text, yet women have all the rights of men.
If anything, gay couples, seem to be trying a compromise. Not living in sin but marriage.
Also for the sake of argument, say the people that have written the bible, did hear the voice of god. Would they still not have interpreted the message in their own way? And at the time being gay did not seem like a good an idea.
So why not allow for modification, as long as the message holds true, who cares about the words themselves. gay/straight/bi, be a good person and live your life well.

i bilieve gay marriage should not be banned. people who want to get married should be able to get marride. but only to oneperson at a time. gay marriage, lesbian marriage or straight marriage. it should not be outlawed. just adultary.

But honestly, talking about religion. You must admit that our morals, or better said, western morals are based on christianity. Everything I say after this is meaningless because I've already proven myself to be ignorant.


**slaps forehead**

SteeeeeeeeeeRIKE ONE!

Correct me if i'm wrong. Did not a similar situation exist in the 60's or 70's when some schools did not want to de-segregate? The government intervened?

ya think?

But honestly, talking about religion. You must admit that our morals, or better said, western morals are based on christianity. Thankfully it is a system that is open to interpretation and change. Women do not seem to be highly regarded all in all in christian religious text, yet women have all the rights of men.
If anything, gay couples, seem to be trying a compromise. Not living in sin but marriage.
Also for the sake of argument, say the people that have written the bible, did hear the voice of god. Would they still not have interpreted the message in their own way? And at the time being gay did not seem like a good an idea.
So why not allow for modification, as long as the message holds true, who cares about the words themselves. gay/straight/bi, be a good person and live your life well.

Ah, another voice of reason, how good it feels to my ears...
Also as for the basis on Christian values, well not always. We seem to be becoming a bit more secular in that we do not stone people for adultry, pre-maritial sex or homosexuality anymore which (I at least think) is a very good thing. Also if we based our legal system on the bible we would be stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath while truning the other cheek and letting "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and hence would be utterly confused.

Because the majority can never be trusted with the safety of the minority.

precisely.

and that is something the federal constitution protects. the rights of everyone. you know. until the patriot act.

You needed to put CAPS LOCK ON and use alot more explantion marks and fucking swear words and insults you stupid little ****!!!!!!!!!!

:p I was going to actually, but then I figured that bold comes across as a lot less retarded. From now on I'll be avoiding caps.

I may still degenerate into rabid insults if provoked though (dear god, the idiocy on this board really gets to me... it's such a pity, since there are so many intelligent people as well.... *grumbles*)

**slaps forehead**

SteeeeeeeeeeRIKE ONE!

Oye little shit. Don't fuck with the quotes. If you wish to point out my ignorance, please explain why. We're all here to benefit from the debate, not try to seem like pimply 11 years who get turned on by having his dog hump his leg. ok?

:p I was going to actually, but then I figured that bold comes across as a lot less retarded. From now on I'll be avoiding caps.

I may still degenerate into rabid insults if provoked though (dear god, the idiocy on this board really gets to me... it's such a pity, since there are so many intelligent people as well.... *grumbles*)

There are loads of really bright ones but loads of really dim ones. It is like a lucky dip with razor blades and diamonds...

Oye little shit. Don't fuck with the quotes. If you wish to point out my ignorance, please explain why. We're all here to benefit from the debate, not try to seem like pimply 11 years who get turned on by having his dog hump his leg. ok?


Whoh, what's this about dogs and 11 year olds? Now THAT'S illegal :p

Look, western morals =/= christianity. The religion doesn't have rights to the words "morals."

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Ah, another voice of reason, how good it feels to my ears...
Also as for the basis on Christian values, well not always. We seem to be becoming a bit more secular in that we do not stone people for adultry, pre-maritial sex or homosexuality anymore which (I at least think) is a very good thing. Also if we based our legal system on the bible we would be stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath while truning the other cheek and letting "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and hence would be utterly confused.

Sorry let me be more specific. The moral belief that is expoused by christianity. commandmant and such, can be seen to be reflected in our societies. You can even see the protestant leanings of the american constitution. You cannot deny that it would have had a different flavour, if the founding father (correct term?) were muslim, or christian orthodox or catholic.

Look, those of you who managed to slam the entire state for the voting results can go fuck yourselves. Labeling all Missourians as a bunch of ignorant backwater hicks that get off at church is not really the best way to go. Oh, it's wrong to attack gays and minorities, but you can slam a whole state based on one voting outcome?

Personally I have no problem with gay marriage.

You guys are using so many statistics that you've pulled out of a bunch of sources, that I don't even bother to keep track. I just call bullshit on all of it, statistics mean NOTHING when it comes to gay marriage. It's not a mathematical problem.

So drop the percents and get back to the topic at hand. I also don't care about your studies that say "well, this is true." Studies, no matter how scientific, can not instantly be taken as new found truth. Especially when the study is on a social issue such as this. I'm sure there are a lot of gay couples that would make far better parents that some of the hetero couples out there. And vice versa. A study can't make a blanket rule that ALL gays make inferior parents, or whatever the hell those studies were saying.

Whoh, what's this about dogs and 11 year olds? Now THAT'S illegal :p

Look, western morals =/= christianity. The religion doesn't have rights to the words "morals."

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states:

So... no crusades then? oh, good. That does not mean that our views are not coloured by history or religion.

Look, those of you who managed to slam the entire state for the voting results can go fuck yourselves. Labeling all Missourians as a bunch of ignorant backwater hicks that get off at church is not really the best way to go. Oh, it's wrong to attack gays and minorities, but you can slam a whole state based on one voting outcome?

Personally I have no problem with gay marriage.

You guys are using so many statistics that you've pulled out of a bunch of sources, that I don't even bother to keep track. I just call bullshit on all of it, statistics mean NOTHING when it comes to gay marriage. It's not a mathematical problem.

So drop the percents and get back to the topic at hand. I also don't care about your studies that say "well, this is true." Studies, no matter how scientific, can not instantly be taken as new found truth. Especially when the study is on a social issue such as this. I'm sure there are a lot of gay couples that would make far better parents that some of the hetero couples out there. And vice versa. A study can't make a blanket rule that ALL gays make inferior parents, or whatever the hell those studies were saying.


I think you are utterly right. Let me amend my statement: The 70% of Missourian's who voted against equal rights are a bunch of bigoted pricks but the rest are fine.

Look, those of you who managed to slam the entire state for the voting results can go fuck yourselves. Labeling all Missourians as a bunch of ignorant backwater hicks that get off at church is not really the best way to go. Oh, it's wrong to attack gays and minorities, but you can slam a whole state based on one voting outcome?

Personally I have no problem with gay marriage.

You guys are using so many statistics that you've pulled out of a bunch of sources, that I don't even bother to keep track. I just call bullshit on all of it, statistics mean NOTHING when it comes to gay marriage. It's not a mathematical problem.

So drop the percents and get back to the topic at hand. I also don't care about your studies that say "well, this is true." Studies, no matter how scientific, can not instantly be taken as new found truth. Especially when the study is on a social issue such as this. I'm sure there are a lot of gay couples that would make far better parents that some of the hetero couples out there. And vice versa. A study can't make a blanket rule that ALL gays make inferior parents, or whatever the hell those studies were saying.

TRUE! And although it is true that these people are allowed to vote how they choose, and I respect their choice, even if I disagree with it, it is not the sort of situation that should of come up as a vote.
It would have been better if the choice was on making marriage (or union) equal for all or on banning it for everyone. At least that would allow for equality

So... no crusades then? oh, good. That does not mean that our views are not coloured by history or religion.


No, read the bolded part. It is made quite clear that there are no "Christian" values in the US-or at least, there wasn't when it was founded.

ANd the large majority of founding fathers were diests, not christians.

I think you are utterly right. Let me amend my statement: The 70% of Missourian's who voted against equal rights are a bunch of bigoted pricks but the rest are fine.

Maybe they are, but you cannot blame them because of their up-bringing. Their influences have just been .....different

Heh, this stuff is hreat:

http://www.bettybowers.com/trash.html

http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html

Maybe they are, but you cannot blame them because of their up-bringing. Their influences have just been .....different

Worse? More bigoted?

No, read the bolded part. It is made quite clear that there are no "Christian" values in the US-or at least, there wasn't when it was founded.

ANd the large majority of founding fathers were diests, not christians.

Diests are christians! Or at least would fall into the catergory of protestants.
If you look at the variety of protestants, they seem very similar to what your talking about. Fair enough the constitution does not say...under Jesus our saviour... or anything like that. It still have protestant leanings. That is i am trying to say.

Worse? More bigoted?

In our view maybe. But we (i hope i applies to some of us) have had the benefit of a more liberal upbringing, or one that is more open to such small differences in people

Diests are christians! Or at least would fall into the catergory of protestants.
If you look at the variety of protestants, they seem very similar to what your talking about. Fair enough the constitution does not say...under Jesus our saviour... or anything like that. It still have protestant leanings. That is i am trying to say.

Um, actually, you're WAY off on that one. Diests are NOT christians. They deny that Jesus is anyone's savior.

And what I'm trying to say is, it DOESN'T. A lot of religions have the same morals. They don't belong exclusively to christianity.

Um, actually, you're WAY off on that one. Diests are NOT christians. They deny that Jesus is anyone's savior.

And what I'm trying to say is, it DOESN'T. A lot of religions have the same morals. They don't belong exclusively to christianity.

Ok, lets try again. In the constituiton, they refer to god, they refer to the individual rights, etc. For the time period we are talking about these ideas were being put forward by people following protestant leanings.
The whole view of western culture is affected by religion. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Hinduism, buddism, taoism, etc makes no reference to these ideas.

I did not want to imply that it is blatantly based on christianity. Western philosophy has alot of christian undertones. Post christ of course

we're talking mentality.

Heh, this stuff is hreat:

http://www.bettybowers.com/trash.html

http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html

THIS IS FUCKING GREAT!!! (see people will read this now. big letter and i swear) IS BUSH A HOMO?

hahahaha

Ok, lets try again. In the constituiton, they refer to god, they refer to the individual rights, etc. For the time period we are talking about these ideas were being put forward by people following protestant leanings.
The whole view of western culture is affected by religion. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Hinduism, buddism, taoism, etc makes no reference to these ideas.

I did not want to imply that it is blatantly based on christianity. Western philosophy has alot of christian undertones. Post christ of course


You don't seem to understand what "deism" means.

One can believe in GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and not be a christian.

I applaude the decision of Missouri and hope the other states follow soon. I´m not from the US and we have a different legal system here in continental Europe. In our system it is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. The only one who could state that would be our federal parliament but not a court.
Courts have to rule according to the law, they can´t create law or change it, except in cases where the law is unconstituitonal according to the Constituitional Court.

I applaude the decision of Missouri and hope the other states follow soon. I´m not from the US and we have a different legal system here in continental Europe. In our system it is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. The only one who could state that would be our federal parliament but not a court.
Courts have to rule according to the law, they can´t create law or change it, except in cases where the law is unconstituitonal according to the Constituitional Court.

Oh, shut up already. We all know you're an ignorant fool.

OMG THE GAY MANIFESTO!!!
What ever shall we do (mommy!)

THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.


8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.


8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.


8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.


8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.


8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.


8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.


9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.


9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."


10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).


10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.


11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.


12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.


12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.


1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.


2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.


3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.


4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.


4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.


6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.


6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.


10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.


12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

You don't seem to understand what "deism" means.

One can believe in GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and not be a christian.

what about the rest of what i said.?

Oh, shut up already. We all know you're an ignorant fool.
I exercise my right of freedom of speech. You can´t hinder me doing so.
And by the way: Didn´t you want to ignore me?????

what about the rest of what i said.?

What ABOUT the rest of what you said? Your main reasoning was "God is mentioned, therefore it has christian overtones."

This is not true.

End of story, yes?

Originally Posted by The-Libertines
Heh, this stuff is hreat:

http://www.bettybowers.com/trash.html

http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html

The-Libertines, just wanted to say thanks. this stuff is really funny!

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. You can´t hinder me doing so.
And by the way: Didn´t you want to ignore me?????

Yes, but doing so would only allow your idiotic hatred to go unchecked.

And I know I can't hinder your right of speach, just as you, living in Europe, can't hinder a homosexual's natural right to marry and be happy. THough it greatly pains you :p

Yes, but doing so would only allow your idiotic hatred to go unchecked.
And I know I can't hinder your right of speach, just as you, living in Europe, can't hinder a homosexual's natural right to marry and be happy. THough it greatly pains you :p
It isn´t their right. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. POINT. And that is natural.

Ok, lets try again. In the constituiton, they refer to god, they refer to the individual rights, etc. For the time period we are talking about these ideas were being put forward by people following protestant leanings.
The whole view of western culture is affected by religion. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Hinduism, buddism, taoism, etc makes no reference to these ideas.

But in the Declaration of Independence it states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' in other words, they just make sense. Nothing to do with being 'God given.'

What ABOUT the rest of what you said? Your main reasoning was "God is mentioned, therefore it has christian overtones."

This is not true.

End of story, yes?

No, that is not all i meantioned. At the time the founding father were christian. or whatever you want to call them. It seems stupid to think that they were not influenced by what they were taught to believe as children and through adulthood. So of course their are christian overtones. Had they all been buddists growing up (as an example only) do you really believe that the constitution would have come out the same?

But in the Declaration of Independence it states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' in other words, they just make sense. Nothing to do with being 'God given.'

self evident if you ahve the same philosophy and view.
What happens if it is not?

It isn´t their right. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. POINT. And that is natural.

Pfh, prove your point. You never did in the past, you never will.

And what's unnatural about gay marrige?

You know what? Let me do it FOR you.

"They can't have kids."
So do we ban marrige from old people? Men and women who have removed their ability to procreate? Women who are barren? Couples who do not wish to have children?

"It's part of the law"
The law changes. Slavery used to be part of the law.

"It's unnatural"
Show me proof. It appears a lot in nature. And I do not believe homosexuality is a concious choice. Feeding off of that is:

"You have a choice not to act on it"
Why should they be forced to live a different lifestyle?

"Slippery slope argument. If you allow this, you allow everything"

There's a seven letter word in the english language called "consent"

"They can't raise children properly"
**snorts** Neither can most hetrosexual parents. Fact is, for every study I see AGAINST gay parents, I see 4 FOR them.
(See how awkward that sentance is? Damn you english langauge!)




So, did I miss anything?

It isn´t their right. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. POINT. And that is natural.

Bullshit:
Marriage is between two people making a free choice to commit themselves to each other. Who are you to denie two people, no matter what their gender, their motivs and their beliefs, to make such a choice towards someone they feel committed to.

The America I know is the land of liberty. The land of free choice. Guess America turns out to be a land where your choices are free as long as you choose like all the others do. Wow, ain't that a great country. Why would EVERYONE have to live by YOUR standards?
And don't answer that with "it's what God wants."
How the HELL do you know?
And don't answer that with "man-woman is natural."
It's not like gay marriages reproduce and give us nothing but gay kids. Nonsense! Marriage is not JUST about reproducing!

Loving is natural. Who you love is a choice.

I believe strongly in peoples rights, and if some is gay so what. they should of course have the same rights.
But I also realise that my views are affected by my culture. Which in turn has been affected by its religion

No, that is not all i meantioned. At the time the founding father were christian. or whatever you want to call them. It seems stupid to think that they were not influenced by what they were taught to believe as children and through adulthood. So of course their are christian overtones. Had they all been buddists growing up (as an example only) do you really believe that the constitution would have come out the same?

Are you not listening?

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT CHRISTIAN.

DEISM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT.

Do I need to underline and bold that for you?

self evident if you ahve the same philosophy and view.
What happens if it is not?

Have you ever heard of "natural law" or "natural rights?"

Here's a hint: they arn't christian related.

It's the belief that all people are born with a natural set of rules, laws, and rights.

Therefore, these, truths are self evident.

It isn´t their right. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. POINT. And that is natural.
So, did I miss anything?

Bollocks. how can you say marriage is natural? its an institution. People having sex is natural. forming a bond is natural.

An institution cannot be.

Are you not listening?

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT CHRISTIAN.

DEISM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT.

Do I need to underline and bold that for you?.


Actually I would be interested to know the real differences. Please elaborate.


QUOTE=Goed]Have you ever heard of "natural law" or "natural rights?"

Here's a hint: they arn't christian related.

It's the belief that all people are born with a natural set of rules, laws, and rights.

Therefore, these, truths are self evident.[/QUOTE]

Also please specify what are the "natural law" or "natural rights?"

"Slippery slope argument. If you allow this, you allow everything"
There's a seven letter word in the english language called "consent"
So, did I miss anything?
I have already explained my position in detail: you know that and I´m not going to repeat everything. I have already explained to you the problem with consent.
After all: Why then not allowing multiple-marriage (polygamy), paedophile marriage, bestiality??? Why shouldn´t people not be allowed to marry their dog, car, horse, e.g. - as they can themself give consent for it??????


No: marriage is to be between one man and one woman who can principally form a family.
Gays can´t - under no circumstances. Thats nature. You can´t be homosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature for heterosexuals.
You have to make a choice: either you life a homosexual lifestyle or you marry a woman. You can´t have it both ways.

No, that is not all i meantioned. At the time the founding father were christian.

Sure they were.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/WallofSeparation.pdf

Originally Posted by The-Libertines
Heh, this stuff is hreat:

http://www.bettybowers.com/trash.html

http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html

The-Libertines, just wanted to say thanks. this stuff is really funny!

No problem at all, pass it on!

Actually I would be interested to know the real differences. Please elaborate.


QUOTE=Goed]Have you ever heard of "natural law" or "natural rights?"

Here's a hint: they arn't christian related.

It's the belief that all people are born with a natural set of rules, laws, and rights.

Therefore, these, truths are self evident.

Also please specify what are the "natural law" or "natural rights?"[/QUOTE]

Christianity has an entire holy book for you to read.

Deism is simple: There is a single creator.

**pauses for drama**

That's it, folks. That's deism.

But, if you want the biggest difference it's this: Jesus.

Christianity: "Jesus is our savior"
Deism: "Not really. Jesus was some dude. And he was cool. I guess."

That, in short, shows that deism and christianity are totally un-alike.


Natural law and rights are the beliefs that all people are born with laws and rights already inside of them. The further belief is that it's the government's job to ensure these rights by assigning these laws. In order to ensure these rights, the populace gives up a portion of their independence and their freedom to the government.

The three natural rights that were orginally established by Locke-I could be wrong on that, so if someone could back me up? It could very easily be someone other then Locke, but that's the name that comes to mind-are Life, Liberty, and the ownership of property.

I have already explained my position in detail: you know that and I´m not going to repeat everything. I have already explained to you the problem with consent.
After all: Why then not allowing multiple-marriage (polygamy), paedophile marriage, bestiality??? Why shouldn´t people not be allowed to marry their dog, car, horse, e.g. - as they can themself give consent for it??????


No: marriage is to be between one man and one woman who can principally form a family.
Gays can´t - under no circumstances. Thats nature. You can´t be homosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature for heterosexuals.
You have to make a choice: either you life a homosexual lifestyle or you marry a woman. You can´t have it both ways.

I want't you to repeat everything.

Children can't give consent. Neither can animals. Slipper slope logic does not compute.

Who decides what makes up a family? You? Because you're going off of the assumption that all of life follows your rules.

And the only reason you can't have it both ways is because of fools like yourself.

After all: Why then not allowing multiple-marriage (polygamy), paedophile marriage, bestiality??? Why shouldn´t people not be allowed to marry their dog, car, horse, e.g. - as they can themself give consent for it??????

Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

Gays can´t - under no circumstances. Thats nature. You can´t be homosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature for heterosexuals.

And reserved by society for heterosexuals, foster parents, carers, people who adopt...

Nature is irrelevent.

You have to make a choice: either you life a homosexual lifestyle or you marry a woman. You can´t have it both ways.

So lesbians aren't homosexuals, by your logic?

Also please specify what are the "natural law" or "natural rights?"

Christianity has an entire holy book for you to read.

Deism is simple: There is a single creator.

**pauses for drama**

That's it, folks. That's deism.

But, if you want the biggest difference it's this: Jesus.

Christianity: "Jesus is our savior"
Deism: "Not really. Jesus was some dude. And he was cool. I guess."

That, in short, shows that deism and christianity are totally un-alike.


Natural law and rights are the beliefs that all people are born with laws and rights already inside of them. The further belief is that it's the government's job to ensure these rights by assigning these laws. In order to ensure these rights, the populace gives up a portion of their independence and their freedom to the government.

The three natural rights that were orginally established by Locke-I could be wrong on that, so if someone could back me up? It could very easily be someone other then Locke, but that's the name that comes to mind-are Life, Liberty, and the ownership of property.[/QUOTE]

Ok that's a bit more helpful. How else is Diesm so different from christianity? curious.

These natural rights and laws, could someone specifiy what they are exactly. Is there a list or something that takes into account all the different philosophies of the world? curious

Guys is you know i'm not bitching, i'm curious. As I read your constitution it has chrisitian undertones. NOT the same a being christian. I believe that is the point i've been trying to make (hope anyway). People can't get away from their past. It will always affect their actions and views.

Gays can´t - under no circumstances. Thats nature. You can´t be homosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature for heterosexuals.
You have to make a choice: either you life a homosexual lifestyle or you marry a woman. You can´t have it both ways.


Ok I snipped a bit your post just so I could focus on this piece of bullshit in paticular. HOMOSEXUALS ///CAN/// HAVE CHILDREN! There is a process that has been in existance for a few years now where the egg of a women is geneticaly altered to that of a man. Then a sperm cell from another man can be inserted to fertilise this egg thus producing a baby which is geneticaly made up of two gay sets of genes. It is not natural but it is a circumstance thus making your point void.
Also if baby making is marriages ONLY reason as you seem to be implying why are post-menopausal and infertile people granted marriage rights?

Oh and as for bestiality, toaster marriage and paedophilia, for the last fucking time THOSE CAN ____NOT____ CONSENT!!!!!

I want't you to repeat everything.
Children can't give consent. Neither can animals. Slipper slope logic does not compute.
Who decides what makes up a family? You? Because you're going off of the assumption that all of life follows your rules.
And the only reason you can't have it both ways is because of fools like yourself.
I´m not your puppy: so I won´t repeat everything. You can look at the threads regarding gay marriage where I have outlined my position. Life doesn´t follow my rules. But nature gives us some rules. And our culture does.
Marriage and family are closely related. That is a fact.
And homosexuals can´t form a family.
That is nature: you can´t have it both ways.

Ok I snipped a bit your post just so I could focus on this piece of bullshit in paticular. HOMOSEXUALS ///CAN/// HAVE CHILDREN! There is a process that has been in existance for a few years now where the egg of a women is geneticaly altered to that of a man. Then a sperm cell from another man can be inserted to fertilise this egg thus producing a baby which is geneticaly made up of two gay sets of genes. It is not natural but it is a circumstance thus making your point void.
Also if baby making is marriages ONLY reason as you seem to be implying why are post-menopausal and infertile people granted marriage rights?

Oh and as for bestiality, toaster marriage and paedophilia, for the last fucking time THOSE CAN ____NOT____ CONSENT!!!!!

Always disagreed with that view. Why is it not natural. Humans are natural. So what we can do, whether by evolution or god or whatever, is natural

Christianity has an entire holy book for you to read.

Deism is simple: There is a single creator.

**pauses for drama**

That's it, folks. That's deism.

But, if you want the biggest difference it's this: Jesus.

Christianity: "Jesus is our savior"
Deism: "Not really. Jesus was some dude. And he was cool. I guess."

That, in short, shows that deism and christianity are totally un-alike.


Natural law and rights are the beliefs that all people are born with laws and rights already inside of them. The further belief is that it's the government's job to ensure these rights by assigning these laws. In order to ensure these rights, the populace gives up a portion of their independence and their freedom to the government.

The three natural rights that were orginally established by Locke-I could be wrong on that, so if someone could back me up? It could very easily be someone other then Locke, but that's the name that comes to mind-are Life, Liberty, and the ownership of property.

Ok that's a bit more helpful. How else is Diesm so different from christianity? curious.

These natural rights and laws, could someone specifiy what they are exactly. Is there a list or something that takes into account all the different philosophies of the world? curious

Guys is you know i'm not bitching, i'm curious. As I read your constitution it has chrisitian undertones. NOT the same a being christian. I believe that is the point i've been trying to make (hope anyway). People can't get away from their past. It will always affect their actions and views.[/QUOTE]

Basically, christianity is an organized religion. Deism isn't.

Christianity has a list of rules and an entire book. Deism simple states that, as we are all creations, none of us is greater then the other. SO treat everything with due respect.


As for natural laws and rights, I'd have to find who wrote them up originally. It may have been Locke-like I said, that's the number one name in my mind-but Hobbes and Descartes also did a bunch. Too many damn smart people :p

As for me, I'll be going to bed now/really soon. It's hellishly late. Er, early.

I´m not your puppy: so I won´t repeat everything. You can look at the threads regarding gay marriage where I have outlined my position. Life doesn´t follow my rules. But nature gives us some rules. And our culture does.
Marriage and family are closely related. That is a fact.
And homosexuals can´t form a family.
That is nature: you can´t have it both ways.

Oh I see, it all makes sense now. Homosexals can not form families so...Oh no wait they can, as you would have realised had you read my posts by adoption or advanced surrogacy gay men can have non-genetic OR non-genetic families. So you are utterly wrong.

I´m not your puppy: so I won´t repeat everything. You can look at the threads regarding gay marriage where I have outlined my position. Life doesn´t follow my rules. But nature gives us some rules. And our culture does.
Marriage and family are closely related. That is a fact.
And homosexuals can´t form a family.
That is nature: you can´t have it both ways.

neither can infertile couples. So they should not marry?
Or an elderly couple?

Ok I snipped a bit your post just so I could focus on this piece of bullshit in paticular. HOMOSEXUALS ///CAN/// HAVE CHILDREN! There is a process that has been in existance for a few years now where the egg of a women is geneticaly altered to that of a man. Then a sperm cell from another man can be inserted to fertilise this egg thus producing a baby which is geneticaly made up of two gay sets of genes. It is not natural but it is a circumstance thus making your point void.!!!!!
That is not natural. I´m against this kind of manipulation of nature.

Also if baby making is marriages ONLY reason as you seem to be implying why are post-menopausal and infertile people granted marriage rights?

It is not the only reason but a main reason. And therefore marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. POINT.

Always disagreed with that view. Why is it not natural. Humans are natural. So what we can do, whether by evolution or god or whatever, is natural

This is true. I found it summed up very nicely by a guy on another forums who had bad eyesight. He said that he was offered various coloured lenses to give his retina and irises a better look. He said he wanted to but at first thought it may be unnatural but then he realised it was perfectly natural as it is human NATURE to want to look good to attract a mate and use almost any method available to do so. His eyes are now a lovely shade of blue apparently.

That is nature: you can´t have it both ways.

Then get rid of your computer and go live in a cave eating only what you can grow or kill. That's nature too, remember?

I´m not your puppy: so I won´t repeat everything. You can look at the threads regarding gay marriage where I have outlined my position. Life doesn´t follow my rules. But nature gives us some rules. And our culture does.
Marriage and family are closely related. That is a fact.
And homosexuals can´t form a family.
That is nature: you can´t have it both ways.

You have yet to state why homosexuals cannot form a family.

You have never done that on any of the previous threads, either.

I don't think you have any actual reason.

It's unnatural? How. Culture is against it? Some cultures promote slavery. Some cultures promote infibulation. Culture doesn't mean squat.


Prove me wrong.

That is not natural. I´m against this kind of manipulation of nature.

It is not the only reason but a main reason. And therefore marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. POINT.

Well you are on a computer are you not? That is manipulation of nature. Would you get a pace maker fitted if your heart was giving up?

Also why are infertile couples allowed marriage? And stop saying POINT it does not make you right. POINT. There is no reason for a POINT, marriage is a law here to serve the people not the other way around.

That is not natural. I´m against this kind of manipulation of nature.

FOR FUCK SAKE IF IT WAS NOT NATURAL WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT. HUMANS FLAPPING THEIR ARMS AND FLYING IS NOT NATURAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO IT!

FOR FUCK SAKE IF IT WAS NOT NATURAL WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT. HUMANS FLAPPING THEIR ARMS AND FLYING IS NOT NATURAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO IT!

Look there is no reason to get angry at fools, chances are he will ignore your post anyway. Just like he has ignored the meaning of consent around 5 million time...

You have yet to state why homosexuals cannot form a family.

Because they can´t in no natural way produce offspring.

And as for culture: you life in a christian dominated culture. Even more dominated than were I life. 2/3 of Americans go to church on Sundays. You don´t belong to this group I assume, but it is the dominating group in your country.

Because they can´t in no natural way produce offspring.

And as for culture: you life in a christian dominated culture. Even more dominated than were I life. 2/3 of Americans go to church on Sundays. You don´t belong to this group I assume, but it is the dominating group in your country.

SO why can infertile people marry?

Nobody post. I want him to answer that

Because they can´t in no natural way produce offspring.

Having sex on a bed isn't natural either. Or in a house.

Oh, and better not talk whille you're doing it either, that's not very natural.

everything we've done since the first man picked up a stone and bashed the guy next to him is unatural. So lets all leave these unatural perversion and go back to eating berries from bushes and trying to hunt with our bare hands.
EVERYONE NOW!

FOR FUCK SAKE IF IT WAS NOT NATURAL WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT. HUMANS FLAPPING THEIR ARMS AND FLYING IS NOT NATURAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO IT!
Than you would need to consider murderer, genocide and rape natural as well because it appears. We obviously have a different definition of natural, though.
I think it is wrong: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

Because they can´t in no natural way produce offspring.

And as for culture: you life in a christian dominated culture. Even more dominated than were I life. 2/3 of Americans go to church on Sundays. You don´t belong to this group I assume, but it is the dominating group in your country.

So? Just as 2/3 obey certain rules does not mean they can force the other 1/3.
Oh and INFERTILE AND ELDERLY COUPLES HAVE NO "NATURAL" WAY OF PRODUCING OFFSPRING EITHER! Also natural is a loose term, why should YOUR definition of it be forced on others? Are you a facist?

Than you would need to consider murderer, genocide and rape natural as well because it appears. We obviously have a different definition of natural, though.
I think it is wrong: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

Why?

Look there is no reason to get angry at fools, chances are he will ignore your post anyway. Just like he has ignored the meaning of consent around 5 million time...

I jsut hate it when people use words like natural in this context. he's allowed his opinion (i guess).

Than you would need to consider murderer, genocide and rape natural as well because it appears. We obviously have a different definition of natural, though.
I think it is wrong: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

Homophobia is misdirected fear of the unknown. Also rape, murder, genocide er al ARE natural. Are they good? No they hurt others.

We obviously have a different definition of natural, though.

Yes, you have one that mean you can use an electro-optic computer to bitch about nature without seeing any glaring contradiction anywhere.

SO why can infertile people marry?
Nobody post. I want him to answer that
I said: it is one - but a main reason for marriage. Marriage is therefore defind as to be between one man and one woman. And that just not since today but since thousands of years. There was never such a thing like gay marriage.
And by the way: couples can also adopt children if they can provide them a father and a mother.
Gays can´t do that. They are homosexual and they shouldn´t pretend to be heterosexual and to be able to provide a father and a mother.

Than you would need to consider murderer, genocide and rape natural as well because it appears. We obviously have a different definition of natural, though.
I think it is wrong: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

One person killing another is natural. genocide is killing, so.... Rape as well unforunately.
I'm not say these things are ok, because they are not and never will be. They are WRONG!
But your using the term not natural which means does not appear in nature. Everything humans do appears in nature to some degree.
From farming to killing.

I said: it is one - but a main reason for marriage. Marriage is therefore defind as to be between one man and one woman. And that just not since today but since thousands of years. There was never such a thing like gay marriage.
And by the way: couples can also adopt children if they can provide them a father and a mother.
Gays can´t do that. They are homosexual and they shouldn´t pretend to be heterosexual and to be able to provide a father and a mother.

Who said they have to pretend anything?

Are you saying that single mothers and fathers should have their children taken away simply because they arn't with someone?

And you no longer have a main reason, so give others.

I said: it is one - but a main reason for marriage. Marriage is therefore defind as to be between one man and one woman. And that just not since today but since thousands of years. There was never such a thing like gay marriage.
And by the way: couples can also adopt children if they can provide them a father and a mother.
Gays can´t do that. They are homosexual and they shouldn´t pretend to be heterosexual and to be able to provide a father and a mother.

Ok your gay adoption thing is just due to your bigoted opinion that gays and lesbians will make worse parents so I will ignore it. But there WERE gay marriges in history you fool! And also just as something has not happened before does not mean it should not NOW! There was pretty much no democracy before Greece invented it, do you think tey though "Nah, forget it, it never hgappened before now..."

Pfh, prove your point. You never did in the past, you never will.

And what's unnatural about gay marrige?

You know what? Let me do it FOR you.

"They can't have kids."
So do we ban marrige from old people? Men and women who have removed their ability to procreate? Women who are barren? Couples who do not wish to have children?

"It's part of the law"
The law changes. Slavery used to be part of the law.

"It's unnatural"
Show me proof. It appears a lot in nature. And I do not believe homosexuality is a concious choice. Feeding off of that is:

"You have a choice not to act on it"
Why should they be forced to live a different lifestyle?

"Slippery slope argument. If you allow this, you allow everything"

There's a seven letter word in the english language called "consent"

"They can't raise children properly"
**snorts** Neither can most hetrosexual parents. Fact is, for every study I see AGAINST gay parents, I see 4 FOR them.
(See how awkward that sentance is? Damn you english langauge!)




So, did I miss anything?


I'm waiting.

I'm waiting.

Not worth waiting for, if by some off chance he actualy does reply it will be something stupid or repetetive.

Who said they have to pretend anything?
Are you saying that single mothers and fathers should have their children taken away simply because they arn't with someone?
And you no longer have a main reason, so give others.
No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.
Regarding marriage: forming a family is a main reason for it. I underline this fact.

No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.
Regarding marriage: forming a family is a main reason for it. I underline this fact.

Great now I am part of a lunatic fringe group. Well if thinking that something animals do is un natural is sane and main stream then I am happy to be here. Also perhaps you should watch a documentary on two gay parents and their two sons. They managed to avoid ANY bullying or teasing of the child by keeping a low profile.


Let me just sum up your argument for you: You say that forming a family is the main reason for marriage but the infertile and old are ok because...Er..POINT, POINT, POINT!
Egg altering surrogacy is un natural according to me and as my definition of natural is better than yours I get to force it onto you and you should have no say in the matter.

No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.

Yes, anything which might cause a child to be picked on a school should be banned! Let's thus ban:

Being short
Being tall
Being fat
Being thin
Having an unusual hair colour or style
Being freckled
Being spotty
Having an odd voice
Having a tic or stammer
Having any kind of accent
Wearing glasses
Being in any way disabled
Having any features that distinguish you from any other child

Wow, that's...Everyone. One thing children have no trouble finding is reasons to pick on each other.

Yes, anything which might cause a child to be picked on a school should be banned! Let's thus ban:

Being short
Being tall
Being fat
Being thin
Having an unusual hair colour or style
Being freckled
Being spotty
Having an odd voice
Having a tic or stammer
Having any kind of accent
Wearing glasses
Being in any way disabled
Having any features that distinguish you from any other child

Wow, that's...Everyone. One thing children have no trouble finding is reasons to pick on each other.

Agree, let us alter adoptee children to fit those parameters immediatly. Anything to save them from being teased at school...

No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.
Regarding marriage: forming a family is a main reason for it. I underline this fact.

ah ok then. because other people will be bigoted, gays should not be allowed to do this. nice and clear now. So if no one minded gays could adopt?

Mainly directed at Kybernetia:

1) People in homosexual relationships can STILL have sex with the other gender. Thus, can make babies. So that means they can "naturally" have babies and families. Not all couples in homosexual relationships are opposed to having sex with the other gender.

2) I think (im fairly certain) that in some states a single person can adopt childred. So that also goes against your "your need a mother and a father."

3) Is it better to keep kids in foster homes when they could go to a loving family?

4) You dont answer questions or pay attention to any opposing views. It's a sad day when people like you are the majority.

5) In the US, currently all these arcane laws are used to discriminate ONLY against homosexuals, when there are heterosexuals who could fall into the categories and be denied certain things. Example: In MA they wont marry gay people if they dont live in the state, but they will marry heterosexuals who don't live in the state. This is based on a law established decades ago, and is only NOW being applied to homosexuals only.

6) The state not giving gay couples equal rights, no matter if you call it marriage, or civil union, or civil marriage, whatever, they should be allowed the same rights. If you dont aggree with it, shut your trap and dont marry a person of the same sex. It's wrong to descriminate!!!

7) Kybernetia... (or anyone else for that matter) come on, prove me wrong... but wait probably by your ridiculous logic you are just going to say that it's unnatural. If anyone doesnt support equal treatment under the law for everyone, they discriminate. it's WRONG and you are the ones who should burn in hell for it (sometimes, i think it's too bad there isn't one)

No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.
Regarding marriage: forming a family is a main reason for it. I underline this fact.

the only reason it's not accepted is because of people like you. Look at actual studies of children living with gays. They all have positive outcomes, better than those kids living in foster care. Dont make dumb assumptions based on your own bigoted opinions.

Ok Kyber lemme try this. Imagine someone came onto the forums and said that even though it occureded in nature hetrosexuality was unnatural. That the whole purpose of sex was mutual pleasure and having babies was not pleasurable so hetrosexuality was un natural unless they used contraception which is of course un natural. They say that as the purpose of marriage is love for only one purpose a baby can disrupt as that would mean you have to love more than one person.
When you point out that the spouses can just use pills or condoms to keep themselves baby free you are told this is unnatural and because this person's definition of what is natural and what is not was better than yours you could never marry. Ever.

That really is how stupid your argument is.

Kybernetia,
also you never answered so why should infertile couples, and post-menopausal couples, as well as those who DONT want children be allowed to marry. Your logic discriminates agaains gays, that's wrong, however unfortunately it's natural for uneducated, unexposed, biased, bigoted and inexperienced people to think that way.

Equal treatment doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. On the conterary: It means to treat the same things the same way and REQUIRES TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

And that means that heterosexual relationships deserve special protection since they garantee the survival and the future of our specy.

Gays don´t. Therefore they can´t claim special benefits. The law requires to treat the same thing the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And that is just.

Homophobes are dumb fucks

Go Holland!

Kybernetia,
please give us a little history of yourself, it will help all of us here to understand where you come from.

1) Were you dumped by your gf/bf because they cheated on you with someone of the same sex?

2) Have you ever left the country? Or your state for that matter?

3) Any other possible reasons for someone being so closed minded

P.S. Just a factoid, being more "open" is associated with positive psychological adjustment in life... maybe you should look into that.

Equal treatment doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. On the conterary: It means to treat the same things the same way and REQUIRES TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

And that means that heterosexual relationships deserve special protection since they garantee the survival and the future of our specy.

Gays don´t. Therefore they can´t claim special benefits. The law requires to treat the same thing the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And that is just.


What about infertile hetros and old ones? They are not pulling their weight, they should not be allowed marriage!
What about gays who use the surrogacy treatment or lesbians who get their hands on some sperm? Natural or not they are still helping our race survive.

Equal treatment doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. On the conterary: It means to treat the same things the same way and REQUIRES TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

And that means that heterosexual relationships deserve special protection since they garantee the survival and the future of our specy.

Gays don´t. Therefore they can´t claim special benefits. The law requires to treat the same thing the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And that is just.

no the law should protect all citizens and allow for the same OPPORTUNITIES. Women are different from men, lets treat them differently... wait that already happened didn't it.

Kybernetia
please i am very curious about all the questions i asked, but i realize my pleas may fall on deaf ears.

Homophobes are dumb fucks

Go Holland!

Ok Kyber lemme try this. Imagine someone came onto the forums and said that even though it occureded in nature hetrosexuality was unnatural. That the whole purpose of sex was mutual pleasure and having babies was not pleasurable so hetrosexuality was un natural unless they used contraception which is of course un natural.
If you follow this nonsense there wouldn´t be humans any more. Heterosexuality is natural and required to keep our specy alive.
Homosexuality is unneccessary and not needed.

Equal treatment doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. On the conterary: It means to treat the same things the same way and REQUIRES TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

Go buy a dictionary and look up 'equal.' It does no mean you can 'treat different things differently' and still call that treatment 'equal.'

And that means that heterosexual relationships deserve special protection since they garantee the survival and the future of our specy.

Bull. Overpopulation is one of the biggest problems in the world today and it's only going to get worse. Scrap the dictionary, go buy yourself a clue.

Kybernetia
please i am very curious about all the questions i asked, but i realize my pleas may fall on deaf ears.
I have answered that the pages before. Scroll back.

If you follow this nonsense there wouldn´t be humans any more. Heterosexuality is natural and required to keep our specy alive.
Homosexuality is unneccessary and not needed.

but having it not be needed isn't going to make it go away. secondly, fuck*ng answer my question about homosexual couples having sex with people of the opposite gender!!!

If you follow this nonsense there wouldn´t be humans any more. Heterosexuality is natural and required to keep our specy alive.
Homosexuality is unneccessary and not needed.

Actualy it is needed as if all the homosexuals had been out scrweing people of different genders we would be horribly over populated by now. I was merely tryig to show you how annoying someone else making the decision of what is and is not natural for you and making laws that prohibited your actions around it is. It seems I failed...

As for being teased at school, that will die out in time if gay marriges became legal and more socially accepted. This should be the start of the progression!

Fine I suppose you missed this:

What about infertile hetros and old ones? They are not pulling their weight, they should not be allowed marriage!
What about gays who use the surrogacy treatment or lesbians who get their hands on some sperm? Natural or not they are still helping our race survive.

As for being teased at school, that will die out in time if gay marriges became legal and more socially accepted. This should be the start of the progression!

Progression? The guy is a hard line conservative, if anything he wants us going backwards...

Go buy a dictionary and look up 'equal.' It does no mean you can 'treat different things differently' and still call that treatment 'equal.'
.
What I said is the legal definition of the equal treatment principal: To treat the same things the same way and to treat different things differently.
An population growth is only a problem in a few countries. Others have problems with a declining population (Europe, Russia, Japan) or there domestic population doesn´t grow anymore through children (Canada, USA) but rather through migration. So: keep yourself informed. The UN has even lowered its expectation for the world population in 2050 from 9,7 billion to 9,3 billion. And they may even need to lower that again.
So: that isn´t a major problem
On the conterary. For many nations the falling population (combined with an ageing population) is a major problem. We need more children in the West, not less.

Progression? The guy is a hard line conservative, if anything he wants us going backwards...

Exactly why I said should unfortunately :/

If you follow this nonsense there wouldn´t be humans any more. Heterosexuality is natural and required to keep our specy alive.
Homosexuality is unneccessary and not needed.

1. Homosexuality occurs naturally - probably due to hormones - so it doesn't matter if it's 'needed'. People ARE gay. You can't discriminate against them just because they don't fullfil your trivial views of 'useful' humans.

2. not all humans will ever be homoxeual, you dipshit
Seriously, I'm sorry, but you, sir, are a moron. You are obviously a homophobe, since you seem to think that 'The Gay' is catching, or morally detrimental. Get a clue, and realise that homosexuals are *people* and deserve to be treated *as people*. If I can't tell you *you* can't get married to another consenting adult, you have no right to tell anyone else they can't either.

3. Either read up on the facts, or shut the hell up. All you are doing is disrupting the adult conversations that might actually progress without your childish banter.

Why the "Our race needs protecting" attitude is stupid:

1)We are already vastly populated.
2)We could never start wars ever for any reason. Wars mean death and this could put the race at risk.
3)Contraceptives. If we ban them then millions die, if we keep them legal then millions are never born.

What I said is the legal definition of the equal treatment principal: To treat the same things the same way and to treat different things differently.
An population growth is only a problem in a few countries. Others have problems with a declining population (Europe, Russia, Japan) or there domestic population doesn´t grow anymore through children (Canada, USA) but rather through migration. So: keep yourself informed. The UN has even lowered its expectation for the world population in 2050 from 9,7 billion to 9,3 billion. And they may even need to lower that again.
So: that isn´t a major problem
On the conterary. For many nations the falling population (combined with an ageing population) is a major problem. We need more children in the West, not less.


why doesnt europe and other countires elsewhere (like australia) open it's borders to ease the overpopulation in places like africa. why do you ignore all the evidence to the countrary of your theories. im sorry but your facts are either wrong, or you made them up.

What about infertile hetros and old ones? They are not pulling their weight, they should not be allowed marriage!

Even better.... as they can't do the same work load (having children) they should even have less rights than a fertile couple.

Gay couples do further increase the likely hood of the survival of the race. They can still take on nurturing roles. The same a barren women can help her fertile sister in raising children (example only)

but having it not be needed isn't going to make it go away. secondly, fuck*ng answer my question about homosexual couples having sex with people of the opposite gender!!!
If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

What I said is the legal definition of the equal treatment principal: To treat the same things the same way and to treat different things differently.

'Union of two people' should therefore be treated equally regardless of their gender. Thank you, concession accepted.

An population growth is only a problem in a few countries.

No, it's a problem for the entire world. Countries don't exist in a vacuum.

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

ARGH!

Look - you could go out today and fuck a guy. It's physically possible. You wouldn't like it, but you could

THAT WAS THE POINT BEING MADE. PAY ATTENTION.

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

As he does not actualy LOVE women. He could use gay porn or his boyfriends penis to get a hard on and then grin and bear hetro sex for baby purposes. Would you ban gay marriage in that case?

How about (as I have said SO MANY TIMES) banning it for post-menopausal or infertile couples? They are not going to be making any babies...

Being gay isn't against God's will, simply because God was made up by man.
So actually, being gay is against man's will...

DIE YOU FUCKING RELIGIOUS DUMBASSES!

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

it's not because what about bisexuals, when you find BOTH sexes appealing. and a guy can still get it up even if with a woman, they'll just be thinking leonardo dicaprio the whole time. have you ever talked to anyone gay? EVER, like in person. Also, what about my question regarding some of your background, please it'll help everyone's understanding.

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice.

Yes, I can see people 'choosing' to be hated for no reason by huge numbers of people, subjected to verbal and physical abuse and even killed...Just because they want to.

I want some of what you're smoking.

Hey, The-Libertines (and all the other sane people here); if I go insane and go on a homicidal rampage targeting homophobes, could you all point the police in the direction of this thread? It would probably help me get off due to mitigating factors.

Thanks :p

it's not because what about bisexuals, when you find BOTH sexes appealing. and a guy can still get it up even if with a woman, they'll just be thinking leonardo dicaprio the whole time. have you ever talked to anyone gay? EVER, like in person. Also, what about my question regarding some of your background, please it'll help everyone's understanding.

I am not sure if he has ever talked to a gay person. Do you think he talks to himself in the mirror? Would that count?

why doesnt europe and other countires elsewhere (like australia) open it's borders to ease the overpopulation in places like africa. why do you ignore all the evidence to the countrary of your theories. im sorry but your facts are either wrong, or you made them up.
Because we want this people to grow up in their culture and don´t want to take away their identity. Most of them wouldn´t fit here and wouldn´t feel confortable anyway.
Though a limited amount of immigration of the highest qualified people is possible. But that is a decision every nation has a right to determine by itself. Europe is already densly populated. So: we rarely need immigration from outside.

Hey, The-Libertines (and all the other sane people here); if I go insane and go on a homicidal rampage targeting homophobes, could you all point the police in the direction of this thread? It would probably help me get off due to mitigating factors.

Thanks :p

You'd love it here, the place is swarming with narrow minded :| Infact.. come here and help :p

Hey, The-Libertines (and all the other sane people here); if I go insane and go on a homicidal rampage targeting homophobes, could you all point the police in the direction of this thread? It would probably help me get off due to mitigating factors.

Thanks :p

Pretend the pervert aliens that made you gay told you to do it...

Absolutely pathetic. In 50 years time this matter will be laughed at in camparison to African Americans being forced to ride at the back of the bus. This is an awful event that shows what a sad nation America can be.

I am not sure if he has ever talked to a gay person. Do you think he talks to himself in the mirror? Would that count?

i guess thats as gay as we have gotten. Now does anyopne know for sure its a HE??? Im fairly certain but dont like to make assumptions... wait i should direct that to him/her: DONT MAKE UNINFORMED ASSUMPTIONS

What good do religions bring?
They only cause bad things as far as I know, rofl

Because we want this people to grow up in their culture and don´t want to take away their identity. Most of them wouldn´t fit here and wouldn´t feel confortable anyway.
Though a limited amount of immigration of the highest qualified people is possible. But that is a decision every nation has a right to determine by itself. Europe is already densly populated. So: we rarely need immigration from outside.

ROFLMAO!

I am not sure if he has ever talked to a gay person. Do you think he talks to himself in the mirror? Would that count?

I don't think he talks to people, period. He shows all the social skills of an autistic two year old (basically, screaming until they get their way).

One can only hope it's just the internet making him stupid, as it seems to in some cases.

Because we want this people to grow up in their culture and don´t want to take away their identity. Most of them wouldn´t fit here and wouldn´t feel confortable anyway.
Though a limited amount of immigration of the highest qualified people is possible. But that is a decision every nation has a right to determine by itself. Europe is already densly populated. So: we rarely need immigration from outside.

Fine, ignore my posts and go completely off topic...

Ignore my question of whether you would ban infertile or post menopausal couples because they can not make babies or whether you would let child making gays and lesbians marry...

Because we want this people to grow up in their culture and don´t want to take away their identity. Most of them wouldn´t fit here and wouldn´t feel confortable anyway.
Though a limited amount of immigration of the highest qualified people is possible. But that is a decision every nation has a right to determine by itself. Europe is already densly populated. So: we rarely need immigration from outside.

but the birth rates are DECLINING... you mumbliing idiot stop contradicting yourself. go get out of the house, shut off that computer and meet some people!

but the birth rates are DECLINING... you mumbliing idiot stop contradicting yourself. go get out of the house, shot off that computer and meet some people!

NO! You can't seriously wish his personality to be inflicted on innocent people? Seriously, at least we have the choice of leaving...

What I said is the legal definition of the equal treatment principal: To treat the same things the same way and to treat different things differently.
An population growth is only a problem in a few countries. Others have problems with a declining population (Europe, Russia, Japan) or there domestic population doesn´t grow anymore through children (Canada, USA) but rather through migration. So: keep yourself informed. The UN has even lowered its expectation for the world population in 2050 from 9,7 billion to 9,3 billion. And they may even need to lower that again.
So: that isn´t a major problem
On the conterary. For many nations the falling population (combined with an ageing population) is a major problem. We need more children in the West, not less.
thats the world population which is probably a factor of controlled births in india and china, the world is not just the western world, we dont need any more kids, we already have thousands if not more of children in orphanages, go adopt a kid and shut up

and the lega definition? refer to Brown v Board, seperate is inherently not equal, they are people they are not a different entity to be treated differently

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

Why should he? He has every right to chose his lifestyle.

If the purpose of marriage was procreation alone and nothing else, like so often stated by gay-marriage opposers, what is wrong with procreation without marriage? A child born out of wedlock will continue the existence like every other kid.
Since it is obvious that most homosexuals come from hetero parents there is no need to fear that humankind will turn all gay just because their parents lived that way.

Besides what is the purpose of continuing our race if it is at the cost of free will? We arent bee drones.

Religions are a poison to the world

i guess thats as gay as we have gotten. Now does anyopne know for sure its a HE??? Im fairly certain but dont like to make assumptions... wait i should direct that to him/her: DONT MAKE UNINFORMED ASSUMPTIONS

Sorry, most of the bigots I have met have been of my own gender. Never been attracted to them but I am not sure if they were to me. Did anyone else read about that study that showed homophobic bigots like Kyb here ("I just dislike gay people") are aroused more by gay porn than normal non-bigoted strait guys?

Religions are a poison to the world

Now now, just because the *vocal* religious people are mostly nutters, doesn't mean *all* religious folks deserve to be pickled. Often, the best religious people are the ones who know that religion is a personal choice, and so you rarely know they're religious at all.

Sorry, most of the bigots I have met have been of my own gender. Never been attracted to them but I am not sure if they were to me. Did anyone else read about that study that showed homophobic bigots like Kyb here ("I just dislike gay people") are aroused more by gay porn than normal non-bigoted strait guys?

i certainly have. because they are fearful of their homosexual urges so they speak out about it, and degrade it, etc. very very interesting.

Religions are a poison to the world

If they make you fear a higher prescence(s) most definately agreed!

I'm just glad I don't live in America. A place where the government's religious views determine how they run their country.

Barghol, how should i put it in kind words? Lets try.
You are a complete moron whose interjections achieve the opposite of what they are supposed to. By posting simpleminded oneliners you undermine your point.

If they do that they actually prove that homosexuality is a life style choice. So: why does this guy not marry a woman????

You, and none else for that matter, has any control over who/what turns you on or not. And this determs your sexuality. Who you chose to have sex with doesn't.

Oh, and also, a person is not homosexual because he(or she) got turned on by a transvestite or a shemale when he was under the impresson he was a she(or she was a he).

i certainly have. because they are fearful of their homosexual urges so they speak out about it, and degrade it, etc. very very interesting.

The same sorta thing does not apply to racists though, for obvious reasons. Also sexists tend to feel slightly afraid of the gender they are oppossed to. A bit of self loathing hmm? It all seems facinating...

but the birth rates are DECLINING... you mumbliing idiot stop contradicting yourself. go get out of the house, shut off that computer and meet some people!
Your insults are unacceptable. Calm down, Lady.
I rather prefer us to produce our children ourself and integrate them into our society. Experience proves that is is much harder and much more costly to integrate immigrants. Especially the immigration of muslims in Europe has failed completly. So I rather prefer to be cautious especially in cases of immigration from "problematic countries".
And I´m male.

Barghol, how should i put it in kind words? Lets try.
You are a complete moron whose interjections achieve the opposite of what they are supposed to. By posting simpleminded oneliners you undermine your point.

I love you too man <3
Wanna go gay?

I'm just glad I don't live in America. A place where the government's religious views determine how they run their country.

That is interesting as well. The Bush admin. which is very theocratic hates Middle Eastern countries which are also theocratic. Far-left wingers hate far-right wingers although they share alot of ground on opinions. It seems alot of people hate themselves...

Feel the love <3

Your insults are unacceptable. Calm down, Lady.
I rather prefer us to produce our children ourself and integrate them into our society. Experience proves that is is much harder and much more costly to integrate immigrants. Especially the immigration of muslims in Europe has failed completly. So I rather prefer to be cautious especially in cases of immigration from "problematic countries".
And I´m male.

Actualy you are wrong. All the corner shops in my area are run by hard working muslims who intergrated perfectly. Oh, I note you are once again ignoring my question. This is around the fifth time now I believe...

Especially the immigration of muslims in Europe has failed completly.

A lot of people I know including a close friend from school would disagree...

I love you too man <3
Wanna go gay?

No need to go there, im bisexual, but i prefer people i like to conversate with.

No need to go there, im bisexual, but i prefer people i like to conversate with.

I was just joking =p

Oh, I note you are once again ignoring my question. This is around the fifth time now I believe...

He can't answer it ;P

Fine, ignore my posts and go completely off topic...

Ignore my question of whether you would ban infertile or post menopausal couples because they can not make babies or whether you would let child making gays and lesbians marry...
I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

Your insults are unacceptable. Calm down, Lady.
I rather prefer us to produce our children ourself and integrate them into our society. Experience proves that is is much harder and much more costly to integrate immigrants. Especially the immigration of muslims in Europe has failed completly. So I rather prefer to be cautious especially in cases of immigration from "problematic countries".
And I´m male.

so why dont you??? Please just stop making everyopne else follow your ideas. Its a free world.

I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

You're the only lunatic here man ;)

Anyway, don't get to worked up on something Kyb says. He stated in another thread that he wanted to flame. And the issues debated there where very similair to those in this thread.

Hey, The-Libertines (and all the other sane people here); if I go insane and go on a homicidal rampage targeting homophobes, could you all point the police in the direction of this thread? It would probably help me get off due to mitigating factors.

Thanks :p

homicidal or homocidal? lol

He can't answer it ;P

Maybe so. Let me try one more time and if he ignores it this time I will simply assume he can not awnser and I win:

Would you be opposed to those hetrosexual couples who are incapable of having children getting married? Sure they could do IVF but apparently that is un natural. If your beef with lesbians and gays marrying is there inability to have children then how about those who are willing to have them or help have them (via sperm donations by gay men, use of sperm donations by lesbians, genetic altering egg surrogacy et al). Would you let those people marry?

I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

I'm not a lunatic. I just believe that any person should have the freedom to do whatever with their life and not conform to someone elses life and live in some kind of misery.

I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

i thought he was the lunatic fringe group. If only parents taught their children acceptance rather than breed hate... we would have less people like him. and now.... back tot the thread

I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

No, you never did.

Can anyone else find it so I can do a refute?

Your insults are unacceptable. Calm down, Lady.
I rather prefer us to produce our children ourself and integrate them into our society. Experience proves that is is much harder and much more costly to integrate immigrants. Especially the immigration of muslims in Europe has failed completly. So I rather prefer to be cautious especially in cases of immigration from "problematic countries".
And I´m male.

excuse me how has this intergration failed?

homicidal or homocidal? lol

:D

Nah, homicidal... since I assume that means 'to kill a man (human)', and even people like Kybernetia can probably be loosly described as human.

Homocidal would mean... 'to kill something the same'? Homo = same... hmmm

So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

You don't have to be part of a 'lunatic fringe group' to smell the shit you're brewing, kiddo.

"Okay... I think homophobes are from now on not allowed to marry, because they're 'different'!"

Now that's the exact same thing as saying that gays aren't allowed to marry eachother ;)

www.sockland.cjb.net Nice debates there

I'm not a lunatic. I just believe that any person should have the freedom to do whatever with their life and not conform to someone elses life and live in some kind of misery.
A pretty powerful statement. Doesnt society conflict with that? You cant have everyone follow their own laws.

Well Kyb, I may have a different opinion to you but to you I salute. A dying breed deserves respect no matter how foul it is. I hope you never spawn although I find it unlikely you would ever find a spawning parter anyway. Homophobes, unlike muslims, can not intergrate into today's society very well and so over the next few generations shall be slowly but surely be phased out.
Good riddance.

A pretty powerful statement. Doesnt society conflict with that? You cant have everyone follow their own laws.

Of course you can't but what is the harm if I want another guy. What is the harm if I want to listen to my genre of music without a beating here? That's what I mean.

I have already answered that on the pages before. You have to scroll back.
For today I resign from the debate.
So your gay activists can remain on yourself, your lunatic frindge group.

You see that is the problem. Fair enough people here might have been a bit aggresive in arguing against you.
But by refering to us all as a lunatic fringe group, you are not helping your case. And as that is what you called gays before, you are infering that we are all gay.
I myself am not. But this does not mean that I would stop someone else from having the same rights that I do. Whether gay marriage, or having your own opinion.

So can anybody find and quote Ky's comments on infertile marriage?

anyway, by saying marrying, are we talking about the cermony in a curch/whatever or to get the recognized as a couple by the law/goverment or how to say it?

anyway, by saying marrying, are we talking about the cermony in a curch/whatever or to get the recognized as a couple by the law/goverment or how to say it?

Marriage in a legal context I believe. Religious gay marriage already exists.

A pretty powerful statement. Doesnt society conflict with that? You cant have everyone follow their own laws.

Within a broad frame work you could. An example: In a muslim country you cannot drink alcohol. Why because it goes against the teachings. By why make it illegal? Let the no-believers drink, they just go to hell or wherever. ITs when you try to impose your own set of beliefs that there are problems. Used this example as its easy.
Its when laws are precise and exact that there are problems. It turns us into sheep

Marriage in a legal context I believe. Religious gay marriage already exists.

Then it's just stupid to not allow it.

Oh, and by the way, isn't there a law or something that if you are married in some other state/nation then whatever the state you are in atm must recognize you as a married couple whatever thier own laws says?

How the faggots saved you from computerless facism:

A gay man invented the computer.

Kyb's idiocy only reaches are eyes thanks to computers. These were invented by a gay man named Alan Turing who was twice arrested when England was a more backwards place and making love to someone of the same gender was a crime.

A bi guy saved the world

Winston Churchill once had an affair with an actor. He saved all of Europe (and probably the US too) fom Nazism via his strong leadership.

All I can think of for now, more later perhaps...

Then it's just stupid to not allow it.

Oh, and by the way, isn't there a law or something that if you are married in some other state/nation then whatever the state you are in atm must recognize you as a married couple whatever thier own laws says?

It is very stupid. I am not sure of those laws.

I think the main problem is that some people view it as morally right but others think it is compleatly immoral. Thus, there is no compromise and every argument boils down to "its wrong" or "its (a) right" Another example is if you wanted too clear cut all the forests. I would be horrified because all the animals you're killing and you might say well they are just animals.

1 + 1 = 2
Therefore gays should be allowed to mary.

*I* love the logic, don't *you*?

I think the main problem is that some people view it as morally right but others think it is compleatly immoral. Thus, there is no compromise and every argument boils down to "its wrong" or "its (a) right" Another example is if you wanted too clear cut all the forests. I would be horrified because all the animals you're killing and you might say well they are just animals.


Suppose it depends on the driving force behind you. "It betters the economy, better job prospects for me" Or "Think of the next generation and keep the world a beautiful place for our children" Etc. Sleepy, need coffee.

I think the main problem is that some people view it as morally right but others think it is compleatly immoral. Thus, there is no compromise and every argument boils down to "its wrong" or "its (a) right" Another example is if you wanted too clear cut all the forests. I would be horrified because all the animals you're killing and you might say well they are just animals.

Well I view this issue moraly: One law for one set of people one set for another is horrendous and should be made a relic. I also view the tree issue immoraly: If we cut down the trees we may die sooner when the oxygen runs out.

I also view the tree issue immoraly: If we cut down the trees we may die sooner when the oxygen runs out.

Or global warming will kill us ;)

Well I view this issue moraly: One law for one set of people one set for another is horrendous and should be made a relic. I also view the tree issue immoraly: If we cut down the trees we may die sooner when the oxygen runs out.

Or they still do cut down the trees and charge us for the Oxygen lol. Oh what a wonderful world.

Since we are on the subject of marriage. Should people be allowed to marry eachother over the internet. I am not just talking about meeting someone in a chat room and runnning off with them, but also internet brides ect.

If so then ok, but then many negative marrriages may come out of it.
if no then you already banned I type of marriage why not ban another?

And this is not a comparrison between the 2.

However, the MAJORITY of the people are against gay marriage. Would you rather have a judge to decide this issue and not the states?

Gee, this sounds a lot like the election in 2000.. *LOL*

Back on the trees though. Obviously you need to cut down trees and obviously you need to kill and eat animals. People need to accept that. Same as people need to accept gays. But you also have to protect animals like enangered animals and protect trees like parks, so in some way people want to protect marriage. Many people believe that you can do that by seperating the church marriage and state marriage. Perhaps there is another way?

A number of pages back someone asked that the entire state of Missouri not be judged as a bunch of backwards hicks by this vote--that's fair.

Fact is that a referendum allowing same-sex marriage in any individual state would likely fail at this point in time and history. It's a perfect example of why matters pertaining to civil rights that come in conflict with religious faith can never be left to individual voters to decide.

Some people have mentioned the civil rights struggle as a analagous situation--it is, and the first victories in that struggle were won in the courts long before they ever made their way into legislative victories and more importantly, popular acceptance. An even better analogy is that of mixed-race marriage. When the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, it was a hugely unpopular decision--polling put opposition at around 74%. That same-sex marriage polls much closer to 50% is a testament to how much more accepting our society has become on this matter. But if even California--constantly held up as an example of the loony left--passed a referendum stating that marriage is limited to male-female, what chance did Missouri have?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled flame-war.

Back on the trees though. Obviously you need to cut down trees and obviously you need to kill and eat animals. People need to accept that. Same as people need to accept gays. But you also have to protect animals like enangered animals and protect trees like parks, so in some way people want to protect marriage. Many people believe that you can do that by seperating the church marriage and state marriage. Perhaps there is another way?
In a clearer sense. It is all to easy to oppose gay marriage, what can we do to make people gain something from it. A trade off in gay marriage and something that helps the concerns of the people opposed.

Back on the trees though. Obviously you need to cut down trees and obviously you need to kill and eat animals. People need to accept that. Same as people need to accept gays. But you also have to protect animals like enangered animals nd prtec tres lik parks, so in some way people want to protect marriage. Many people believe that you can do that by seperating the church marriage and state marriage. Perhaps there is another way?

Moderation. People don't just kill animals to eat. People also kill animals for a useful material they have. Like with Ivory and Tigers bones Etc. As for mass deforestation, take what you need and rebuild however you can. Takes years but one day those places will be beautiful again.

Moderation is allways good. So how cann you moderate the gay marriage issue?

Moderation is allways good. So how cann you moderate the gay marriage issue?

Teach acceptance. Teach the reality.

Back on the trees though. Obviously you need to cut down trees and obviously you need to kill and eat animals. People need to accept that. Same as people need to accept gays. But you also have to protect animals like enangered animals and protect trees like parks, so in some way people want to protect marriage. Many people believe that you can do that by seperating the church marriage and state marriage. Perhaps there is another way?
You mind explaining how exactly marriage needs protection? How is it endangered? And isn't there an argument to be made that marriage as an institution is in far greater danger from things like no-fault quickie divorce and Vegas weddings than from committed same-sex couples wanting legal recognition?

You mind explaining how exactly marriage needs protection? How is it endangered? And isn't there an argument to be made that marriage as an institution is in far greater danger from things like no-fault quickie divorce and Vegas weddings than from committed same-sex couples wanting legal recognition?

Indeed there is. I see that marrige should be based on a strength of love and a want to be with that person under the eyes of the law. Rather than a shallow marrige because someone has too...

Moderation. People don't just kill animals to eat. People also kill animals for a useful material they have. Like with Ivory and Tigers bones Etc. As for mass deforestation, take what you need and rebuild however you can. Takes years but one day those places will be beautiful again.
1) wtf do people needs ivory and tiger bones for
2) why cant they just get them off DEAD animals

1) wtf do people needs ivory and tiger bones for
2) why cant they just get them off DEAD animals

Tiger bones usually for Chinese meds. and Ivory well for an old fashion statement I guess. Showing wealth.. and they do get it off dead animals, after they've shot them :p

Tiger bones usually for Chinese meds. and Ivory well for an old fashion statement I guess. Showing wealth.. and they do get it off dead animals, after they've shot them :p
lol

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.
Flamebait!!
I'm alerting Mods!
How would YOU like it if some legislature passed into civil law something which denied YOUR basic civil rights and human dignities, and someone else, in effect rubbed YOUR face in it, saying "ha ha ha ha...you don't get your rights, I get to force MY views on YOU...you are a second-class citizen...ha ha ha ha."
I'm alerting the Mods IMMEDIATELY that you are flamebaiting.

Missouri Sucks.
Well said.

Since we are on the subject of marriage. Should people be allowed to marry eachother over the internet. I am not just talking about meeting someone in a chat room and runnning off with them, but also internet brides ect.

If so then ok, but then many negative marrriages may come out of it.
if no then you already banned I type of marriage why not ban another?

And this is not a comparrison between the 2.

(On one knee) Zervok, would you do me the honour of marrying me? I'm sure The-Libertines would give you away.

Actually, it does.

It would.... providing Marriage were a religious institution. As I have pointed out, Marriage is, historically, not a religious institution, but about kinship and property, a legal and civil institution. The religious aspects were added later.

So, in short, you are turning a civil arguement into a religious arguement.

Once upon a time, Daroth proposed to Zervok... :fluffle: and then they lived happily ever after!

Flamebait!!
I'm alerting Mods!
How would YOU like it if some legislature passed into civil law something which denied YOUR basic civil rights and human dignities, and someone else, in effect rubbed YOUR face in it, saying "ha ha ha ha...you don't get your rights, I get to force MY views on YOU...you are a second-class citizen...ha ha ha ha."
I'm alerting the Mods IMMEDIATELY that you are flamebaiting.

Never mind that three of us have already posted in this thread, I guess we were just too dumb to notice.

If you need me, I'll be over there trying to work out if rocks are edible.

lol

What is flamebaiting, flaming and all that? someone please

the state should have no role in marriages of any sort. other than to enforce any contract law provisions of a partnership. which is why I voted with the minority in MO. ;)

Once upon a time, Daroth proposed to Zervok... :fluffle: and then they lived happily ever after!

falalalal lala la la. Then I got a virus. oh well

There was NO NEED...for him to start off this thread in the gloating fashion he did.
He intended to anger us GLBT people, with his gloating.

He ciuld just as easily state that he supports Missouri's action, and his reasons for it, however irrational they may be...withour gloating!

He may as well have posted...

"Ha ha ha ha Missouri banned gay marriage....YOU don't get your civil rights or human dignities...I get to force MY religious beliefs on you, I get to beat you down with my bible, and keep you a second-class citizen, and I can't wait till all fifty states slap you down, and make of you second-class citizens not worthy of consideration for civil rights, equal standing, or human dignity...ha ha ha ha ha"

Because THAT is what I got out of what he posted.

The complaint has been made in the Moderation Forum.

And there's been 24 pages of debate since then, Labrador.

AND alot a bitching about it as well.
Quite a fun day at work all in all

And there's been 24 pages of debate since then, Labrador.
And I only just now saw it. And I got SO MAD....
I wanted to flame back, severely.
I didn't.

thanks for taking sides against me.

Obviously, you, too, support not giving people like me equal standing in the eyes of the law...and obviously, you think gloating about it, where people like me can see it...is NOT flamebaiting.

There isn't one. Not a single one was offered during debate and campaigning for this amendmend. I live in Missouri. I've heard the rhetoric from both sides. There has been no attempt to provide any rational differentiation from the religious conceptualization of marriage as one man and one woman. In fact, it has been used as a selling point.

You know, this is going to really blow up in peoples faces. If by the Missouri State Constitution that a Marriage cannot be shared equally, there is a VERY good chance that a judge will order Marriage itself unconstitutional, thereby annulling every marriage within MO.

The idiots that voted for this failed to grasp the implications. Rights must be equal. If they cannot be equal in one manner, ie same-sex marriage, then they must be balanced out by the opposite extreme ie no marriages at all.

I have looked through this and have seen everything from brilliant wisdom to the most moronic folks on this side of the Atlantic (other side too I'd bet). I've seen mature, well thought out people debating with whiny fools, like the guy two slides up from me.

We each have our opinions on this matter, and I refuse to tell anyone what is right or wrong. Many of us have religious convictions that tell us that we should ban it. Fine for you then. Others have sympathies or are themselves homosexual, and wish for the right to marry their partners. Fine for you.

No converts will be won by flaming each other on a board. You want to change someone's mind? Sit down with them and discuss the issue. This bothersome crying at one another is seriously getting on my nerves.

I have some activities for everyone here:

-Read the Constitution. It will tell you how a bill is passed in the US Legislative system. No state has to agree with them to do this, just a 2/3s majority of Senators/Congressmen.

-Talk to a SENSIBLE person who supports gay marriage. Listen to them. Actually listen to what they have to say, and try to see it from their point of view. What if you were in their position, and don't instantly blow off everything they have to say.

-Talk to a SENSIBLE person who wishes for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Listen to them. Actually listen to what they have to say and try to see it from their point of view. What if you were in their position, and don't instantly blow off everything they have to say.

We cannot have tyrrany by majority, but we also can't lose moral decentcy. We have to draw the line somewhere, and it's a really fuzzy line. Stop whining about it, vote when you can, and the government will decide.

If nothing else, I am a patriot. I love my country because my country says I can hate it, slander it and even completely do away with it, and for some reason it still works. So therefore, I love it.

Can't we all say that deep down, we wish we could always live here under peace, freedom and equality?

-R. S. of UC

What is flamebaiting, flaming and all that? someone please

Flaming is when someone unnecessarily starts insulting someone else and attacking them personally instead of merely in a calm and logical manner debating what the person has said.

A person says, "I believe that there isn't a God because of all the bad that happens in this world. If there was a God, none of this bad stuff would happen."

the right way: "No, you're wrong because here in the bible it clearly states that God is real and that if we don't worship him...or you at least, you're going straight to hell for heresy!"

flaming: "youre so stupid! youre wrong 'cause there is a God and he'll send you tohell and kill you for this! your beliefs are wrong, neener, neener... you are stupid and im smart! youll be punished because you don't know nothing and youre a dumbass liberal who likes to lick gayasses"

Ok, so that was a little extreme.

Now, then, flamebaiting is when a person, instead of flaming, lays a trap for flames.

A person says, "I think George Bush is a lousy president because of his track record. If you look at what he's done, he's done more bad than good for America and for that he shouldn't be allowed to be re-elected."

that is NOT a flamebait.

THIS is a flamebait: ALL GAYS ARE STUPID! ALL GAYS SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP AND KILLED!! DEATH TO ALL GAYS!

And I only just now saw it. And I got SO MAD....
I wanted to flame back, severely.
I didn't.

thanks for taking sides against me.

Obviously, you, too, support not giving people like me equal standing in the eyes of the law...and obviously, you think gloating about it, where people like me can see it...is NOT flamebaiting.

And obviously you haven't read any of my posts in this thread, or you wouldn't be jumping to such an insane conclusion.

^^^^ this guy? ^^^^^^

He's the kind I'm talking about.

-R. S. of UC

States have the Constitutional Right to decide who may marry in that state. However, the Constitution also states that if ONE state chooses to marry a couple, then that union must be considered legal and valid in all states. Thus laws designed NOT to recognize any homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.

Article IV


Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

OK! I still have a long way to go on this since I went off to bed but I saw this and I was wondering when it would come up! When this posts I don't know if someone responded too but here it goes!

Under Article IV Section 1 it states that Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

However, if you read the whole thing, this is what is in the middle of it And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

With this, Congress has already acted by taking away full faith and credit, by general law with DOMA (States that outlaw gay marriage don't have to recognize gay marriage) and the MPA (Will take out the federal courts on this issue)! I've had this arguement over this before. Congress followed the dictates of the Constitution and did NOT violate it.

OK! I still have a long way to go on this since I went off to bed but I saw this and I was wondering when it would come up! When this posts I don't know if someone responded too but here it goes!

Under Article IV Section 1 it states that Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

However, if you read the whole thing, this is what is in the middle of it [i]And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof[i]

With this, Congress has already acted by taking away full faith and credit, by general law with DOMA (States that outlaw gay marriage don't have to recognize gay marriage) and the MPA (Will take out the federal courts on this issue)! I've had this arguement over this before. Congress followed the dictates of the Constitution and did NOT violate it.

let me explain this again because your kind of dense

that clause only gives congress the power to enforce the full faith and credit clause such as the 2nd sections among several of the amendments. it does not give the congress the ability to limit or otherwise define full faith and credit as it is already defined

And ignoring the 14th. Good job.

And not recognizing *any* marriage from another state ignores the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Are you advocating that Missouri leave the union?

Actually Dempublicents, you need to really read Article IV Section 1 again. Wait, I did post it so read what I highlighted. Thus it didn't violate the Constitution.

And obviously you haven't read any of my posts in this thread, or you wouldn't be jumping to such an insane conclusion.

This is PRECISELY WHY, in a different thread, I fought so hard and so stridently...for us to retain the Ignore feature. Mods refuse to do anything about flamebaiting.

When that happens, there is only one way I can keep my civility on these boards. and that is...making sure I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT GLOATING FLAMEBAIT.

End of rant. end of discussion. i'm outta here.
I'm debating this on a different thread where those opposed at leeast are not GLOATING...

there's another nifty little tool called Hide Thread.

And I only just now saw it. And I got SO MAD....
I wanted to flame back, severely.
I didn't.

thanks for taking sides against me.

Obviously, you, too, support not giving people like me equal standing in the eyes of the law...and obviously, you think gloating about it, where people like me can see it...is NOT flamebaiting.

We are on your side. AND do give equal standing.

united christiandom who are u talking about?

let me explain this again because your kind of dense

that clause only gives congress the power to enforce the full faith and credit clause such as the 2nd sections among several of the amendments. it does not give the congress the ability to limit or otherwise define full faith and credit as it is already defined

It doesn't Chess Squares, they have defined it! That is what Congress can do under this section of the USC

You pay a lawyer about $20 (may vary from place to place) and he can draft a legal document that grants full rights to your partner. You don't need marriage for that.


Actually this has been tried, and denied. Certain rights can and are denied even with such paperwork in hand. A good tale I remember hearing my mother tell me was not about a homosexual couple, but an interracial couple. In the late 1800's, two members of the Baha'i faith (a branch off of Islam) were wed in Kittery, ME. One was black, one white. They travelled to Mississippi, with their "we have rights" certificate in hand. The wife became ill. The hospital had the husband arrested for trying to see her, despite the legal documents. When he went before the judge, the Judge stated, and I quote, "No paper allows you to override the laws of the great state of mississippi." While the husband was serving out his 3-year sentance, his wife died of tuberculosis. Note, she told me this when I was like 7, so I don't know if it's true, or just a fable.

You can write up documentation granting rights till the cows come home, a state can and will still deny them, making that writeup little more than a piece of toilet paper.

It doesn't Chess Squares, they have defined it! That is what Congress can do under this section of the USC
YOUR NOT LISTENING
they cannot redefine full faith and credit as they see fit, it is already defined in the consitution, which supercedes general law

they may only enforce the full faith and credit clause

This is PRECISELY WHY, in a different thread, I fought so hard and so stridently...for us to retain the Ignore feature. Mods refuse to do anything about flamebaiting.

While it's fairly pointless replying since you [presumably] won't read it, it's worth noting that each person's definition of what consitutes 'flamebait' is different, and, in some cases, may be the polar opposite of another's [a Satanist stating his beliefs might be considered flamebait by a fundamentalist Christian, for example]. To be classed as flamebait by a moderator the post must be clearly nothing but an attempt to get people annoyed. Enodscopia's post, while I certainly don't agree with it, isn't nearly up at the level where you could say he was going all out to deliberately rub people the wrong way.

As the old saying goes, nobody in the world has the right not to be offended.

YOUR NOT LISTENING
they cannot redefine full faith and credit as they see fit, it is already defined in the consitution, which supercedes general law

they may only enforce the full faith and credit clause

Chess squares, you can believe whatever you want but in reality it is they have stated Full Faith in Credit with the Defense of Marriage Act! Do I have to post it AGAIN for you to understand it? You lost that one debate already but I'm ready to go at it again if you want!

In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?

Mine did just last year, cute couple too.

We are on your side. AND do give equal standing.

Never said YOU weren't on my side. that was directed at a very specific individual. I don't exactly remember the nation's name, but it was something like GMC Military??
THAT was who I was thanking for taking sides against me.


i'm sorry, but I should NOT have to see someone GLOATING over people like me being denied our civil rights and basic human dignity.

Obviously, this guy to whom my comment was directed...does not believe that gloating in this fashion amounts to flamebait.

so I am doing the one and only thing I can do to maintain my civility...I'm hiding this thread so I don't have to look at it anymore...since the Mod refuses to upbraid the thread originator for the gloating way in which he started the thread...which, if you read that first post...is CLEARLY geared towards angering the GLBT people...by gloating that he got his way, and we were denied our rights and dignities.

Have a nice debate. i'm outta here before I lose my temper.

Chess squares, you can believe whatever you want but in reality it is they have stated Full Faith in Credit with the Defense of Marriage Act! Do I have to post it AGAIN for you to understand it? You lost that one debate already but I'm ready to go at it again if you want!
lost? please, you live in some imaginary world where the consitution does not exist, a republican wet dream if you will, the congress has power to do whatever they please without rammification or control factor

It's that ignorant neo-conservative ideology so rampant today...anything to make America into what *I* think it ought to be! Nevermind that many of my policies and how I seek to go about implementing them contradict what I seem to be trying to uphold, I'm right because I know I'm right! And so is the guy who leads my party!

Incidentally, maybe this has already been covered (my connection sucks to much to read 16 pages), but this is the map of same-sex marriage legislation:

map (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/allpolitics/0307/same.sex.marriages/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))

I don't see 32 or 38 states on there...I see, what, 4? I'm not too upset about MI, see my last post about why. This was no surprise, and quite frankly, homosexuals in such states have far more to worry about than if they can get married (such as a goal of dying of natural causes).

38 states have laws banning gay marriage. 5 states have a state amendment to the same effect

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establishment of religion. Hmmm...This does not mean seperation of church and state, but rather the adoption of an official state religion, such as the church of England.

What religion are we "prohibiting the free exercise of" by prohibiting gays to marry?

There is actually no provision in our constitution for "seperation of church and state".

lost? please, you live in some imaginary world where the consitution does not exist, a republican wet dream if you will, the congress has power to do whatever they please without rammification or control factor

HAHA! I'm neither Dem or Rep! I'm an Independent. LOL

As far as I'm concerned, this is the way it should be done. It should be purely a state issue, and the federal government should keep their brown noses out of it.

That's idiotic too. :headbang:

We need to just remove marraige from government powers altogether and have civil unions (all the benefits or such).

Establishment of religion. Hmmm...This does not mean seperation of church and state, but rather the adoption of an official state religion, such as the church of England.

What religion are we "prohibiting the free exercise of" by prohibiting gays to marry?

There is actually no provision in our constitution for "seperation of church and state".
please dont tell me ui have to provide a break down of the establishment clause in lay men's terms here do i

The United States of America... the land of the free... but only if you are heterosexual, rich, white, christian, republican, supporting US imperialism.

Land of the free... my ass...

France's High Court Annulled a Gay Marriage.

HAHA! I'm neither Dem or Rep! I'm an Independent. LOL
thats funny how?
you are still a right wing nut job

Establishment of religion. Hmmm...This does not mean seperation of church and state, but rather the adoption of an official state religion, such as the church of England.

What religion are we "prohibiting the free exercise of" by prohibiting gays to marry?

There is actually no provision in our constitution for "seperation of church and state".

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/WallofSeparation.pdf

thats funny how?
you are still a right wing nut job

NO!! I'm not even able to vote yet!

Nice quote from JibJab's cartoon This Land.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/WallofSeparation.pdf

werd :)

NO!! I'm not even able to vote yet!

Nice quote from JibJab's cartoon This Land.

Just cuz you can't vote, doesn't remove you from being a right wing nut job

:sniper:

Just cuz you can't vote, doesn't remove you from being a right wing nut job

:sniper:

But I'm not! You just ignored that! I said No!

But I'm not! You just ignored that! I said No!

Would it make you understand what I meant if I put anyone instead of you?

Never said YOU weren't on my side. that was directed at a very specific individual. I don't exactly remember the nation's name, but it was something like GMC Military??
THAT was who I was thanking for taking sides against me.


i'm sorry, but I should NOT have to see someone GLOATING over people like me being denied our civil rights and basic human dignity.

Obviously, this guy to whom my comment was directed...does not believe that gloating in this fashion amounts to flamebait.

so I am doing the one and only thing I can do to maintain my civility...I'm hiding this thread so I don't have to look at it anymore...since the Mod refuses to upbraid the thread originator for the gloating way in which he started the thread...which, if you read that first post...is CLEARLY geared towards angering the GLBT people...by gloating that he got his way, and we were denied our rights and dignities.

Have a nice debate. i'm outta here before I lose my temper.

Why not prove yourself to be better and join the conversation? New information or opinions is what its all about?