NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Bohemia[/B]] Islamic extremists have rarely been this much of a problem for society up until the latter half of this century. Not that I'm defending any one religion, very few have a civilised attitude to those that don't subscribe to their views (with the exception of Buddhism and that one I can't remember the name of. Dr. Kelly was a member. You know what I mean).


Are you for real?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s877145.htm

I can get more if you like.

[QUOTE=Tamarket]I hate them because they want to force their beliefs on millions of unwilling human beings. If they didn't want to do this, I would not hate them. I do not wish to force them to marry.

I admit there are some extreme groups like the Jehovahs and Mormans, but

most Christians will tell you their Christian, but will rarely try to get you to

believe in their faith unless you ask them.

Most Christians, like me, simply go to Church and try to follow the

commandments.

Well, it was done before many times during the dark ages.

Yes, but not now, wasnt that the whole point?



Maybe one day extremist Muslims will take over the US and execute all Christians like you.

Like that would you?

Are you muslim by any chance?

Be thankful that atheists don't see violence as a solution.

Why wouldnt they?

Are they all pacifists?

You sound a bit deranged by the way, I dont recall saying anything like that

about the Gays, the final solution eh, maybe your some kind of angry little

Christian hating Nazi?

Unfortunately religion does have a part in this conversation, so don't try to rule out religion in this thread altogethor. Although it would be nice to hear some more arguments that aren't religous arguments.
Though I do agree that religion shouldn't be a main factor in the government deciding whether it should be legal or not. If they legalize it then it's up to the churches to decide whether they would wed homosexuals. Chances are there would be some churches willing to do so.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Religion should not be a factor in the government making decisions. It should be a factor in whether or not religious organizations perform gay marriages (obviously). And I have no problem if its the beginning of an idea for religious people, but they have to back it up in a secular manner. Otherwise the law IS government affecting religious practice.

Of course, like the whole idea that Florists or Librarians had nothing to do

with the Nazis is false.

The Nazis were running Germany for 12 years could not be avoided, they

were everywhere.

The German Churches having contact with the Nazis, doesnt mean they were

involved in some huge papal conspiricy to kill all the Jews in Europe.

lol at Pracus for saying the only reason the Nazis triumphed in Germany was

because good men sat on their hands and did nothing, anyone who even

spoke out against them was shot, what would you have done?

One man after the night of the longknives, a brownshirt, said in a drunken

speech God save Hitler, a man listening to him said quietly, and God save us

from him, two days later his ashes were sent to his family in an urn.

My point being, the Nazis were beyond bad, they were incredibly evil, and

would stoop to any depravity.

I finally get it. Christians are only Christians when its easy. Say stopping this mythological "gay army" that's out to convert the world. That woudl be easy in your mind evidently. But speaking out and fighting against the millions of Jews that were killed, that' something Christians shouldn't do because it would be hard.

As I've said though, I'm withdrawing from this part of the conversation as its digressed too much. Term you might want to think about the fact that what you lack in consistency you make up in hypocricy.

[QUOTE]

Yes your so sweet and innocent arent you, *coughs


Well first like most gay guys do , you have a good look at my crotch, then

you might lick your lips accidently, and of course you would have a dirty look

in your eye.

Just because your not mincing around in a skirt Pracus, doesnt mean you

cant be spotted easily, your whole body language is different compared to a hetrosexuals.

Actually no, I'm just a nice, normal person. You know gays can be nice and normal too.

[QUOTE]

Most Christians, like me, simply go to Church and try to follow the

commandments.



And try to have your personal interpretation of them legislated. This is a problem.

You know gays can be nice and normal too.

Nooooooo! All gays are queens or bears and hit on every straight guy they meet! And they're all promiscuous! Show's how little you know... [/sarcasm]

This is where the "phobia" part comes in. Many straight men are afraid that a gay guy will hit on them. It's so stupid, but I think it's related to power. I mean, a guy potentially has the strength, and penis (which makes these things easier) to rape another man. Maybe that's what straight guys are subconsciously afraid of? It's so stupid. By that logic, women should be afraid of all men.

And, as a girl, I'd be flattered if another girl hit on me. I'd turn her down, but I'd still be flattered.

If I was gay or bi I'd probably enjoy hitting on the straights just to freak them out. Then I'd get bashed... but yeah.

Actually no, I'm just a nice, normal person. You know gays can be nice and normal too.

Cheez, Pracus, why are you even deigning to reply? Seriously, I envy your tolerance and calmness in the face of idiocy.

I would have gone out and committed some horrible act of revenge homicide if someone implied similar things about me based on exactly zero evidence.

But then, I'm half Italian, and liable to be a smidgen hot-headed (I wonder if that would stand up in court... hmmmm)

Still, I applaud your ability not to devolve into anger when faced with hatred. I doubt I could hold up so well in your place.

(this is meant to be praise - if it comes out otherwise, it's because I'm more than half asleep)

Seen me have you?

looks around
yeah. i'm the cute girl that wouldn't go out with you, remember? :)

seriously, though, NOBODY is as hot as you seem to think you are. i have hung around with gay guys a lot, and i have never once seen one of them look at anybody's crotch and lick their lips. you seem to think they are all sex-crazed and perpetually on the prowl for hetero-boy ass. grow up. i don't want to hurt your feelings, and i know this comes as a real blow, but most gay men don't want you. (some might, since there are masochists in the gay community as well as in the straight community...) you're just going to have to learn to live with that.

yeah. i'm the cute girl that wouldn't go out with you, remember? :)


Wow, there must have been hundreds of you..... sorry, that was mean.


seriously, though, NOBODY is as hot as you seem to think you are. i have hung around with gay guys a lot, and i have never once seen one of them look at anybody's crotch and lick their lips. you seem to think they are all sex-crazed and perpetually on the prowl for hetero-boy ass. grow up. i don't want to hurt your feelings, and i know this comes as a real blow, but most gay men don't want you. (some might, since there are masochists in the gay community as well as in the straight community...) you're just going to have to learn to live with that.

I know one. His name is Brian, and he does all of that stuff... but he also does the 'voice' thing, and holds his hand with a limp wrist.

But, he is one of only two homosexuals I have met that DID act like that. Curious that, apparently, ALL the homosexuals Terminalia knows are like that... maybe the difference is that my gay friends haven't been imaginary?

Nooooooo! All gays are queens or bears and hit on every straight guy they meet! And they're all promiscuous! Show's how little you know... [/sarcasm]

This is where the "phobia" part comes in. Many straight men are afraid that a gay guy will hit on them. It's so stupid, but I think it's related to power. I mean, a guy potentially has the strength, and penis (which makes these things easier) to rape another man. Maybe that's what straight guys are subconsciously afraid of? It's so stupid. By that logic, women should be afraid of all men.

And, as a girl, I'd be flattered if another girl hit on me. I'd turn her down, but I'd still be flattered.

If I was gay or bi I'd probably enjoy hitting on the straights just to freak them out. Then I'd get bashed... but yeah.

When I worked on a call-centre, there was a person in my office, who I always picture when I read Terminalia's posts. I don't actually know what Terminalia looks like (although Bottle does :) ), but I always imagine this fellow I knew.

So - anyway... this foul-mouthed braggart was talking about how all homosexuals should be lined up and shot (seriously), and I decided to join the discussion. Now, he pointed out that I WOULD join their side because I was gay. I pointed out that I was married, and, in fact, that he had met my wife... and asked him why he thought I was gay... and he pointed out that I had long hair....

So, anyway, I told him to imagine for a second that I really WAS gay, why did he think I should be shot?

He straight-faced said "Because you'd try to 'bum' me".

My response? Honey, I'm gay.... not blind.

Like you said... what is it about the homophobe that makes him think gay guys are going to be irresistibly drawn to them?

I'd like to take a moment to offer some insight into something that I feel has been overlooked. Now, if I repeat anything that has been said over the course of this debate then please forgive me. I'm not going to read through all 83 (approximately) pages at this point but I have read a good bit of it, along with similar posts.

If the folks in support of the gay marriage side have wondered why there don't seem to be too many people speaking up in this forum in opposition, please don't assume it's because they are intimidated or uncertain of their convictions. This may be true for some cases but not all. The reason is I think maybe you guys don't realize how (forgive me) elitist and abusive you sometimes sound when dealing with a person who holds an opposing viewpoint.

Typically, a person who does not agree with the idea of gay marriage is instantly labeled a homophobe, is marginalized, and dismissed as a bigot. Now, I realize that a lot of you guys might respond with the position that you have, in the past, felt marginalized and dismissed by ultra-conservatives and religious extremists. That's a valid point, but it doesn't justify doing it back to others.

Not every Christian is a homophobe or a bigot. Some are, I know. I've met them and am related to a couple. Some sects are even bigoted against each other despite having similar moral threads.

Of course you guys are entitled to your opinions and your beliefs. Nobody should ever question that. You expect people to hear your arguments and to give them their due consideration. That's perfectly valid and one of the founding principles of many modern countries. But you guys have to remember that if you want that courtesy and respect, you have a certain responsibility to extend it to your debate opponents as well.

I know that some of the opponents of gay marriage are genuinely bigoted, but to be honest, there are bigots on both sides of this issue. I've seen folks on both sides go after one another for religious or political views that don't have anything directly to do with the issue of homosexuality.

If I identify myself right now as a heterosexual Christian male will you feel the urge to dismiss what I've said? What if I identify myself as a gay agnostic? Do my words suddenly sound better to you? What if I tell you I'm a Mormon? What if I tell you I'm an atheist lesbian with a partner and three adopted daughters?

If any of the above makes you feel differently about what I've said in the last few paragraphs then I'd like to suggest that you take some time to ask yourself where you really stand and why. It should make no difference what my background is in terms of this discussion. We're here to debate and discuss opinions and views, not to make character judgements based on ethnic and cultural origin.

Thanks very much for reading this.

That's why I kept using the quotes.... I'm saying that it is certain people who perpetuate anti-semitism because of the 'they killed christ' mindset.

There is evidence for it... look at places like Lincoln, England - which, after Passion Revivals, rounded up the Jews of the city (who were already made to wear yellow), dropped them in a pit, and stoned them to death.

Ah, the tolerance of the zealous.Ah I see. Not a part of history I know much about.

But what about the ummmm atheists and their ummm persecution of the … ummmStalin's communists and the persecution of kulaks. Communists and the persecution of Christians. Chinese communists and the persecution of Falun Gong. Us atheists are quite capeable of being sh-t-heads too.

Cheez, Pracus, why are you even deigning to reply? Seriously, I envy your tolerance and calmness in the face of idiocy.

I would have gone out and committed some horrible act of revenge homicide if someone implied similar things about me based on exactly zero evidence.

But then, I'm half Italian, and liable to be a smidgen hot-headed (I wonder if that would stand up in court... hmmmm)

Still, I applaud your ability not to devolve into anger when faced with hatred. I doubt I could hold up so well in your place.

(this is meant to be praise - if it comes out otherwise, it's because I'm more than half asleep)

I wish I could have that calmness all the time. I would be a better person for it. Sadly sometimes i do let myself get angry and say things I would otherwise not. Still, I try to my best. My parents raised me that there is a certain level of respect that all people should get and that at the end of the day, what others think of you isn't nearly as important as what you think of yourself.

So really, why should I get mad if I'm insulted? Especially if it isn't true. With term accusing me of what he did, I have nothing to defend because I have done nothing wrong.

I just wish I could remember that logic all the time :)

When I worked on a call-centre, there was a person in my office, who I always picture when I read Terminalia's posts. I don't actually know what Terminalia looks like (although Bottle does :) ), but I always imagine this fellow I knew.

So - anyway... this foul-mouthed braggart was talking about how all homosexuals should be lined up and shot (seriously), and I decided to join the discussion. Now, he pointed out that I WOULD join their side because I was gay. I pointed out that I was married, and, in fact, that he had met my wife... and asked him why he thought I was gay... and he pointed out that I had long hair....

So, anyway, I told him to imagine for a second that I really WAS gay, why did he think I should be shot?

He straight-faced said "Because you'd try to 'bum' me".

My response? Honey, I'm gay.... not blind.

Like you said... what is it about the homophobe that makes him think gay guys are going to be irresistibly drawn to them?

I think that its about insecurity--which I think someone mentioned earlier. Straight guys don't always know how to react around homosexuals, they live in fear that a homosexual might be attracted to them and try to force them to turn gay (as if that could happen). Now I'm sure that many would not admit this--after all its hard to admit any of our insecurities becaue that would be to admit that we are indeed flawed adn weak humans.

I'm sure that there is more to it than this with some, perhaps some self-loathing because of some unspoken homosexual desires (some not all). Maybe not. I'm ramlbing and I should be studying.

Basically, I think they are to be pitied more than to be angry at (usually).

Ah I see. Not a part of history I know much about.

Stalin's communists and the persecution of kulaks. Communists and the persecution of Christians. Chinese communists and the persecution of Falun Gong. Us atheists are quite capeable of being sh-t-heads too.


I think there is some confusion… true communism would ideally have no religion as it is a separator of the classes

Here is a nice little quote
“A fundamental conceit of the Communists had been their moral certainty that their new faith in "scientific atheism" would supplant what they believed to be mystical religious "mythologies," relics inherited from a bygone era of superstitions before Darwin, Marx, and electrification. Instead, despite the Communists' best efforts, religion outlasted the Communist era. In Russia itself, public opinion polls conducted after the fall of the Soviet state revealed that the institution most trusted by the average citizen was the Russian Orthodox Church.[2] This should not be too surprising, because the church was one of only a handful of Russian national institutions—and by far the most important one—to survive from tsarist times through the entire Communist period. Trust in the church may well dissipate with time, and interest in Orthodoxy often goes no deeper than a fascination with the color and architectural splendor of the Russian past—a beauty so manifestly lacking in late Soviet life. Certainly, public interest in Orthodoxy has not yet translated into high church attendance figures.[3] Nonetheless, the Russian Orthodox Church wields considerable political power and is even able to command overwhelming majority support in the Duma on legislation designed to restrict the activity of rival faiths.[4] The survival of religion, and its return as a publicly prominent political and social force in post-Soviet life, are in themselves sufficient grounds for a reexamination of its history.”

from
http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/miner_stalins.html

while ideally there was no religion this was not so in the case of Russia and its orthodox church


Edit: Also applied to the Chinese suppression comment, currently it is the suppression according to “anti cult” laws

Though just because a government is self proclaimed atheist (which is almost forced if following true communism) doesn’t mean they practice as such not a country full of people believing in nothing chancing down believers (there may be atheists involved but not on atheisms sake, maybe a whole host of other factors)

I'd like to take a moment to offer some insight into something that I feel has been overlooked. Now, if I repeat anything that has been said over the course of this debate then please forgive me. I'm not going to read through all 83 (approximately) pages at this point but I have read a good bit of it, along with similar posts.

If the folks in support of the gay marriage side have wondered why there don't seem to be too many people speaking up in this forum in opposition, please don't assume it's because they are intimidated or uncertain of their convictions. This may be true for some cases but not all. The reason is I think maybe you guys don't realize how (forgive me) elitist and abusive you sometimes sound when dealing with a person who holds an opposing viewpoint.

Typically, a person who does not agree with the idea of gay marriage is instantly labeled a homophobe, is marginalized, and dismissed as a bigot. Now, I realize that a lot of you guys might respond with the position that you have, in the past, felt marginalized and dismissed by ultra-conservatives and religious extremists. That's a valid point, but it doesn't justify doing it back to others.

Not every Christian is a homophobe or a bigot. Some are, I know. I've met them and am related to a couple. Some sects are even bigoted against each other despite having similar moral threads.

Of course you guys are entitled to your opinions and your beliefs. Nobody should ever question that. You expect people to hear your arguments and to give them their due consideration. That's perfectly valid and one of the founding principles of many modern countries. But you guys have to remember that if you want that courtesy and respect, you have a certain responsibility to extend it to your debate opponents as well.

I know that some of the opponents of gay marriage are genuinely bigoted, but to be honest, there are bigots on both sides of this issue. I've seen folks on both sides go after one another for religious or political views that don't have anything directly to do with the issue of homosexuality.

If I identify myself right now as a heterosexual Christian male will you feel the urge to dismiss what I've said? What if I identify myself as a gay agnostic? Do my words suddenly sound better to you? What if I tell you I'm a Mormon? What if I tell you I'm an atheist lesbian with a partner and three adopted daughters?

If any of the above makes you feel differently about what I've said in the last few paragraphs then I'd like to suggest that you take some time to ask yourself where you really stand and why. It should make no difference what my background is in terms of this discussion. We're here to debate and discuss opinions and views, not to make character judgements based on ethnic and cultural origin.

Thanks very much for reading this.

You know what, none of those these things that you potentially identified yourself as changed in the least my view of what you were saying. You were calm, expressed yourself well, had obviously thought out what you were saying and suggested that you might be willing to seriously entertain debate opposing what you believe.

We (well, I at least and the majority of people here) respect people like that, regardless of the side they are on.

The people that get called homophobes/bigots/dufuses, etc. get called that because they behave like that. They rarely (if ever) present their case in a civilized, non-insulting manner (and actually it can be done for I've discussed this in person with people who do) and they do not listen and seriously consider counter-arguements. Instead, you get things like "I just don't believe that" or "yeah right." Sooooo, perhaps we do scare some people away because they are scared that they will get called bigots like other people. They shouldn't be afraid of that from most of us, because most of us who have been around here are intelligent people who understand that conflicting viewpoints do exist. However, that doesn't mean that we aren't going to call a tree a tree when we see it. If a bigot/psycho/homophobe does post (and you can generally tell because they are people who present things in grand sweeping generalizations and won't believe things to the contrary) here, they are going to get told what they are.

So, what's the point of this rambling? Basically, I don't want to study.

I suspected you'd be able to appreciate that, Pracus. I've seen a lot of your posts and have found you to be much more reasonable than the folks I had in mind when I wrote that.

The main reason for my ramblings: Not wanting to work ;)

After a couple more people respond if they so choose, I'll reveal my position and background, just for the record.

I suspected you'd be able to appreciate that, Pracus. I've seen a lot of your posts and have found you to be much more reasonable than the folks I had in mind when I wrote that.

The main reason for my ramblings: Not wanting to work ;)

After a couple more people respond if they so choose, I'll reveal my position and background, just for the record.

Awwww schucks. You've made me blush. :)

I'd like to take a moment to offer some insight into something that I feel has been overlooked. Now, if I repeat anything that has been said over the course of this debate then please forgive me. I'm not going to read through all 83 (approximately) pages at this point but I have read a good bit of it, along with similar posts.

If the folks in support of the gay marriage side have wondered why there don't seem to be too many people speaking up in this forum in opposition, please don't assume it's because they are intimidated or uncertain of their convictions. This may be true for some cases but not all. The reason is I think maybe you guys don't realize how (forgive me) elitist and abusive you sometimes sound when dealing with a person who holds an opposing viewpoint.

Typically, a person who does not agree with the idea of gay marriage is instantly labeled a homophobe, is marginalized, and dismissed as a bigot. Now, I realize that a lot of you guys might respond with the position that you have, in the past, felt marginalized and dismissed by ultra-conservatives and religious extremists. That's a valid point, but it doesn't justify doing it back to others.

Not every Christian is a homophobe or a bigot. Some are, I know. I've met them and am related to a couple. Some sects are even bigoted against each other despite having similar moral threads.

Of course you guys are entitled to your opinions and your beliefs. Nobody should ever question that. You expect people to hear your arguments and to give them their due consideration. That's perfectly valid and one of the founding principles of many modern countries. But you guys have to remember that if you want that courtesy and respect, you have a certain responsibility to extend it to your debate opponents as well.

I know that some of the opponents of gay marriage are genuinely bigoted, but to be honest, there are bigots on both sides of this issue. I've seen folks on both sides go after one another for religious or political views that don't have anything directly to do with the issue of homosexuality.

If I identify myself right now as a heterosexual Christian male will you feel the urge to dismiss what I've said? What if I identify myself as a gay agnostic? Do my words suddenly sound better to you? What if I tell you I'm a Mormon? What if I tell you I'm an atheist lesbian with a partner and three adopted daughters?

If any of the above makes you feel differently about what I've said in the last few paragraphs then I'd like to suggest that you take some time to ask yourself where you really stand and why. It should make no difference what my background is in terms of this discussion. We're here to debate and discuss opinions and views, not to make character judgements based on ethnic and cultural origin.

Thanks very much for reading this.
I certainly agree. Calling all Christians gay-bashing homophobes isn't helpful. It's too easy to generalize. Especially when the majority of the people against gay marriage in this thread tend to type in all caps and end their posts with something like this: :fluffle: :mp5:

However, there comes a point where expecting respectful debate is hopeless. For instance, I had the pleasure of arguing with someone who was against interracial marriage. :rolleyes:

If you can show me any reason why gay marriage should remain illegal that doesn't involve bigotry, than I will gladly debate. But I haven't seen much of that in this thread.

If you think I am being the intolerant one, just imagine yourself having to "debate" with people against interracial marriage, and you will get an idea of how I feel.

If you can show me any reason why gay marriage should remain illegal that doesn't involve bigotry, than I will gladly debate. But I haven't seen much of that in this thread.


The problem is in the definition of bigotry. If a person believes for whatever reason that it is immoral, is that in and of itself bigotry? I think not, however many folks might insist that it is and get riled...

The problem is in the definition of bigotry. If a person believes for whatever reason that it is immoral, is that in and of itself bigotry? I think not, however many folks might insist that it is and get riled...

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

We should be using adjectives for people who believe their opinion should have direct influence over other's personal affairs.

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

We should be using adjectives for people who believe their opinion should have direct influence over other's personal affairs.

So self-righteous and psychotic? And yes, this is a joke.

So self-righteous and psychotic? And yes, this is a joke.

Bah, why be so PC? ;)

Well, in that case wouldn't you say calling a christian who considers homosexuality a sin a bigot would be inaccurate, since they do not base it on their own opinion?

I was reading everything... but now that I see how many pages there are, I am glad I stopped.

I vote yest on gay marriages. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, even if there isn't love. (We all know that people who aren't really in love get married today anyways....)

So... yeah. I should be able to marry whoever I want.

See that's the thing. A Minister who stands before a congregation and preaches that homosexuality is sinful, but that it is wrong to be discriminatory and to fail to show compassion is not a bigot.

A Minister who encourages his congregation to shun homosexuals and condemn them is being a bigot. See the difference?

Why are we even debating the issue?Be Proud to be Gay!Every form of Love & De-vo-tion should be Fun-de-ment-ally Accepted :)

Why are we even debating the issue?Be Proud to be Gay!Every form of Love & De-vo-tion should be Fun-de-ment-ally Accepted :)

Yeahus, let's take the mental out of fundamental. :D

Well, I have unfortunately succeeded in missing about the last 40 pages due to the fact that I was in D.C. for 6 days. However, I'm back to represent the majority of christians in a rousing cheer. Beforehand, I would like to point out that from a biblical basis I cannot find anything wrong with an interracial marriage, so I suppose whoever argued that was just plain racist. And I'm from South Carolina, so I can identify with that to a small degree.

OK, I just want to rehash a statement I made about 40 pages ago, and say that most christians have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude. Now, because we cannot in good conscience support a sinful lifestyle as being "ok," it stands to reason that we can not legalize gay marriage, simply because it could then be construed that we support homosexuality. To show a real world analogy, you may liken this to the current controversy surrounding the pledge. After all, atheists refuse to recite the pledge in many cases because their actions may be construed as being supportive of the phrase "under God" remaining in the pledge. Now, that particular debate is one that I, as a law student, would prefer to leave for another time, so lets try not to take that analogy and spend the next 10 pages discussing it. Simply put, according to the New Testament scriptures, which contain the only law that binds christians, homosexuality is a sin. Now, since marriage is seen as a religous institution (not necessarily christian, but until very recent years one associated with whatever religion is prominent in that area), and until recently had almost nothing to do with marriage licenses and justices of the peace, I would state unequivocally that gay marriage is something that no christian could support. Or at least, they could not be married by a priest, preacher, etc. However, a civil union or similar ceremony, which affords the same rights as marriage, is in my opinion completely unrelated to religion in any form, and therefore I have no objection to homosexuals joining in this type of union. As long as they recieve the same benefits, I see no reason for there to be conflict. They are two almost identical practices, differing only in that one carries a far more religious connotation while the other is a singularly secular practice.

Well, I have unfortunately succeeded in missing about the last 40 pages due to the fact that I was in D.C. for 6 days. However, I'm back to represent the majority of christians in a rousing cheer. Beforehand, I would like to point out that from a biblical basis I cannot find anything wrong with an interracial marriage, so I suppose whoever argued that was just plain racist. And I'm from South Carolina, so I can identify with that to a small degree.

OK, I just want to rehash a statement I made about 40 pages ago, and say that most christians have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude. Now, because we cannot in good conscience support a sinful lifestyle as being "ok," it stands to reason that we can not legalize gay marriage, simply because it could then be construed that we support homosexuality. To show a real world analogy, you may liken this to the current controversy surrounding the pledge. After all, atheists refuse to recite the pledge in many cases because their actions may be construed as being supportive of the phrase "under God" remaining in the pledge. Now, that particular debate is one that I, as a law student, would prefer to leave for another time, so lets try not to take that analogy and spend the next 10 pages discussing it. Simply put, according to the New Testament scriptures, which contain the only law that binds christians, homosexuality is a sin. Now, since marriage is seen as a religous institution (not necessarily christian, but until very recent years one associated with whatever religion is prominent in that area), and until recently had almost nothing to do with marriage licenses and justices of the peace, I would state unequivocally that gay marriage is something that no christian could support. Or at least, they could not be married by a priest, preacher, etc. However, a civil union or similar ceremony, which affords the same rights as marriage, is in my opinion completely unrelated to religion in any form, and therefore I have no objection to homosexuals joining in this type of union. As long as they recieve the same benefits, I see no reason for there to be conflict. They are two almost identical practices, differing only in that one carries a far more religious connotation while the other is a singularly secular practice.


while civil unions are a good temporary solutions (Read: until your kind dies off) I see two problems with your logic.
1:you imply christian values or morals should have to do with the law, for that::upyours:

2) I dont know from personal experience, not being gay and not planning to get married anytime soon. yet, It seems that the separation of the whole thing is kind of dehumanizing, dont you think?

as for bible thumpers or just the average christian, just like all other religions that had beliefs that didnt get enforced by the government: get fucked. The government is, if were lucky, the farthest thing in existance from any scripture. If not, we end up with a moralistic government, and we know where that leads...

( I do get that your argument actually implies that it is not trhough law, but through command of the church hierarchy, that you imply a priest will never be able to marry two men or two women. The answer is just to obvious. Come on, even you conservatives can see it. Its ben done dozens of time before out of smaller whims... come on... :headbang: )

Well, in that case wouldn't you say calling a christian who considers homosexuality a sin a bigot would be inaccurate, since they do not base it on their own opinion?

If they refuse to seriously consider any alternative, then yes, I would consider them a bigot.

See that's the thing. A Minister who stands before a congregation and preaches that homosexuality is sinful, but that it is wrong to be discriminatory and to fail to show compassion is not a bigot.

A Minister who encourages his congregation to shun homosexuals and condemn them is being a bigot. See the difference?

Word up. Excellent way of putting it.

Well, I have unfortunately succeeded in missing about the last 40 pages due to the fact that I was in D.C. for 6 days. However, I'm back to represent the majority of christians in a rousing cheer. Beforehand, I would like to point out that from a biblical basis I cannot find anything wrong with an interracial marriage, so I suppose whoever argued that was just plain racist. And I'm from South Carolina, so I can identify with that to a small degree.

OK, I just want to rehash a statement I made about 40 pages ago, and say that most christians have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude. Now, because we cannot in good conscience support a sinful lifestyle as being "ok," it stands to reason that we can not legalize gay marriage, simply because it could then be construed that we support homosexuality. To show a real world analogy, you may liken this to the current controversy surrounding the pledge. After all, atheists refuse to recite the pledge in many cases because their actions may be construed as being supportive of the phrase "under God" remaining in the pledge. Now, that particular debate is one that I, as a law student, would prefer to leave for another time, so lets try not to take that analogy and spend the next 10 pages discussing it. Simply put, according to the New Testament scriptures, which contain the only law that binds christians, homosexuality is a sin. Now, since marriage is seen as a religous institution (not necessarily christian, but until very recent years one associated with whatever religion is prominent in that area), and until recently had almost nothing to do with marriage licenses and justices of the peace, I would state unequivocally that gay marriage is something that no christian could support. Or at least, they could not be married by a priest, preacher, etc. However, a civil union or similar ceremony, which affords the same rights as marriage, is in my opinion completely unrelated to religion in any form, and therefore I have no objection to homosexuals joining in this type of union. As long as they recieve the same benefits, I see no reason for there to be conflict. They are two almost identical practices, differing only in that one carries a far more religious connotation while the other is a singularly secular practice.

So would you support heterosexuals having "civil unions" if they want the legal rights and responsibilities of what is currently termed "marriage"? If you would I would agree with you. If you wouldn't I would be shocked that a law student wouldn't understand separate isn't equal. Also, while I do agree with you that Christians have every right to disagree with gay marriage, would you also agree that America is a secular nation that has no business legislating religion? And therefore, is some religions recognize gay marriage (and some due) that legislating against it would violate the religious freedom of those groups?

Of course, like the whole idea that Florists or Librarians had nothing to do

with the Nazis is false.

The Nazis were running Germany for 12 years could not be avoided, they

were everywhere.

The German Churches having contact with the Nazis, doesnt mean they were

involved in some huge papal conspiricy to kill all the Jews in Europe.

lol at Pracus for saying the only reason the Nazis triumphed in Germany was

because good men sat on their hands and did nothing, anyone who even

spoke out against them was shot, what would you have done?

One man after the night of the longknives, a brownshirt, said in a drunken

speech God save Hitler, a man listening to him said quietly, and God save us

from him, two days later his ashes were sent to his family in an urn.

My point being, the Nazis were beyond bad, they were incredibly evil, and

would stoop to any depravity.


The ideology central to what a florist or librarian is wasn't used as a major part of Hitler's agenda and a major motivator in his dogma. Hitler's armies weren't composed largely of florists and librarians, nor did florists and librarians command enough resources and political clout to do anything about Hitler's actions. Sorry, that's a very weak example, and though I haven't caught up on today's offerings to this thread, I'm sure soneone has pointed this out already. I've already said that I'm not making a claim of a large conspiracy, so do try again to grasp what I'm saying. It seemed that this subject had been discussed and largely comprehended until you returned, so you must have some catching up to do.

Oh, so since Hitler might have taken action against them, it's excuseable? Sorry, the same could be said for a very, very large number of people within Germany at the time. What they tolerated was inexcuseable, especially considering what Christianity professes to believe in. Plenty of Christians stood up and took action against the Nazis. Perhaps if more had done so, the Nazis wouldn't have been as successful as they were.

[QUOTE]

I admit there are some extreme groups like the Jehovahs and Mormans, but

most Christians will tell you their Christian, but will rarely try to get you to

believe in their faith unless you ask them.

Most Christians, like me, simply go to Church and try to follow the

commandments.

And, of course, try to get legislation passed in accordance with their beliefs, effectively pushing those beliefs on others. But we haven't seen any of those Christians around, have we? I mean, if they were as common as some assert, we'd likely see at least one or two posting on this very forum!

Hey, wait...

Has anyone consided that we're living in a democracy here? I'm against gay marrage because no one asked me what i think, and if there was a chance to vote i'd vote to let gays marry in a heartbeat. So anyone else out there against gay marrage on the principal that loud mouth conservatives and loud mouth homosexual advocates/homosexuals are excluding the majority of the nation from the issue ?

[QUOTE]

Yes your so sweet and innocent arent you, *coughs

Well first like most gay guys do , you have a good look at my crotch, then

you might lick your lips accidently, and of course you would have a dirty look

in your eye.

Just because your not mincing around in a skirt Pracus, doesnt mean you

cant be spotted easily, your whole body language is different compared to a hetrosexuals.



Originally Posted by Bottle
isn't it cute how all homophobic guys think they are attractive to gay guys? newsflash: you aren't that hot.

Seen me have you?

looks around

Yeah, hypocrisy's fun, isn't it, Term? How dare they make a claim about you, but c'mon, we all know how those homosexuals act!

The problem is in the definition of bigotry. If a person believes for whatever reason that it is immoral, is that in and of itself bigotry? I think not, however many folks might insist that it is and get riled...
It's a fine line. What if a person thinks that being Protestant is immoral? Or thinks that interracial marriage is immoral? You can justify any bigotry you want as "immorality". And people do.

Well, I have unfortunately succeeded in missing about the last 40 pages due to the fact that I was in D.C. for 6 days. However, I'm back to represent the majority of christians in a rousing cheer. Beforehand, I would like to point out that from a biblical basis I cannot find anything wrong with an interracial marriage, so I suppose whoever argued that was just plain racist. And I'm from South Carolina, so I can identify with that to a small degree.

OK, I just want to rehash a statement I made about 40 pages ago, and say that most christians have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude. Now, because we cannot in good conscience support a sinful lifestyle as being "ok," it stands to reason that we can not legalize gay marriage, simply because it could then be construed that we support homosexuality. To show a real world analogy, you may liken this to the current controversy surrounding the pledge. After all, atheists refuse to recite the pledge in many cases because their actions may be construed as being supportive of the phrase "under God" remaining in the pledge. Now, that particular debate is one that I, as a law student, would prefer to leave for another time, so lets try not to take that analogy and spend the next 10 pages discussing it. Simply put, according to the New Testament scriptures, which contain the only law that binds christians, homosexuality is a sin. Now, since marriage is seen as a religous institution (not necessarily christian, but until very recent years one associated with whatever religion is prominent in that area), and until recently had almost nothing to do with marriage licenses and justices of the peace, I would state unequivocally that gay marriage is something that no christian could support. Or at least, they could not be married by a priest, preacher, etc. However, a civil union or similar ceremony, which affords the same rights as marriage, is in my opinion completely unrelated to religion in any form, and therefore I have no objection to homosexuals joining in this type of union. As long as they recieve the same benefits, I see no reason for there to be conflict. They are two almost identical practices,
Christians have an obligation to separate their religion from their duty as politicians.

Anyhow, no one is proposing forcing pastors, ministers, priests, rabbis, etc. to marry anyone they dont want to.

We just propose allowing them too.

Nooooooo! All gays are queens or bears and hit on every straight guy they meet! And they're all promiscuous! Show's how little you know... [/sarcasm]

This is where the "phobia" part comes in. Many straight men are afraid that a gay guy will hit on them. It's so stupid, but I think it's related to power. I mean, a guy potentially has the strength, and penis (which makes these things easier) to rape another man. Maybe that's what straight guys are subconsciously afraid of? It's so stupid. By that logic, women should be afraid of all men.

I, myself, think it's more of a fear of "guilt by association." Such a person is hit upon, then they think, "Oh God, why'd he hit one me? Am I dressed Gay? Was I acting Gay? Sh-t, do I look Gay right now?! I hope no one saw that!!"

It could also be that fear of the unknown, either that which is unknown about someone else, or that they may dredge up what is unknown in you.

Has anyone consided that we're living in a democracy here? I'm against gay marrage because no one asked me what i think, and if there was a chance to vote i'd vote to let gays marry in a heartbeat. So anyone else out there against gay marrage on the principal that loud mouth conservatives and loud mouth homosexual advocates/homosexuals are excluding the majority of the nation from the issue ?

Now I don't know a whole lot about the Canadian Government at all. However, I'm pretty sure that you wonderful folks to the North are a representational democracy or a Republic--just like us. This means that the people don't always get to vote directly. That's why you elect people. The parliament/congress votes to make the laws. In fact (and I'll be happy to be corrected) I don't *think* nation-wide referendums ever occur in the USA.

However, even in a democracy/republic there are certain safeguards lest (and I almost hate to use this word) tyranny by majority occurs. That is what happened in slavery, in opposition to civil rights, in not letting many Jews into the USA during the holocaust (of course these are USA examples). Those safeguards are things like freedom of religion and due process. Without them, who knows what would happen?

Now I don't know a whole lot about the Canadian Government at all. However, I'm pretty sure that you wonderful folks to the North are a representational democracy or a Republic--just like us. This means that the people don't always get to vote directly. That's why you elect people. The parliament/congress votes to make the laws. In fact (and I'll be happy to be corrected) I don't *think* nation-wide referendums ever occur in the USA.

However, even in a democracy/republic there are certain safeguards lest (and I almost hate to use this word) tyranny by majority occurs. That is what happened in slavery, in opposition to civil rights, in not letting many Jews into the USA during the holocaust (of course these are USA examples). Those safeguards are things like freedom of religion and due process. Without them, who knows what would happen?

Took the words out of my mouth, my radical idea would be, that every election in adition to voteing for your local member of parlament, or house member, there would be a number of referendum issues put forward by the political parties of the house. All it is is ten cents more on ink, and the'd save millions on slugging it out in the house for years, while spending government time doing something more productive. Tage an anual refendum along with the election is what i say.

Took the words out of my mouth, my radical idea would be, that every election in adition to voteing for your local member of parlament, or house member, there would be a number of referendum issues put forward by the political parties of the house. All it is is ten cents more on ink, and the'd save millions on slugging it out in the house for years, while spending government time doing something more productive. Tage an anual refendum along with the election is what i say.

Now I'm not saying I might not consider that. However, on the down side would be the increased risk of tyranny by majority. Many many people are not intelligent enough to understand concepts such as Due Process, etc. and would be more likely to violate. That increases court cases and confusion. Still, it's an option worth debate, though I'm not sure this forum is the place.

Heres a good way to look at this issue:

Ugly people arn't common and they disturb you. It definatly can't be natural because there are just a few of them and as far as you can see there is no benifit from being ugly. Would making ugly people wear masks in public be a good idea? They still are allowed to be ugly at home, it's just that they have to wear these masks in public. Normal people won't need to wear these masks because their faces are perfectly natural.

On another note, I'm surprised about how long this thread has lasted!
Well done people but don't stop now, keep argueing.
Of course we would need some more homophobes because we've practically used all of our ones up...unless term is still there, you there term?

On another note, I'm surprised about how long this thread has lasted!
Well done people but don't stop now, keep argueing.
Of course we would need some more homophobes because we've practically used all of our ones up...unless term is still there, you there term?

Don't encourage him. You know he doesn't have anything better to do.

Don't encourage him. You know he doesn't have anything better to do.

Yeah, I think we've done all we can with term anyway...

Yeah, I think we've done all we can with term anyway...

Just about. We need to stick some new guys on him.

ALL the homosexuals Terminalia knows are like that... maybe the difference is that my gay friends haven't been imaginary?

Neither have mine.

Just about. We need to stick some new guys on him.

Ooh scary.

Don't encourage him. You know he doesn't have anything better to do.

Yeah I just get up every day at 6.00, work on roofs untill 5.00 in the

afternoon, then head down here for an hour or two, to unwind abit.

Yeah I just get up every day at 6.00, work on roofs untill 5.00 in the

afternoon, then head down here for an hour or two, to unwind abit.


A construction worker! How Village People! :D

[QUOTE=Bottle]yeah. i'm the cute girl that wouldn't go out with you, remember? :)

Not really. :)


seriously, though, NOBODY is as hot as you seem to think you are.

How would you know.


i have hung around with gay guys a lot, and i have never once seen one of them look at anybody's crotch and lick their lips.

You must wear thick glasses then, Ive seen them do it sometimes.

So what?


you seem to think they are all sex-crazed and perpetually on the prowl for hetero-boy ass. grow up.

lol why dont you Bottle, I never said I was in fear of them, I just recognise

the attention for what it is, I doesnt bother me at all, I mean, their only

looking arent they.


i don't want to hurt your feelings, and i know this comes as a real blow, but most gay men don't want you.

Wrong, if you only knew how many times I have been hit apon, but of course,

you do know that dont you Bottle, because your there arent you...

(some might, since there are masochists in the gay community as well as in the straight community...) you're just going to have to learn to live with that.

Wise words Bottle, wise words indeed... :rolleyes:

A construction worker! How Village People! :D

Far from it, very far.

The "Founding Fathers" were not christians, most of them were Dietist.

The "Founding Fathers" were not christians, most of them were Dietist.

Yeah, I heard they worshipped Jenny Craig.

[QUOTE]

You must wear thick glasses then, Ive seen them do it sometimes.

So what?



Why term, I thought you said that we did it ALL the time when we saw you! I can't believe now you're saying its only a sometimet thing. How dare you be inconsistent and not speak in sweeping generalizations!


[QUOTE]
Wrong, if you only knew how many times I have been hit apon, but of course,

you do know that dont you Bottle, because your there arent you...


Since when has being present had anything to do with knowing stuff about one another? Afterall, you know how I would behave :rolleyes:

Yeah, I heard they worshipped Jenny Craig.
But at least she deserves it :-D (to be worshipped) (waits for the yells) but am half serious lol that is the sad part

Yeah I just get up every day at 6.00, work on roofs untill 5.00 in the afternoon, then head down here for an hour or two, to unwind a bit.
May just be a british thing but here, male builders will wolfwhistle at anything with breasts. For some reason this pisses the ladies off most of the time. Of course deep down they love it. The guys are just showing appreciation. Obviously. That's what your gay people are doing Term, they're showing appreciation for you.

What? Every male needs an ego boost now and then..

May just be a british thing but here, male builders will wolfwhistle at anything with breasts. For some reason this pisses the ladies off most of the time. Of course deep down they love it. The guys are just showing appreciation. Obviously. That's what your gay people are doing Term, they're showing appreciation for you.
What? Every male needs an ego boost every now and then..

I dont get any boost from them doing it, I feel degraded if anything.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Why term, I thought you said that we did it ALL the time when we saw you! I can't believe now you're saying its only a sometimet thing. How dare you be inconsistent and not speak in sweeping generalizations!

You do, I just dont notice it any more, being in a gay area you deal with it by

just not looking at them, anytime I notice is just a case of coincidence.



Since when has being present had anything to do with knowing stuff about one another? Afterall, you know how I would behave :rolleyes:

No I dont, the internet is a very limited scope, for telling how someone would

act.

I dont get any boost from them doing it, I feel degraded if anything.
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Remember the wise words of Obi-wan...

I dont get any boost from them doing it, I feel degraded if anything.
Now you know how women feel all the time!

Now you know how women feel all the time!
Some write poetry, some send flowers, some wolf-whistle. It's all the same

Alright since this conversation has gotten a bit sidetracked I'll play along.

Back in 1997 I went to visit my brother in upstate New York. It was Halloween and he wanted to take me to his favorite hangout because of the festivities there. Well, the place was a gay bar. Never having been to one before I wasn't sure what to expect but I wasn't worried or anything. Why should I be? I wasn't going to flatter myself and think I was going to get hit on. At worst, I'd be bored stiff (pardon the pun.)

Well I did get hit on a little, which was more complimentary than annoying, since it was no problem for me just to say no and point out that I am not gay. No problems. As it turned out I did find it a bit boring but more because bars in general aren't my scene. I spent some of the time coversing with a friendly lesbian who offered me her permission to ogle her very cute girlfriend. (I didn't take her up on it though) All in all, not a bad experience.

At any rate, I personally am not a supoprter of gay marriages although admittedly it has more to do with my personal beliefs than any secular source. I have seen research on both sides of the issue making statements about how children of gay couples turn out, some say it's damaging some say it's not. For me, the jury is still out, I guess. It's really hard to find genuinely objective analysis in this area. I prefer to get my info from scientists and not politicians. (Kinda like when you look up information on stem cell research)

So essentially I would probably abstain fron voting on that issue for now, since it's true that it would be inapropriate to enforce my morality on others.

For the record: (Pracus buddy, you watching?) I'm a heterosexual 30 year old white/latino Christian(Mormon) male.

I'll be out of town until Sunday night so I probably won't be able to post on this board or read posts, much is the pity because I'm enjoying this debate. Ah well. Maybe there won't be TOO many more pages to read when I get back...

I have seen research on both sides of the issue making statements about how children of gay couples turn out, some say it's damaging some say it's not.
While I can't say I've looked into the research, I can speak from experience. I have a friend who was raised by her mum and partner (a woman obviously). And both she and her sister turned out fine. And the great thing was they were raised in a very open, accepting environment- rare for South Africa at the time! But then her mum is also a human rights lawyer!

While I can't say I've looked into the research, I can speak from experience. I have a friend who was raised by her mum and partner (a woman obviously). And both she and her sister turned out fine. And the great thing was they were raised in a very open, accepting environment- rare for South Africa at the time! But then her mum is also a human rights lawyer!


Does that mean people with straight parents arent accepting?!!!?!?!??!

I mean, I have straight parents and i firmly believe in human rights. When someone has lived in Panama, the U.S., Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, AND Mozambique, and you have parents who are diplomats, you end up to very accepting. I have many Muslim friends, a Hindu Friend, 2 Jewish Friends, alot of Christian Friends, and a few Atheist friends.

Does that mean people with straight parents arent accepting?!!!?!?!??!

Of course that's not what I meant. :p I know people raised by straight people can be accepting. I mean, I was raised in a typical nuclear family- mum, dad and a brother. And most of my friends come from different backgrounds to me, have different beliefs.

I was just using them as an example because their "different" family type led them to view the world differently, especially in a socially conservative country like SA.

This was by no means a blanket statement!

Of course that's not what I meant. :p I know people raised by straight people can be accepting. I mean, I was raised in a typical nuclear family- mum, dad and a brother. And most of my friends come from different backgrounds to me, have different beliefs.

I was just using them as an example because their "different" family type led them to view the world differently, especially in a socially conservative country like SA.

This was by no means a blanket statement!

I have alays views the world differently...

I wrote a thesis on democracy at the age of 9 :D

It is not right for the goverment to mandate the circumstances under which couples may marry. It should be left up to the individuals and the church involved.

While I can't say I've looked into the research, I can speak from experience. I have a friend who was raised by her mum and partner (a woman obviously). And both she and her sister turned out fine.

I'm pleased to hear that, truly I am, but with all due respect that one example isn't a statistical analysys, and shouldn't be used to make a point one way or the other. Hypothetically if I told you I knew of a gay couple who had a son that turned out to be a porn addict and a drug dealer, I'm sure you'd agree that this single instance neither proves the source of the problem was the homosexuality of the couple nor would it be statistically meaningful for making a statement about such family structures in general. (I don't know of such a couple, just want to make a point.)

Too often anecdotes are presented as a form of evidence to prove a point and while it may be warm and fuzzy or tragic, depending upon the extreme, it's simply not useful until you have a large enough sampling of similar cases from which you can draw an objective conclusion. By large enough, I mean a few thousand. It would have to be a statistically significant segment of the population.

[QUOTE]

You do, I just dont notice it any more, being in a gay area you deal with it by

just not looking at them, anytime I notice is just a case of coincidence.



No, I don't. This is coming straight from the horse's mouth: not all gay men look at crotches. If I were going to look at something on a straight man it would be ass, thighs, chest or biceps.


[QUOTE]
No I dont, the internet is a very limited scope, for telling how someone would

act.

And yet twice now you've told me exactly how I would act.

At any rate, I personally am not a supoprter of gay marriages although admittedly it has more to do with my personal beliefs than any secular source. I have seen research on both sides of the issue making statements about how children of gay couples turn out, some say it's damaging some say it's not. For me, the jury is still out, I guess. It's really hard to find genuinely objective analysis in this area. I prefer to get my info from scientists and not politicians. (Kinda like when you look up information on stem cell research)


There is objective scientific research. And you want one further, my mother's best friend growing up was raised by her lesbian aunt and her lover. That was in the fifties. That best friend is now the mayor of her hometown and happily married with three kids. True, its anecdotal, but it shows that kids raised by homosexuals can and do turn out normal.



So essentially I would probably abstain fron voting on that issue for now, since it's true that it would be inapropriate to enforce my morality on others.


You can't help but respect that viewpoint.


For the record: (Pracus buddy, you watching?) I'm a heterosexual 30 year old white/latino Christian(Mormon) male.


Ummm, I'm not sure why you're calling me out on that one. Hopefully neither term or my stupid jokes have made you think I"m gonna hit on you based on this forum. This would not be the place--'sides you're straight (as I already figured out).

I'm pleased to hear that, truly I am, but with all due respect that one example isn't a statistical analysys, and shouldn't be used to make a point one way or the other. Hypothetically if I told you I knew of a gay couple who had a son that turned out to be a porn addict and a drug dealer, I'm sure you'd agree that this single instance neither proves the source of the problem was the homosexuality of the couple nor would it be statistically meaningful for making a statement about such family structures in general. (I don't know of such a couple, just want to make a point.)


You are right about the statistical insignificance of anecdotes. However there have been very carefully controlled, large sample studies that do show that children raised by gay parents are just as successful emotional, physicially, mentally, and sexually as any other children. It' not about who's doing the parenting but about whether or not you are loved, given your boundaries and paid attention to.


Too often anecdotes are presented as a form of evidence to prove a point and while it may be warm and fuzzy or tragic, depending upon the extreme, it's simply not useful until you have a large enough sampling of similar cases from which you can draw an objective conclusion. By large enough, I mean a few thousand. It would have to be a statistically significant segment of the population.

Actually, you have have a high power, low number study. It's not as easy to pull off and of course it would depend on the randomness of your sampling to pull it out.

I'm pleased to hear that, truly I am, but with all due respect that one example isn't a statistical analysys, and shouldn't be used to make a point one way or the other. Hypothetically if I told you I knew of a gay couple who had a son that turned out to be a porn addict and a drug dealer, I'm sure you'd agree that this single instance neither proves the source of the problem was the homosexuality of the couple nor would it be statistically meaningful for making a statement about such family structures in general. (I don't know of such a couple, just want to make a point.)

Too often anecdotes are presented as a form of evidence to prove a point and while it may be warm and fuzzy or tragic, depending upon the extreme, it's simply not useful until you have a large enough sampling of similar cases from which you can draw an objective conclusion. By large enough, I mean a few thousand. It would have to be a statistically significant segment of the population.

Of course, the particular anecdote used was an example of something that has been shown in scientifically conducted studies. Children raised by homosexual parents have the same chance of being homosexual as children raised by heterosexual parents. The one difference seen in the studies was that children raised by homosexual parents tended to be more tolerant and accepting of others' lifestyles and viewpoints.

I'm just going to toss in my opinion here, since I don't seem to see a lot of people with the same....

I'd like to take separation of church and state a little farther, and say- anyone should be able to get a 'civil union' (or whatever you want to call it- the basic idea in this is that it's a legal transaction- two individuals becoming a common wealth with all those tax breaks and legal rights, ect.) and if you want a marriage or a hand fasting or whatever... then go to your church or your coven or your synagogue, or wherever you have it done.

Basically- the religious ceremony and the legal contract become separate matters.

I'm just going to toss in my opinion here, since I don't seem to see a lot of people with the same....

I'd like to take separation of church and state a little farther, and say- anyone should be able to get a 'civil union' (or whatever you want to call it- the basic idea in this is that it's a legal transaction- two individuals becoming a common wealth with all those tax breaks and legal rights, ect.) and if you want a marriage or a hand fasting or whatever... then go to your church or your coven or your synagogue, or wherever you have it done.

Basically- the religious ceremony and the legal contract become separate matters.
Yup I proposed that like 70 pages ago (or more) but still sounds like a good idea :-D

Yup I proposed that like 70 pages ago (or more) but still sounds like a good idea :-D
I guessed someone probably had... but..well.. it would have taken me a few days to read through aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of the pages, and I just wanted to be sure someone said it.


^_^ great minds think alike.

I may have to bookmark this thread (one of my favorite controversies!) but I have to get back to work. Do Svedonya

I guessed someone probably had... but..well.. it would have taken me a few days to read through aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of the pages, and I just wanted to be sure someone said it.


^_^ great minds think alike.

I may have to bookmark this thread (one of my favorite controversies!) but I have to get back to work. Do Svedonya


Most defiantly :-D (I probably wasn’t the first either) lol oh well! Like I have said I am not against the title “married” being applied to only people accepted by a religion as long as the rights that go with it differ in no way.

Also may want to think about it … what in the religious sense constitutes marriage? Do you have to be only Christian (not the legal term) or is there marriages in other religions?

Do you accept them as being married?

Now what if we had this system of civil unions … with marriage being a secular title

Now what if there was a religion that GRANTED the secular title of marriage to gay folks?
Would you have a problem with that? So they would be gay … in a union and the title of married because their religion accepts it

Most defiantly :-D (I probably wasn’t the first either) lol oh well! Like I have said I am not against the title “married” being applied to only people accepted by a religion as long as the rights that go with it differ in no way.

I just think the whole semantics thing is a silly argument. If we had to move to civil unions for everyone to shut up the fundamentalists, so be it. But arguing over a word is like whining that you wanted the blue M&M, not the green one.

Ummm, I'm not sure why you're calling me out on that one. Hopefully neither term or my stupid jokes have made you think I"m gonna hit on you based on this forum. This would not be the place--'sides you're straight (as I already figured out).

Oh no I'm not calling you out at all. That was meant to be friendly in tone, since you and I had talked about this before. I respect you.

I think there is some confusion… true communism would ideally have no religion as it is a separator of the classesI never did figure out what true communism was. But historical communism had examples of groups of atheists being zealous asses. It's not something reserved for other groups.

Though just because a government is self proclaimed atheist (which is almost forced if following true communism) doesn’t mean they practice as such not a country full of people believing in nothing chancing down believers (there may be atheists involved but not on atheisms sake, maybe a whole host of other factors)I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't see how "other factors" distinguish atheism from Christianity when it comes to believers' being zealous asses.

Now I don't know a whole lot about the Canadian Government at all. However, I'm pretty sure that you wonderful folks to the North are a representational democracy or a Republic--just like us.Constitutional Monarchy, Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state. But functionally (and I suspect theoretically as well) we're a representational democracy.

Those safeguards are things like freedom of religion and due process. Without them, who knows what would happen?I don't put much faith in those safeguards, and I believe this is characteristic of Canadians in general. Nevertheless, we do indeed have a constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have seen research on both sides of the issue making statements about how children of gay couples turn out, some say it's damaging some say it's not. For me, the jury is still out, I guess. It's really hard to find genuinely objective analysis in this area.And bloody near impossible to be sure it is genuinely objective once you have found it. It's hopefully rare, but scientists do sometimes lie outright (nevermind bias), and I doubt they're always caught.

And bloody near impossible to be sure it is genuinely objective once you have found it. It's hopefully rare, but scientists do sometimes lie outright (nevermind bias), and I doubt they're always caught.

For something to endure the test of time in science, it has to be repeated. So while you may believe that one scientist lies outright, I doubt you believe that every subsequent study was lying as well.

That's how the physicists who made up data got caught - their "studies" could not be reproduced.

...as a law student, would prefer to leave for another time, so lets try not to take that analogy and spend the next 10 pages discussing it. Simply put, according to the New Testament scriptures, which contain the only law that binds christians...

As a law student, surely you know that that is totally untrue?

You live in the United States? You are bound by the laws that govern that union of states, by the laws that govern your state, and by any local laws that may be enforced at more 'personal' levels.

Example: Spam. Not forbidden biblically... does that make 'spam-mailing' okay for christians?

You CHOOSE to live in a society, you have to honour the laws of that society. So, Christian or otherwise, you are still bound by ALL of the laws operating where you are.

I'm just going to toss in my opinion here, since I don't seem to see a lot of people with the same....

I'd like to take separation of church and state a little farther, and say- anyone should be able to get a 'civil union' (or whatever you want to call it- the basic idea in this is that it's a legal transaction- two individuals becoming a common wealth with all those tax breaks and legal rights, ect.) and if you want a marriage or a hand fasting or whatever... then go to your church or your coven or your synagogue, or wherever you have it done.

Basically- the religious ceremony and the legal contract become separate matters.

I know its a lot to read--we reached that comfortable conclusion earlier. Kudos to you for getting there on your own :)

I just think the whole semantics thing is a silly argument. If we had to move to civil unions for everyone to shut up the fundamentalists, so be it. But arguing over a word is like whining that you wanted the blue M&M, not the green one.

I agree that the semantics thing is a pain, however sometimes thats the game you have to play to convince others. Word choice can be very important

Oh no I'm not calling you out at all. That was meant to be friendly in tone, since you and I had talked about this before. I respect you.

Oh. . . cool! Sorry about getting confused, I was running on less than two hours sleep before a pharm test . . .still have three more to go before monday.

I know its a lot to read--we reached that comfortable conclusion [differentiating between civil and religious marriage] earlier. Kudos to you for getting there on your own :)

Pardon me for asking, but isn't that where we are now? Civil marriage involves the government, and religious marriage involves religion. It happens that 90+% of the time they coincide, but a couple can get a marriage license from a government official without stepping foot near a place of worship, and a couple can find a religious official to join them in holy union without a marriage license. Sadly, the two completely unrelated systems use the same word for the process, but that doesn't make them the same thing. More sadly, the government is unfairly discriminating as to whom it will award licenses to.

Constitutional Monarchy, Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state. But functionally (and I suspect theoretically as well) we're a representational democracy.

Now I have to kick myself and say "Duh!" Y'all are part of the commonwealth aren't you? That should be rather self-explanatory.


I don't put much faith in those safeguards, and I believe this is characteristic of Canadians in general. Nevertheless, we do indeed have a constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


I'm just curious, why not?


And bloody near impossible to be sure it is genuinely objective once you have found it. It's hopefully rare, but scientists do sometimes lie outright (nevermind bias), and I doubt they're always caught.

It is sometimes hard to find out, but there are a few good pointers. If the study appears in a well-respected journal (Biology, Genetics, Human Sexuality, The Anals of Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine) then it has been peer reviewed and had its methodology very carefully scrutinized. Also, a close reading of the paper can show a lot. Does the writer use objective terms? How well does he describe his metholodogy? Does he SOUND objective--that can mean a lot? And then there is the simple test of is he affiliated with an institution or a company? Big research universities like UCLA, Berkely, NYU, Duke, Baylor School of Medicine, etc. are less likely to force their researchers to try to prove a certain viewpoitn and less likely to tolerate it if they do while private sector researchers are more likely to have an agenda. All of these things are not absolutely certain factors (ie a research from Harvard published in Genetics may still be biased) but they are extremely good signs.

Pardon me for asking, but isn't that where we are now? Civil marriage involves the government, and religious marriage involves religion. It happens that 90+% of the time they coincide, but a couple can get a marriage license from a government official without stepping foot near a place of worship, and a couple can find a religious official to join them in holy union without a marriage license. Sadly, the two completely unrelated systems use the same word for the process, but that doesn't make them the same thing. More sadly, the government is unfairly discriminating as to whom it will award licenses to.

You're absolutely right. That is basically the system we have now. However, many people seem to be unable to separate out the word marriage when it is preceded by the word civil. They are protective of that word as something religious. If changing the title of "civil marriage" to "civil union" for everyone is what it takes to get equality then so be it. Mind you though that everybody will have to get a civil union as far as the government is concerned--separate is not equal.

It's basically a semantics game where, if you are all willing to compromise a little, the churches end up with more freedom (they have a monopoly on "marriage), the people end up with freedom (any couple will have equal rights) and no one ends up hurt (people with sensitive sensibilities of marriage won't have to worry about their church refusing to marry someone or about the government forcing them to do so since marriage would be a sacrament and not a rights giving government program--of course there was no danger of this anyways but trying telling that to some people).

I am disappointed. I get up this morning expecting another round of debating/arguing/bashing and I find no new posts! How sad.

As a law student, surely you know that that is totally untrue?

You live in the United States? You are bound by the laws that govern that union of states, by the laws that govern your state, and by any local laws that may be enforced at more 'personal' levels.

Example: Spam. Not forbidden biblically... does that make 'spam-mailing' okay for christians?

You CHOOSE to live in a society, you have to honour the laws of that society. So, Christian or otherwise, you are still bound by ALL of the laws operating where you are.
Exactly. There's a bit in the Bible saying (paraphrased)".. you (Christians) must respect the laws of the land that you live in.. ". So if the gay marriage law ever gets passed in the US you guys who get to watch the Christians fundies seethe in silence!!

Spamming.. totally ok. As is hacking.. What? I'm just crashing your pc.. what's your problem? If you use windows you won't even notice.

I am disappointed. I get up this morning expecting another round of debating/arguing/bashing and I find no new posts! How sad
How're the exams going? Think everyone's given up bashing this thread. Bash Arafat instead. Nothing wrong with kicking a man when he's down..

In America, there is absolutely positively nothing sacred about the institution of marriage. In America, one can get married in a house of secular law as readily as in a house of God. Therefore, because there is no legal justification for soley the one man, one woman other than laws forbiding it because of 'traditional family values' or good old homophobia, I see no logical reason that if a man and another man or a woman and another woman do truly love one another enough to wed, that they should not. I see no reason that a lover can not stay at his or her loves side when one is terminally ill because the two are not wed. It has no moral justification. The exclusion of rights based not on nothing but because "We think God says so" is morally void.

How're the exams going? Think everyone's given up bashing this thread. Bash Arafat instead. Nothing wrong with kicking a man when he's down..

The exams sucks royally. But only three left to go (two on Friday) and the worst three are over. Still, got a long ways to go. This thread was the joy of my existance for a while there. Nothing like some debate with worthy opponents and poking fun at non-worthy ones.

For something to endure the test of time in science, it has to be repeated. So while you may believe that one scientist lies outright, I doubt you believe that every subsequent study was lying as well.Nope. But I may not be aware of subsequent studies. While I don't think that science can be completely objective, I do know that social scientists try to aknowledge and minimize the effects of bias, concious or otherwise. The double blind-test is a classic method of avoiding researcher (& subject) bias for example. But as a lay person it is sometimes hard to know what the consensus opinion (if any) there is in a science.

All of these things are not absolutely certain factors (ie a research from Harvard published in Genetics may still be biased) but they are extremely good signs.I'll have to second that. I still wouldn't trust it to be "completely objective", but appearing in a well-respected journal does mean a fair bit.

Y'all are part of the commonwealth aren't you?Yup.

I don't put much faith in those safeguards, and I believe this is characteristic of Canadians in general. Nevertheless, we do indeed have a constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm just curious, why not?A characteristic of commonwealth governments is that a fair amount of our constitutional "law" is convention, rather than explicit law. Such as the convention that using the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to be done only in extremity. But these conventions only have force because they are respected. There are plenty of examples in history of courts reflecting the prejudices of the times rather than constitutional law, or simply being ignored. (The Cherokee trail of tears would be an example of the latter, internment of Japanese-Americans or Japanese-Canadians an example of the former.) The courts have been very important in various civil rights struggles in our countries, but generally well into each struggle after public opinion itself starts to shift. Freedom of religion and due process are important safeguards, but they have the power they do from being widely respected.
And in Canada, the legislature does have the power to suspend various safeguards, through the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter, and through the War Measures Act. It happened in the 1960s (I believe), where the War Measures Act was invoked in Quebec after terrorist acts and a kidnapping. Instant police state. But the government of the time showed restraint of the powers granted them.

Exactly. There's a bit in the Bible saying (paraphrased)".. you (Christians) must respect the laws of the land that you live in.. ". So if the gay marriage law ever gets passed in the US you guys who get to watch the Christians fundies seethe in silence!!


I remember reading in another thread a really good point: Marriage was around long before christianity came to being. Almost every religion can wed two (sometimes more) people. So it is not entirely up to christians to decide on who gets married.

Preebles[/B]]Now you know how women feel all the time!

I dont really go nuts either at seeing a nice looking woman walk past,

naturally I look, but I dont hassel her.

Anyway, some girls love the attention, and some hate it.

I am disappointed. I get up this morning expecting another round of debating/arguing/bashing and I find no new posts! How sad.

Theres always the gaybar Pracus ;) :)

[QUOTE=Pracus]No, I don't. This is coming straight from the horse's mouth: not all gay men look at crotches. If I were going to look at something on a straight man it would be ass, thighs, chest or biceps.

And...


And yet twice now you've told me exactly how I would act.

Comes from living in a gay area.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Remember the wise words of Obi-wan...

Use the force?

No thanks, that force is for creating life in a woman, not to die in a mans

anus.

I remember reading in another thread a really good point: Marriage was around long before christianity came to being. Almost every religion can wed two (sometimes more) people. So it is not entirely up to christians to decide on who gets married.

Put it to a vote then, every ten years or so.

If there is nothing wrong with gays marrying or rearing kids, then the

electrate should decide.

Dont you think that is a fair way of deciding it?

Comes from living in a gay area.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.


Just because you live in a gay area does not tell you how *ALL* gay people will act. You say I don't know you so I cannot predict your behaviour (true) and yet you think you can predict mine (hypocrisy).

Put it to a vote then, every ten years or so.

If there is nothing wrong with gays marrying or rearing kids, then the

electrate should decide.

Dont you think that is a fair way of deciding it?

No, that's called tyranny by majority. People are ignorant like you. And we are NOT a democracy. Why do peopel keep getting this confused?

No, that's called tyranny by majority. People are ignorant like you. And we are NOT a democracy. Why do peopel keep getting this confused?

Because some people are mindless automatons who believe everything they are told, like good little robots.

But, don't despair.

Once common sense becomes as 'common' as the name implies... all the mindless drones will be reprogrammed to be more tolerant of other lifestyle choices... and then they'll have no choice but to comply.

No, that's called tyranny by majority. People are ignorant like you. And we are NOT a democracy. Why do peopel keep getting this confused?

So the supreme court was right about Bush Gore then?

I remember reading in another thread a really good point: Marriage was around long before christianity came to being. Almost every religion can wed two (sometimes more) people. So it is not entirely up to christians to decide on who gets married.
It's true that the concept of marriage was around before Jesus died and gave rise to Christianity. However the model for human relationship (according to Christians and given in the Bible) was expressed for the first two human beings on earth!

Origins of the word marriage anyone?

Because some people are mindless automatons who believe everything they are told, like good little robots.

But, don't despair.

Once common sense becomes as 'common' as the name implies... all the mindless drones will be reprogrammed to be more tolerant of other lifestyle choices... and then they'll have no choice but to comply.

I never said that people should be forced to have or like gay marriages. However, they should not force others to not have them because of their own intolerances.

So the supreme court was right about Bush Gore then?

To tell the truth, I'm not sure which aspect of the Bush-Gore controversy you are referring to so I cannot really respond to this. Care to clarify?

It's true that the concept of marriage was around before Jesus died and gave rise to Christianity. However the model for human relationship (according to Christians and given in the Bible) was expressed for the first two human beings on earth!

Origins of the word marriage anyone?

Marriage:1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

From Websters. Gay marriage may not be traditional but it is a marriage none the less. Equality in marriage is not traditional Christian marriage. Interracial, interdenominational and interreligious marriages are not traditional (Christian or otherweise) but legal. Ergo the Christian definition of marriage has nothing to do with what the government recognizes.

Put it to a vote then, every ten years or so.

If there is nothing wrong with gays marrying or rearing kids, then the

electrate should decide.

Dont you think that is a fair way of deciding it?
No, that isn't fair. They didn't get rid of the bans on interracial marriage by popular vote, or electorate, or legislature or whatever. Those laws were found unconstitutional in the courts. And the courts are where this current issue should be decided, as it deals with the fundamental unconstitutionality of denying rights to individuals on basis of sexual orientation.

Marriage:1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

From Websters. Gay marriage may not be traditional but it is a marriage none the less. Equality in marriage is not traditional Christian marriage. Interracial, interdenominational and interreligious marriages are not traditional (Christian or otherweise) but legal. Ergo the Christian definition of marriage has nothing to do with what the government recognizes.
I can read a dictionary. Mind you Webster's has never been anything to write home about. Bet it hasn't even got 'chav' in it (or is that 'innit). I was after linguistic origins.

I can read a dictionary. Mind you Webster's has never been anything to write home about. Bet it hasn't even got 'chav' in it (or is that 'innit). I was after linguistic origins.

I'm gonna be honest here and admit that I cannot find it--not that I've wasted over-much time on searching. At the end of the day what does the origin of the word have to do with anything? Marriage has already changed, it is nothing like anything one might think of as its orginal form. Just like many many words have changed from their original meanings. Take gay for instance, it used to mean happy.

I'm gonna be honest here and admit that I cannot find it--not that I've wasted over-much time on searching. At the end of the day what does the origin of the word have to do with anything? Marriage has already changed, it is nothing like anything one might think of as its orginal form. Just like many many words have changed from their original meanings. Take gay for instance, it used to mean happy.

Indeed...I did not realize that human action and culture was bound by dictionary definitions or linguistic origins. So...why does it matter?

It's true that the concept of marriage was around before Jesus died and gave rise to Christianity. However the model for human relationship (according to Christians and given in the Bible) was expressed for the first two human beings on earth!

Origins of the word marriage anyone?

Marriage probably goes back to one of the earliest religions, because it was happening all around the world when Jesus was alive. It even occured in nations that had barely met others, although they probably didn't call it marriage but the concept was still the same.

Just because you live in a gay area does not tell you how *ALL* gay people will act. You say I don't know you so I cannot predict your behaviour (true) and yet you think you can predict mine (hypocrisy).

Well all the ones who live in my area then, must be some strange type

of gay then, that the rest of the world hasnt discovered yet. :rolleyes:

Well all the ones who live in my area then, must be some strange type

of gay then, that the rest of the world hasnt discovered yet. :rolleyes:
I saw a black man rob a store!!!!

No, that isn't fair. They didn't get rid of the bans on interracial marriage by popular vote, or electorate, or legislature or whatever. Those laws were found unconstitutional in the courts. And the courts are where this current issue should be decided, as it deals with the fundamental unconstitutionality of denying rights to individuals on basis of sexual orientation.

But this goes way beyond people finding inter racial marriges acceptable or

not, were talking about two guys recognised as a married couple anywhere,

who stick their penis up each others bums, the sewage outlet of the human

body, which they have turned into their playground, and then have children

in contact with them. :(

Inter racial marriage between the sexes is fine, but not the same sex,

inter racial or not, this is just sick and wrong.

I saw a black man rob a store!!!!

Not unusual.

Where I live its usually them too.

No, that's called tyranny by majority. People are ignorant like you. And we are NOT a democracy. Why do peopel keep getting this confused?

Ah, so you admit then that the majority would be against it, then what right

have you got to hold this over them in court then, surely democracy holds

the majoritys opinion as the most important.

The tyranny and ignorance is all yours.

(Loosely paraphrased): OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!! OMG BUTTSEX!!!
For shitsake, can't you realize that straight men are into assramming just as much as gay men? And I have yet to hear you express such disgust with lesbians, who rarely engage in butt sex.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]For shitsake, can't you realize that straight men are into assramming just as much as gay men?

Proof, besides your porno movies.


And I have yet to hear you express such disgust with lesbians, who rarely engage in butt sex.

Maybe thats why.

Well all the ones who live in my area then, must be some strange type

of gay then, that the rest of the world hasnt discovered yet. :rolleyes:

Or maybe you've just never noticed the ones that don't because they don't act in the way you stereotypically expect gay people to behave. :rolleyes:

But this goes way beyond people finding inter racial marriges acceptable or

not, were talking about two guys recognised as a married couple anywhere,

who stick their penis up each others bums, the sewage outlet of the human

body, which they have turned into their playground, and then have children

in contact with them. :(


Have children in contact with them? Who? Because if you know of someone who's done that, I suggest you call the police.

And what about straight people who have anal sex?


Inter racial marriage between the sexes is fine, but not the same sex,

inter racial or not, this is just sick and wrong.

To you. But then no one is asking you to do it. It will probably come as a surprise to you that I find straight sex to be revolting.

Not unusual.

Where I live its usually them too.

Ah, so I take it you would support not allowing black people to marry and procreate because to do so would raise the number of criminals?

But this goes way beyond people finding inter racial marriges acceptable or

not, were talking about two guys recognised as a married couple anywhere,

who stick their penis up each others bums, the sewage outlet of the human

body, which they have turned into their playground, and then have children

in contact with them. :(

Inter racial marriage between the sexes is fine, but not the same sex,

inter racial or not, this is just sick and wrong.

How can you advocate marrying a white woman to one of those negroes? They're not even the same race! Science shows that their brains are smaller, and it's very obvious in a way that anyone can grasp that they're less intelligent. Everyone knows they're not only stupid, but dishonest. They're filthy farm beasts, and you would propose marrying a decent woman to one of those things? What's next, suggesting marrying her to one of your horses? Marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic is fine, but not between races! This is sick and wrong!

As usual, this time it's not prejudice, this time it's right!

You are a fool. A pathetic, blind fool.

Ah, so you admit then that the majority would be against it, then what right

have you got to hold this over them in court then, surely democracy holds

the majoritys opinion as the most important.

The tyranny and ignorance is all yours.

This. Is. Not. A. Democracy.

To you. But then no one is asking you to do it. It will probably come as a surprise to you that I find straight sex to be revolting.
Well, some forms of it are...
I mean, anal sex is just sick. And the only thing as bad as that is having the girl upside down while you do the deed. But if done properly, with a slightly less bestial spin, its pretty cool. Just don't try to imitate the hardcore porn, and its a great thing.

Ah, so you admit then that the majority would be against it, then what right

have you got to hold this over them in court then, surely democracy holds

the majoritys opinion as the most important.

The tyranny and ignorance is all yours.

Rights exist independent of the majority's opinion. All men are created equal, remember? As I recall, that's self evident, and had nothing to do with where who puts what where (as you so obsess over).

This. Is. Not. A. Democracy.
Too true.
Representative Democracy, which is entirely different what he seems to be referring to. And we are a Republic. Go back to your Senior, and repeat Gov't and Econ.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Because some people are mindless automatons who believe everything they are told, like good little robots.


Like being told to accept gay marriages?


Once common sense becomes as 'common' as the name implies... all the mindless drones will be reprogrammed to be more tolerant of other lifestyle choices... and then they'll have no choice but to comply.


What right have you got to tell people they have to tolerate anything they

dont like?

The 'no choice, comply or else' business, simply smacks of Nazism, or should

that be PC'ism Grave?

Well, some forms of it are...
I mean, anal sex is just sick. And the only thing as bad as that is having the girl upside down while you do the deed. But if done properly, with a slightly less bestial spin, its pretty cool. Just don't try to imitate the hardcore porn, and its a great thing.

You give advice as if he'd want to do this anyway...did it occur to you that he finds the concept revolting, in the same way you find gay sex revolting (as in, he has absolutely no interest to start with)?

But my main point: Anal sex is not the worst sex act that has been performed. You would have to be very, very naive to honestly believe that.

[QUOTE]

Proof, besides your porno movies.



How about straight porno movies? A quick search of a web source revealed 107 straight movies with the word anal in the title and 1,337 with "anal sex" in the theme.

[QUOTE]
Maybe thats why.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anal_sex#Anal_sex_among_heterosexuals

Approx. 20% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex. If ten percent of the population is gay and 90% hetersexual, that means 18% of the population have had anal sex. This means that there are MORE straight people having anal sex than there are gay people in existance--including lesbians which, as it has been observed, rarely have anal sex.

Maybe that's why we think straight people have it--because they do.

What right have you got to tell people they have to tolerate anything they

dont like?

What right have you got to tell people that they can't do something you don't like? I guess you said it best:

The 'no choice, comply or else' business, simply smacks of Nazism...

Ah, so you admit then that the majority would be against it, then what right

have you got to hold this over them in court then, surely democracy holds

the majoritys opinion as the most important.

The tyranny and ignorance is all yours.

The majority in the US once supported slavery. You refuse to put yourself or your elitist group in the position of a marginalised group. You are the epitome of bigotry.

If the majority of a country wanted to execute someone without a trial, it still would not be right. If most of the world believed in leprechauns, that would not mean that leprechauns exist.

[QUOTE]

Like being told to accept gay marriages?



We've never told you to accept them. There's a wide gulf between accepting and tolerating. I tolerate you and your bigotry. I do not accept it.

Further, we've given you good and logical reasons why it should be legal (note, I've said nothing about being allowed in churches) and you've chosen to ignore them.


[QUOTE]
What right have you got to tell people they have to tolerate anything they

dont like?

The 'no choice, comply or else' business, simply smacks of Nazism, or should

that be PC'ism Grave?

You have a choice. I haven't told you to have a gay marriage--you couldnt' find a gay guy who would take you in marriage. And I'm pretty sure you think I should have to tolerate you and your never ending pile of drivel.

Anbar[/B]]How can you advocate marrying a white woman to one of those negroes? They're not even the same race! Science shows that their brains are smaller, and it's very obvious in a way that anyone can grasp that they're less intelligent. Everyone knows they're not only stupid, but dishonest. They're filthy farm beasts, and you would propose marrying a decent woman to one of those things? What's next, suggesting marrying her to one of your horses? Marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic is fine, but not between races! This is sick and wrong!

As usual, this time it's not prejudice, this time it's right!

You are a fool. A pathetic, blind fool.


The voice of reason :rolleyes: I dont really care what you think Anbar, your

nothing but a PC drone.

How about straight porno movies? A quick search of a web source revealed 107 straight movies with the word anal in the title and 1,337 with "anal sex" in the theme.

*Gasp* Backdoor Sluts 9??!!!!

Good work with statistics...not that they'll do any good. Prejudice, by definition, is an illogical or irrational belief, after all. But at any rate, I seem to recall a statistic that showed that only 1/4 or 1/3 of gay couples actually engaged in anal sex...that was some time ago, but it was on this board.

The voice of reason :rolleyes: I dont really care what you think Anbar, your

nothing but a PC drone.

Why is it that if people advocate increased freedom and an end to intolerant laws they are PC drones, but if they advocate principles that they have never though about, cannot defend logically, and only know because some other ignorant bigot said it first, they are suddenly something more than brain-washed?

Or maybe you've just never noticed the ones that don't because they don't act in the way you stereotypically expect gay people to behave. :rolleyes:

Can you try and get away from the screaming queen gay, or the macho gay?

I can spot gays easily, they stick out like red herrings, no matter how non

discript they appear.

*Gasp* Backdoor Sluts 9??!!!!

Good work with statistics...not that they'll do any good. Prejudice, by definition, is an illogical or irrational belief, after all. But at any rate, I seem to recall a statistic that showed that only 1/4 or 1/3 of gay couples actually engaged in anal sex...that was some time ago, but it was on this board.

The majority of gay men engage what is called mutual masturbation or in oral sex. Anal sex is much less common--especially outside of long-term, committed and monogamous relationships. As for what lesbians do (We keep leaving them out and they are just as affected) I am not sure of that. You think straight sex bothers me? Let's just talk about two vaginas! But you knwo what, even though it personally makes me ill, I wouldn't ask two consenting adults to do anything less than what makes them happy.

Can you try and get away from the screaming queen gay, or the macho gay?

I can spot gays easily, they stick out like red herrings, no matter how non

discript they appear.

I have made no reference to the stereotypes of screaming queens or macho (better word to use is butch) gays. That is your prejudice. I realize that there is just as much variation within gay men and women as there is within heterosexual men and women.

And certain types of gays do stick out, I won't argue with you, but how would you know the ones that DON'T stick out? I usually have excellent intuition about things, but I can't always tell. SOmetimes I'm shocked to find out because I would never have guessed. Othertimes I find out people I thought were gay are straight. It all comes down to you can't just a book by its cover. THere is no magical way that works to always identify homosexuals and to try to do so is the equivalent of racism.

And you realize that non-descript and "sticking out like red herrings" are antonyms and you can't use them together logically.

Oh, wait. You don't have to use logic.

The voice of reason :rolleyes: I dont really care what you think Anbar, your

nothing but a PC drone.

Aw, whatsamatter, Term? Can't refute my example? It seems you label anyone who actually uses their brain on this thread as a "PC-this-or-that"...did someone learn a new catchphrase today (and do you even know what it means)? Or, wait, is it the "Intellectual Elite?" Damn us and our dominance of logical arguments! But, so long as you know what's right (regardless of how little you can defend it) you will prevail!

If you're not the fool I make you out to be, then please, show me how your prejudice is different from the sample I provided above.

[QUOTE=Tamarket]The majority in the US once supported slavery. You refuse to put yourself or your elitist group in the position of a marginalised group. You are the epitome of bigotry.

And you are the eptiome of idiocy, not to mention PC thuggery, the southern

states supported slavery, the northern ones didnt, as I recall there were alot

more people in the North than the South, which means the majority didnt

support slavery.

Hoisted by your own petard.

If the majority of a country wanted to execute someone without a trial, it still would not be right.

Of course not, everyone deserves a trial, doesnt mean executing them if their

found guilty is wrong, if the majority of the population want capital

punishment for criminals.

If most of the world believed in leprechauns, that would not mean that leprechauns exist.

But gays do exist Tammy, their not imaginary...

I can spot gays easily, they stick out like red herrings...

AHAHAHAHAHAH! etc. I believe this is called a Bushism. Term, a "red herring" is something false which distracts from the real thing. I don't think any of us will disagee with your use of the word here, though. You're absolutely right.

But my main point: Anal sex is not the worst sex act that has been performed. You would have to be very, very naive to honestly believe that.

Or you would have to be pretty perverted to know about it, right?

[QUOTE]

And you are the eptiome of idiocy, not to mention PC thuggery, the southern

states supported slavery, the northern ones didnt, as I recall there were alot

more people in the North than the South, which means the majority didnt

support slavery.



Many people in the north also supported slavery. Lincoln himself said that if he could have preserved the union without freeing a single slave, he would have done so. There were attempts to ban slavery, but they never passed until it was forced. As it should have been. And you can find another word besides PC thug? It really lowers the whole intellectual level of this entire board.

[QUOTE]
Of course not, everyone deserves a trial, doesnt mean executing them if their found guilty is wrong, if the majority of the population want capital punishment for criminals.


Did you know that a trial is part of due process? It is only be due process that people can be deprived of rights, liberties, life, and property. You have to show that someone having those rights presents a risk to the rest of the population.

So you support trials but forget due process for gay people. Just deprive them of their rights because you don't agree. Grow up. You're like a three year old who has his toy and doesn't want to share it.

[QUOTE]
But gays do exist Tammy, their not imaginary...

You're right. THEY'RE not imaginary. They are human beings just like you. Human beings who deserve the same rights and privledges.

Ah, so you admit then that the majority would be against it, then what right

have you got to hold this over them in court then, surely democracy holds

the majoritys opinion as the most important.

The tyranny and ignorance is all yours.

The most imporant thing in a democracy is the rights of its citizens. If you live in a country where the rights of even the smallest and weakest of its members are not protected, then I'm sorry, believe what you like, you do not live in a democracy.

[QUOTE=Pracus] Have children in contact with them? Who? Because if you know of someone who's done that, I suggest you call the police.

Nuts to that.


And what about straight people who have anal sex?

Sickos.



To you. But then no one is asking you to do it. It will probably come as a surprise to you that I find straight sex to be revolting.

It comes as no surprise at all.

The most imporant thing in a democracy is the rights of its citizens. If you live in a country where the rights of even the smallest and weakest of its members are not protected, then I'm sorry, believe what you like, you do not live in a democracy.

I appreciate your willingness to protect the rights of all. But again I reiterate, the US is not a democracy. By my understanding, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Japan and most other industrialized nations are not democracies. In fact, I don't belive that a democracy actually exists anywhere in the world.

I think that gay marriage should be allowed, however they should not be allowed to divorce ;)

[QUOTE]
Sickos.


Should they be banned from marriage because they have anal sex?

Or you would have to be pretty perverted to know about it, right?

To engage in it, perhaps. There is nothing perverse about knowledge. Something tells me, though, we may disagree on that point. ;)

Ah, so I take it you would support not allowing black people to marry and procreate because to do so would raise the number of criminals?

No, I would support getting rid of antidiscrimination laws that dont allow

police to do their job properly, just because the offender is a different colour

to a white person.

Or if the offender is committing a criminal act and is underage.

No, I would support getting rid of antidiscrimination laws that dont allow

police to do their job properly, just because the offender is a different colour

to a white person.

Or if the offender is committing a criminal act and is underage.

I agree that police should be able to do their jobs. What they shouldn't be able to do is racially profile people. There are white criminals too. You can't tell anything about a person by the way that they look. Some of the "scariest" looking people I know at our local free clinic are the ones who are trying the hardest to work their way up and who care the most about their families.

You cannot tell anything about anyone from the way they appear. I mean, don't they teach this stuff in third grade?

This. Is. Not. A. Democracy.

Yes. It. Is.

No, I would support getting rid of antidiscrimination laws that dont allow

police to do their job properly, just because the offender is a different colour

to a white person.

Or if the offender is committing a criminal act and is underage.

Was that a deliberate dodge of Pracus's question, a random tangent, or did you just not get it?

Yes. It. Is.

In a true democracy the people vote on all laws in nationwide referendums. Period. QED.

We are at best a representational democracy and in reality more of a Republic. The power to choose our leaders rests in the people. The power to lead rests in those people. We also have a constutition that limits the powers of those leaders--and of the people--to make sure that we protect those who are not in the majority.

Rights exist independent of the majority's opinion. All men are created equal, remember? As I recall, that's self evident, and had nothing to do with where who puts what where (as you so obsess over).

Yes but a funny thing happens here, alot of individuals have similar

viewpoints, on a lot of matters.

They are also known as the majority, their opinion is the most important.

Not the minoritys.

Yes but a funny thing happens here, alot of individuals have similar

viewpoints, on a lot of matters.

They are also known as the majority, their opinion is the most important.

Not the minoritys.

How would you feel if Muslims became the majority and decided to enforce mandatory prayer on everyone in the country? Or perhaps if Africans (and I apologize for this gross stereotype, but I use it to make a point) decide that we should all do tribal chants and have our noses pierced with bones?

Yes but a funny thing happens here, alot of individuals have similar

viewpoints, on a lot of matters.

They are also known as the majority, their opinion is the most important.

Not the minoritys.

Is that why we have laws, not to mention checks and balances, to protect the minority? Hmm, funny thing that's happened here - you're still wrong. I love how your idea of logically defending your opinion that the majority's opinion is ultimate is to simply rephrase it a bit and state it again. You've done nothing to refute my last point, try again.

[QUOTE=Pracus]How about straight porno movies? A quick search of a web source revealed 107 straight movies with the word anal in the title and 1,337 with "anal sex" in the theme.


That doesnt mean the average hetrosexual engages in anal sex.

Also alot of those pornos you watch would have the same actors.


Approx. 20% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex.



Constantly, or experimented?


Maybe that's why we think straight people have it--because they do.

See above in red.

I'm not about to read 94 pages.

Here is my stance:

Gay Marriage = no
Gay Civil Union = yes

I voted yes, because technically "marriage" and "civil union" might aswell be the same thing.

Let the individual church decide whether or not they are going to wed homosexual couples.

Yes but a funny thing happens here, alot of individuals have similar

viewpoints, on a lot of matters.

They are also known as the majority, their opinion is the most important.

Not the minoritys.

I would guess that the majority of people posting on this thread would think that you're a bigot and a moron. If you think that 'majority rules' then you would cease your refusal to exercise any form of intelligence, which in your case would most likely be just not saying anything anymore.

[QUOTE]

That doesnt mean the average hetrosexual engages in anal sex.

Also alot of those pornos you watch would have the same actors.




I don't care if its the same two people. If there are that many movies then a lot of people must be buying them. They don't make them for just five people.


[QUOTE]

Constantly, or experimented?


Does it matter? Gay people are constantly having it either.

What right have you got to tell people that they can't do something you don't like? I guess you said it best:

I guess then it comes down to what the majority wants.

I'm not about to read 94 pages.

Here is my stance:

Gay Marriage = no
Gay Civil Union = yes

I voted yes, because technically "marriage" and "civil union" might aswell be the same thing.

Let the individual church decide whether or not they are going to wed homosexual couples.

Do you support civil unions only for heterosexuals as far as the government is concerned?

I guess then it comes down to what the majority wants.

You still haven't answered me. What if the majority were Muslim and decided that Christians shouldn't wed? Should they be able to enforce their opinion off on you like that?

I guess then it comes down to what the majority wants.

No, it doesn't, and that's why the courts decide.

I would guess that the majority of people posting on this thread would think that you're a bigot and a moron. If you think that 'majority rules' then you would cease your refusal to exercise any form of intelligence, which in your case would most likely be just not saying anything anymore.

Knob jockey...

So you think this forum represents the majority of the worlds opinion on the

subject at hand?

How dumb are you then. :)

So you think this forum represents the majority of the worlds opinion on the

subject at hand?

How dumb are you then. :)

You said a majority. You failed to define what majority. Therefore, the majority on this forum should be able to enforce its view point.

And I'm still waiting on a response to my hypothetical question.

No, it doesn't, and that's why the courts decide.

And what right does the courts have to decide against the majoritys opinion?

And what right does the courts have to decide against the majoritys opinion?

And what right does the majority have to deny rights to a minority without due process? And mind you, the best polls say that the country is divided on the issue of gay marriage. . .there is is no clear majority.

And I'm still waiting on your response.

[QUOTE=Pracus]You said a majority. You failed to define what majority. Therefore, the majority on this forum should be able to enforce its view point.

How will they enforce it, its the internet, not real life.



And I'm still waiting on a response to my hypothetical question.

Hang on, I'll get to it.

[QUOTE]

How will they enforce it, its the internet, not real life.





Ill get to it, hang on.


It would be about time. My personal guess would be that you were hoping to avoid it.

And what right does the courts have to decide against the majoritys opinion?

Why don't you take it up with our government, because that's how it's done. Try to get that through your head, because it is a direct and undeniable refutation of what you've been claiming for the last two pages.

Checkmate.

And what right does the courts have to decide against the majoritys opinion?

And the court has the right to interpret the Consitution. It doesn't matter what the majority think if the Constitution goes against them. Sorry.

Where is the evidence?


In every up to date Psychology text book published.... my major is
Psychology.

It would be about time. My personal guess would be that you were hoping to avoid it.

Not at all, I'll go find it.

Not at all, I'll go find it.

As if it was lost. There one set on page 94, but if you can respond to the smaller one on 95 I'll be amazed.

Pracus[/B]]And the court has the right to interpret the Consitution. It doesn't matter what the majority think if the Constitution goes against them. Sorry.

Well what right does the constitution have to go against the majority, their

the ones who are supposed to be served by it most.

Knob jockey...

So you think this forum represents the majority of the worlds opinion on the

subject at hand?

How dumb are you then. :)

I never said that, and you know it. Misinterpretinga comment to suit your own purposes isn't clever.

Well what right does the constitution have to go against the majority, their

the ones who are supposed to be served by it most.

No everyone is supposed to be served by it. And the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is the basis of our government. That's why the Supreme Court ultimately has to refer to it.

And I'm still not getting an answer to my question. So I will repeat it here.

What if Muslims became the majority and decided that Christians could no longer get married?

And what right does the majority have to deny rights to a minority without due process? And mind you, the best polls say that the country is divided on the issue of gay marriage. . .there is is no clear majority.

I definitely think the rights of minorities should be protected, and this includes homosexual people. I mean, as has been said over and over, there was once a majority consensus (at least among white people, who were the ones in a position of power) that black people were inferior. People need to be protected against attitudes like that.

And I agree with Pracus' definition of a true democracy by the way. It doesn't exist at the moment, and it couldn't, since people are so blinded by political spin that they'd be in no position to make informed judgements.

In every up to date Psychology text book published.... my major is
Psychology.

Then we have two on this thread...but then, it's the kind of thread that such a person would find interesting.

Should they be banned from marriage because they have
anal sex?

Well, who would know they are?

Its not like their going to tell everyone is it.

And the court has the right to interpret the Consitution. It doesn't matter what the majority think if the Constitution goes against them. Sorry.

Yes they do.... however, the people have the right to vote for someone else to represent them regardless they are a part of the majority or not.

Then we have two on this thread...but then, it's the kind of thread that such a person would find interesting.

Biologist now in the medical field . . . we love it too!

Well what right does the constitution have to go against the majority, their

the ones who are supposed to be served by it most.

THis isn't true either the American constitution is supposed to protect ALL Americans, not just the majority.

Well, who would know they are?

Its not like their going to tell everyone is it.
I have gay friends, and they've never told me about their anal sex experiences. Maybe you should stop thinking about it too since it disgusts you so much. :rolleyes:

Well, who would know they are?

Its not like their going to tell everyone is it.

Who would know if a gay couple was? It's not like they're going to tell everyone is it?

And that wasn't my question. So again:

What if Muslims became the majority and decided that Christians should not get married.

Biologist now in the medical field . . . we love it too!
Medical student, also doing an Arts degree, majoring in Gender Studies. :)

Yes they do.... however, the people have the right to vote for someone else to represent them regardless they are a part of the majority or not.

Yes, they do. But they don't get to choose Supreme Court Justices. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And they stand for life. The founding fathers didn't want reelection issues influecing their decisions.

And, I am not naive enough to believe this really happens, but my ideal is that our leaders should do what is right, regardless of whether or not they will get reelected for it.

Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it. Go as far back in time as you want, but try to stray from undecided speculation.

Well what right does the constitution have to go against the majority, their

the ones who are supposed to be served by it most.

Uh, the Constitution is sets the foundation for our laws and government, that's why. It is the basis for our freedom in this country and the country's foundation, so (I never thought I'd say this, but it's so apt here) if you don't like it, leave.

Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it.

How would you know?

[QUOTE=Pracus]No everyone is supposed to be served by it. And the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is the basis of our government. That's why the Supreme Court ultimately has to refer to it.

Does the constitution say gay people should not be allowed to marry?

If not, why is your supreme court referring to it.


And I'm still not getting an answer to my question.

Im fielding alot of questions and childish insults, more than I dreamed of,

talk about poking an angry little nest of hornets lol so try and show some

patience.

So I will repeat it here.
What if Muslims became the majority and decided that Christians could no longer get married?

If thats what the majority wants, then so be it.

I think Christians would get secretly married in this case, regardless.

There are records of peoples sexual preferances if you look hard enough... by the way the title said "just wonderin".

And what right does the courts have to decide against the majoritys opinion?

Because alot of government officials now days thinks themselves above
the law.

Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it. Go as far back in time as you want, but try to stray from undecided speculation.

Hope this helps


Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
Mary Sarton
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Röhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.

Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it. Go as far back in time as you want, but try to stray from undecided speculation.

Are you, somehow, implying that this is hard to do? Here, I googled this in 5 seconds:

http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_famous_gay__lesbian_or_bisexual_people.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragoth
Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it.




:rolleyes:
Considering climates in the past very very many gay people were not exactly "out and proud."

But, since you want names...
Leonardo daVinci (yes, him)
Freddie Mercury
Elton John
Sir Ian Mckellen
in Ancient Greece homosexual relationships were considered pretty normal- so I'm sure a lot of the great ancients
and that's just off the top of my braindead head. (lack of sleep is evil)

Because alot of government officials now days thinks themselves above
the law.

You must be another of those people who uses the term "activist judges." You are aware that there is nothing being done these days by the judiciary that hasn't been done before, aren't you? They've always ruled on the constitutionality of issues, and do not rule based on majority opinion. It's that thing about judges being "impartial"...sound familiar?

[QUOTE]

Does the constitution say gay people should not be allowed to marry?

If not, why is your supreme court referring to it.



Okay, now listen because this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. The Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendment guarantees due process.

Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.

In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is it applied fairly to all? A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

Therefore, laws that violate due process (ie laws that discriminate against one group unfairly) can be overturned by any court based on the Constitution. It does not have to refer to gay people specifically to grant them equal rights. It grants rights to ALL people.


[QUOTE]
Im fielding alot of questions and childish insults, more than I dreamed of,

talk about poking an angry little nest of hornets lol so try and show some

patience.


Behave childishly, get treated childishly.


[QUOTE]
If thats what the majority wants, then so be it.

I think Christians would get secretly married in this case, regardless.

But they wouldn't have the rights? You realize that?

And I must admit term, this is the first time you have ever shown any type of consistency. I would be inclined to believe that you just said it because you realized it was the only way you could answer and not look like a hypocrite, but since there is no way to sure on the net, I'm going to work under the assumptiong that you actually meant it.

I think Christians would get secretly married in this case, regardless.

Yes but their marriages wouldn't be legally recognised. Just like gay couples can have "commitment ceremonies" now, but they aren't legally married.

Uh, the Constitution is sets the foundation for our laws and government, that's why. It is the basis for our freedom in this country and the country's foundation, so (I never thought I'd say this, but it's so apt here) if you don't like it, leave.
Most of the laws on the books were voted in by a majority of the minority.
How can you say that any vote represents the majority of a countries
population when that vote doesn't include 100% of the population?

[QUOTE=Anbar]Uh, the Constitution is sets the foundation for our laws and government, that's why. It is the basis for our freedom in this country and the country's foundation,

Really, does it say gays should have marriage rights etc?

Your using the constitution to back something perverted, Im sure if your

great noble forefathers, had even had a tiny glimpse of how much your

country would socially degenerate, they might have thrown a few more

clauses in, but how could they know, their great country would become this

perverted?


so (I never thought I'd say this, but it's so apt here) if you don't like it, leave.

Greendays 'American idiot' song springs to mind here, guess what sport, not

everyone in the world lives in your country.

Really, does it say gays should have marriage rights etc?

Your using the constitution to back something perverted, Im sure if your

great noble forefathers, had even had a tiny glimpse of how much your

country would socially degenerate, they might have thrown a few more

clauses in, but how could they know, their great country would become this

perverted?



It doesn't have to say specifically gays should have rights. It says that all people should have equal rights. Period. QED.

And again I reiterate that our forefathers were not Christians. Most were Deists. Basing what you consider "moral deneration" on any type of Christian belief is not a basis for deciding anything for the country.




Greendays 'American idiot' song springs to mind here, guess what sport, not

everyone in the world lives in your country.

But they sure like to talk about it.

Arragoth[/B]]Can anyone list 10 gay people that have contributed alot to society? Maybe 5 will cut it. Go as far back in time as you want, but try to stray from undecided speculation.

There have been alot of gay people contribute in various fields to society

through history.

How can you say that any vote represents the majority of a countries
population when that vote doesn't include 100% of the population?

Because 100% of the population (barring certain exceptions) has the opportunity to vote, and that is the best you can hope for in such a system. But, this wasn't really an issue I was raising in the post in question.

Really, does it say gays should have marriage rights etc?

Your using the constitution to back something perverted, Im sure if your

great noble forefathers, had even had a tiny glimpse of how much your

country would socially degenerate, they might have thrown a few more

clauses in, but how could they know, their great country would become this

perverted?

Times change. Notions of what is perverted change. I mean, in the past a woman showing some ankle was considered scandalous. Let's not dwell on the past.

And besides, isn't government supposed to be secular?

[QUOTE=Pracus]It doesn't have to say specifically gays should have rights. It says that all people should have equal rights. Period. QED.
And again I reiterate that our forefathers were not Christians. Most were Deists. Basing what you consider "moral deneration" on any type of Christian belief is not a basis for deciding anything for the country.

Diest or Christian, I dont think they envisioned gays marrying.




But they sure like to talk about it.

I dont mean this in a bad way, but your not as popular as you like to think,

believe it or not, there is a whole world out there also, who have interests

that dont involve the USA.

[QUOTE]

Diest or Christian, I dont think they envisioned gays marrying.



Deist. Not Dietist. We aren't talking about Weight Watchers here.

And they also didn't envision women voting, slaves being freed or expansion to the Western frontier. However, the ideal of their vision remains--a land where people are free from the tyannies of unchecked monarchies and hegemonies of religion.

[QUOTE]
I dont mean this in a bad way, but your not as popular as you like to think,

believe it or not, there is a whole world out there also, who have interests

that dont involve the USA.

Dude, I was in a way agreeing with you though it was a poor way of showing it. I realize that there are other lands out there with some wonderful people in them. One of my favorite hymns growing up was, well, I can't remember the name, but it had the line "But other hearts, in other lands are beating with dreams as true, as fair and pure as mine." I do realize that and respect that.

[QUOTE]

Really, does it say gays should have marriage rights etc?

Your using the constitution to back something perverted, Im sure if your

great noble forefathers, had even had a tiny glimpse of how much your

country would socially degenerate, they might have thrown a few more

clauses in, but how could they know, their great country would become this

perverted?




Greendays 'American idiot' song springs to mind here, guess what sport, not

everyone in the world lives in your country.


So you are saying that America is the only country that has socially
degenerated over the years. Sorry but this is a international problem.

Preebles[/B]]Times change. Notions of what is perverted change. I mean, in the past a woman showing some ankle was considered scandalous. Let's not dwell on the past.

lol thats just Medieval to Victorian fashion, before the ankle thing, women

showed their legs off a bit higher.

And perversion is always perversion, peoples acceptance/non of it, doesnt

actually change it in any way.

lol thats just Medieval to Victorian fashion, before the ankle thing, women

showed their legs off a bit higher.

And perversion is always perversion, peoples acceptance/non of it, doesnt

actually change it in any way.

Define perversion. Is it just your opinion? And what if the majority doesn't think its perversion? Shouldn't their will prevail :eyeroll:

Really, does it say gays should have marriage rights etc?

Your using the constitution to back something perverted, Im sure if your

great noble forefathers, had even had a tiny glimpse of how much your

country would socially degenerate, they might have thrown a few more

clauses in, but how could they know, their great country would become this

perverted?

What a surprise - an emotionally charged argument, weighted with your own prejudices due to lack of a real argument - pathetic. The Constitution sets down a general foundation for governing our lands, leaving the specifics to for various officials to decide, based upon the guidelines it and the Bill of Rights set down. It is an organic document, meant to apply establish a free society, for all, for all times.

Greendays 'American idiot' song springs to mind here, guess what sport, not

everyone in the world lives in your country.

Well, I figured that anyone trying to speak of the workings of our system actually knows what they're talking about to some extent. I also know that plenty of American citizens have gross misconceptions on how our government works, but a basic knowledge from growing up here. This is where I lumped you in. Surprise, surprise, you're talking out of your -ss again, a tendency which knows no borders. :rolleyes:

So you are saying that America is the only country that has socially
degenerated over the years. Sorry but this is a international problem.

In western countrys, and western influenced countrys, yes.

America is at the forefront of the West.

I see America as having huge contrasts and extreme ones.

Define perversion. Is it just your opinion? And what if the majority doesn't think its perversion? Shouldn't their will prevail :eyeroll:

Response thief!! :p

IMO, even if you think something is a perversion, if it's not harming anyone, put up with it.

In western countrys, and western influenced countrys, yes.

America is at the forefront of the West.

I see America as having huge contrasts and extreme ones.

:Post Removed by Author for Being Too Snarky and Petty:

Honestly, I don't think the US is at the forefront of social development or degeneration or whatever you'd like to call it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Netherlands or Scandinavia here.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Define perversion. Is it just your opinion?

No.

And what if the majority doesn't think its perversion? Shouldn't their will prevail :eyeroll:

Well we would have Sodom Gomorrah on an epic scale then, and yes I would

definitely leave in that case, who would want to be a part of that?

[QUOTE]

No.



Then if its not just your opinion what is a perversion, tell me how we identify one.


[QUOTE]
Well we would have Sodom Gomorrah on an epic scale then, and yes I would

definitely leave in that case, who would want to be a part of that?

We already have it. Inhospitality and uncaring are running rampant. According to Isaiah and later Jesus, that is what they were destroyed for. And you would leave even if the majority thinks something is okay? <shock!> What if they said you couldn't leave?

[QUOTE=Pracus]Deist. Not Dietist. We aren't talking about Weight Watchers here.

typo

And they also didn't envision women voting, slaves being freed or expansion to the Western frontier.
They might have, Im sure all three would have been discussed sometimes,

gays marrying, hmm maybe in jest only.

However, the ideal of their vision remains--a land where people are free from the tyannies of unchecked monarchies and hegemonies of religion.

What about the current tyranny of PC?

lol thats just Medieval to Victorian fashion, before the ankle thing, women

showed their legs off a bit higher.

And perversion is always perversion, peoples acceptance/non of it, doesnt

actually change it in any way.

It's a subjective term, you fool. That's exactly what affects it. Some countries allow child brides. Others include male to male fellatio as a ritual action, to be performed regularly. And I just need to mention bukake to make my point there. Whether something is perverse depends on the culture in which it occurs/exists. There is no objective, undeniable list of things that are "perverse."

[QUOTE]


They might have, Im sure all three would have been discussed sometimes,

gays marrying, hmm maybe in jest only.



So you were there? Or you've read their diaries or something? And if they discussed it, why didn't they do it?


[QUOTE]
What about the current tyranny of PC?
You keep referring to this. I know not what it is. How can PC be a tyranny? No one forces you to be PC just because they expect you too.

And just because someone happens to agree with something you consider to be "PC" does not mean that they believe it only because it is "PC". Believe it or not, some of us choose to fight for things because we believe that they are right. Not because some artificial construct tells us too.

What about the current tyranny of PC?
I love how someone in the act of discriminating will throw out the "oh it's just PC bullshit" defence. It's as bad as "I'm not racist but..."

It's not about PC, it's about equality and decency.

[QUOTE]

What about the current tyranny of PC?


There's a difference between believing in people's rights and being mindlessly PC.

They might have, Im sure all three would have been discussed sometimes,

gays marrying, hmm maybe in jest only.

Doubtful - people had preconceived notions they took for granted. Sound familiar?

What about the current tyranny of PC?

Do you even know what that stands for, let alone what it means? I've seen you sling it around like so much monkey dung, but I've yet to see it actually apply to anything you've responded to.

Then if its not just your opinion what is a perversion, tell me how we identify one.

An act of homosexuality, molestation, beastiality, lewd behaviour.


We already have it. Inhospitality and uncaring are running rampant. According to Isaiah and later Jesus, that is what they were destroyed for.

They were destroyed for being the most perverted people in the world, the

inhospitality and uncaring attitude was what they showed the Angels who

visited Lot.

As much as I'm enjoying this, I need to go. It's Friday night of the Halloween weekend, and I have guests visiting in...well, very soon.

An act of homosexuality, molestation, beastiality, lewd behaviour.

Way to avoid the question.

An act of homosexuality, molestation, beastiality, lewd behaviour.


That's what you identify as perversion. You have not told me how to identify a perversion. Perhaps because you cannot?



They were destroyed for being the most perverted people in the world, the

inhospitality and uncaring attitude was what they showed the Angels who

visited Lot.

IS 1:10 Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
IS 1:11 "What are the multitude of your sacrifices to me?," says Yahweh. "I have had enough of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed animals. I don't delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of male goats.
IS 1:12 When you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to trample my courts?
IS 1:13 Bring no more vain offerings. Incense is an abomination to me; new moons, Sabbaths, and convocations: I can't bear with evil assemblies.
IS 1:14 My soul hates your New Moons and your appointed feasts. They are a burden to me. I am weary of bearing them.
IS 1:15 When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you. Yes, when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.
IS 1:16 Wash yourselves, make yourself clean. Put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil.
IS 1:17 Learn to do well. Seek justice. Relieve the oppressed. Help the fatherless. Plead for the widow."


Strange it doesn't say anything about stop having sex with other men. It gives specific examples of caring for the heavily burdoned and down-trodden, but never a reference to homosexuality when talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.

[QUOTE=Anbar]Doubtful - people had preconceived notions they took for granted. Sound familiar?

Preconcieved notions... like not accepting homosexuality as a normal

behaviour?

That is a natural reaction for most people, then and now, not a preconcieved

one.

Do you even know what that stands for, let alone what it means?



Political correctness, or Perverted Culture lol


I've seen you sling it around like so much monkey dung, but I've yet to see it actually apply to anything you've responded to.

PC accepts homosexuality.

I dont.

[QUOTE]

Preconcieved notions... like not accepting homosexuality as a normal

behaviour?

That is a natural reaction for most people, then and now, not a preconcieved

one.


Natural reactions that are not based in any form of fact and are formed before actually being exposed to the person/thing that the preconception is about and without considering any alternative options are indeed preconceived notions. And what's more, if you refuse to reconsider them and to take away rights based on them, then they are a form of bigotry.



[QUOTE]
Yes.

Poilitical correctness, or Perverted Culture lol


So you know what it stands for. Do you know what it is?



[QUOTE]
PC accepts homosexuality.

I dont.

My parents HATE the concept of PC. I'm not fond of it. They support homosexuality. So do I.

And you are free to not accept anything you like. You are not free to deprive others of their rights based solely on your own prejudices.

Way to avoid the question.

I answered it pretty clearly.

My parents HATE the concept of PC. I'm not fond of it. They support homosexuality. So do I.
*raises hand* me too.
PC refers to covering up prejudices. What I, and I'm assuming Pracus, believe in is dismantling prejudice.

I answered it pretty clearly.

No, you gave examples of what YOU think are perversions. You gave us no way to identify what is and what isn't a perversion.

If perversions were concrete it wouldn't be hard to give us a way to identify them.

*raises hand* me too.
PC refers to covering up prejudices. What I, and I'm assuming Pracus, believe in is dismantling prejudice.

Exactly. And when I said "they support homosexuals" I was referring to my parents. Not to PCs.

I answered it pretty clearly.

What you said in essence was:

Homosexuality is perverse.
Why?
Because pervesion is homosexuality.

That is not logical at all.

No, you gave examples of what YOU think are perversions. You gave us no way to identify what is and what isn't a perversion.

If perversions were concrete it wouldn't be hard to give us a way to identify them.

Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Natural reactions that are not based in any form of fact and are formed before actually being exposed to the person/thing that the preconception is about and without considering any alternative options are indeed preconceived notions. And what's more, if you refuse to reconsider them and to take away rights based on them, then they are a form of bigotry.

So your saying by being exposed to homosexuality, they will put away

their 'pre conceived notions' that its wrong, and accept it.





So you know what it stands for. Do you know what it is?

Its pure evil.




My parents HATE the concept of PC. I'm not fond of it. They support homosexuality. So do I.


They probably support it because they had to, your one.

It was either accept it or reject you.

And why arent you fond of PC?

And you are free to not accept anything you like.

As long as I dont voice it out aloud right?

You are not free to deprive others of their rights based solely on your own prejudices.

Well then dont deprive me of my right of free speech then.

Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like.

And I think that settles Term's view on everything. His opinion is the only one regardless of fariness, equality or the law.

I'm afraid that I need to say goodnight now. I have to be at the clinic in eight hours and I haven't really slept for the last week due to exams.

Have a great night all you good people and I'll be back to continue the debate sometime tomorrow evening.

[QUOTE=Pracus]And I think that settles Term's view on everything. His opinion is the only one regardless of fariness, equality or the law.

lol most people dont like the idea of gays marrying or rearing kids, its not

just 'my' opinion.

What you said in essence was:
Homosexuality is perverse.
Why?
Because pervesion is homosexuality.
That is not logical at all.

Why isnt it?

Okay, one more for the road.


[QUOTE]

So your saying by being exposed to homosexuality, they will put away

their 'pre conceived notions' that its wrong, and accept it.



Nope, I'm saying that they are preconcieved--IE made before the fact. If they won't change them after the meet decent homosexuals and find that they are not out to convert the world, or at least tolerate homosexuals, then they are bigots.



[QUOTE]

Its pure evil.


Your opinion again (though one that I won't really disagree with). However, that's not a definition.



[QUOTE]
They probably support it because they had to, your one.

It was either accept it or reject you.


They supported it long before I even realized that I was gay. They didn't know until years later that I was. I will admit that I have several gay cousins and that probably helped, but they coudl easily have rejected me and didn't.

And this all beside the point. My point was that you don't have to just be into PC to support equal rights for homosexuals.

[QUOTE]
As long as I dont voice it out aloud right?


You're either stupid or forgetful. I've said plenty of times you are free to believe and say as you wish. You are not however free to force those beliefs off on me.

[QUOTE]
Well then dont deprive me of my right of free speech then.

I have not deprived you of your free speech nor have I proposed to do so. Show me where I have. Oh wait, you can't.

lol most people dont like the idea of gays marrying or rearing kids, its not

just 'my' opinion.

Care to share some stats? A sociological study oerhaps?

[QUOTE]

lol most people dont like the idea of gays marrying or rearing kids, its not

just 'my' opinion.

And fairness, equality and the law?

Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like.

So this means you do like beastiality and molesting then?

Why isnt it?

You can't use a word to define itself. Circular arguments are not logical. Logic does include "Things are what they are because they are." Logic involves actually thinking and providing defintions.

Such as a defnitiion that we can use to define what is in the realm of absolutely concrete perversion.

So this means you do like beastiality and molesting then?

How do you make that leap? We've asked you to provide your defintiion of how you decide something is a perversion. You have not done so. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that you base it solely on your opinion and on nothing concrete.